Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #684774 > unrolled thread
| Started by | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-05-10 09:56 -0700 |
| Last post | 2018-05-13 04:34 -0700 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 69 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 09:56 -0700
Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 10:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:55 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 12:25 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 16:06 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 17:26 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 18:16 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 15:28 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:02 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:03 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-11 14:49 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:58 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 21:11 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 21:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 14:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:20 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:55 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:46 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:21 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 14:31 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 01:06 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 06:39 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 15:59 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:13 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 13:10 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:32 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 16:05 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 08:27 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:08 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 13:30 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 18:36 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:14 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:36 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:42 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 19:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:53 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-10 12:54 -0700
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-11 13:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 06:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 18:27 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 11:59 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 00:02 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:13 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 12:00 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:25 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 15:00 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 06:01 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:17 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 21:07 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:13 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 13:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 14:52 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-05-12 16:03 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-12 17:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:22 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 17:57 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:42 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 04:34 -0700
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 05:46 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <floulkFsshgU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685062 |
On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another >>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just >>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. >>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since >>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>> >>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its >>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>> >>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>> atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> Get the picture? >>>> >>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>> >>> Why do you believe that? >>> >> >> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your >> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was >> proven way back in the 19th century. >> >> > > same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the others > as it is 50% > **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 19:21 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd80ec$1tr7$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685103 |
On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another >>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just >>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. >>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since >>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>> >>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its >>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>> >>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>> >>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>> >>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>> >>>> Why do you believe that? >>>> >>> >>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your >>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was >>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>> >>> >> >> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the others >> as it is 50% >> > > **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the > time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is > a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on > location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from > 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the > dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really > dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. > so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 14:31 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flpte4F4f6bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685145 |
On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another >>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just >>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. >>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since >>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its >>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>> >>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>> >>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>> >>>> >>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your >>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was >>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the others >>> as it is 50% >>> >> >> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is >> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from >> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >> > > so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would want it to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it? Just state the facts. > > And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions, causes more evaporation. > > and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 01:06 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pd8klu$nma$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685180 |
On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another >>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just >>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. >>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since >>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its >>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>> >>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your >>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was >>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the others >>>> as it is 50% >>>> >>> >>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is >>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from >>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>> >> >> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. > > **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would want it > to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from > year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it? > Just state the facts. its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. > >> >> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. > > **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions, > causes more evaporation. and more evaporation causes more rain. so, what are you propose to do about water vapor ? nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed > > >> >> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. > > **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? > > internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1% 0% is man made. The carbon has been on this planet since it was created. It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air what was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of CO2 in the air. In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just fine. No tipping point. About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural sources. So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 06:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flrm4tFgsh4U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685189 |
On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another
>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just
>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither
>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it.
>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an
>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since
>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its
>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the
>>>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Get the picture?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into
>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Why do you believe that?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your
>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory,
>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was
>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the others
>>>>> as it is 50%
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the
>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is
>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from
>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really
>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG.
>>>>
>>>
>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2.
>>
>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would want it
>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from
>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it?
>> Just state the facts.
>
> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4.
**This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so
huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be
utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild approximations.
>
>>
>>>
>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all.
>>
>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions,
>> causes more evaporation.
>
> and more evaporation causes more rain.
**It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to remain in
the atmosphere.
so, what are you propose to do
> about water vapor ?
**You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When
you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses.
nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it.
>>
>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure?
>>
>>
>
> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ?
**Cite.
>
> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1%
**Cite.
>
> 0% is man made.
**That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for
the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The carbon has been on this planet since it was
> created.
**Duh.
It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later
> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air what
> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of
> CO2 in the air.
**BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006.
In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just
> fine.
**Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher
than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human
survival. And, to re-state:
No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher
atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will experience
considerable difficulty with global warming.
No tipping point.
**Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a
'tipping point'.
>
> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural
> sources.
**Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments
for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have
increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is
VERY significant.
>
> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has
> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems...
**What the fuck are you talking about now?
More of your ignorance?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 15:59 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pda8vk$1ioo$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685295 |
On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another
>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither
>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support
>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an
>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist
>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs
>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the
>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into
>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your
>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory,
>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was
>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the
>>>>>> others
>>>>>> as it is 50%
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the
>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is
>>>>> 50% is
>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges
>>>>> from
>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really
>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2.
>>>
>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would want it
>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from
>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it?
>>> Just state the facts.
>>
>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4.
>
> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so
> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be
> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild approximations.
The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than
CO2 at glowball warming.
get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio "
guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all.
>>>
>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions,
>>> causes more evaporation.
>>
>> and more evaporation causes more rain.
>
> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to remain in
> the atmosphere.
so which is it? and why? or are you waiting for me to tell you ?
>
>
> so, what are you propose to do
>> about water vapor ?
>
> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When
> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses.
your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie
>
>
> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it.
>>>
>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ?
>
> **Cite.
you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2
>
>>
>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1%
>
> **Cite.
>
>>
>> 0% is man made.
>
> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for
> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> The carbon has been on this planet since it was
>> created.
>
> **Duh.
>
>
> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later
>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air what
>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of
>> CO2 in the air.
>
> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006.
and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air.
of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114
parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead
>
>
> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just
>> fine.
>
> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher
> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human
> survival.
URL ? how much hotter ? 1 degree C ? How much higher was the ocean
in feet ?
get to specifics.
And, to re-state:
>
> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher
> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will experience
> considerable difficulty with global warming.
>
> No tipping point.
<snip crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-14 07:13 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <flro4hFhajbU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685301 |
On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote:
> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn
>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist
>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs
>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the
>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into
>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your
>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory,
>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was
>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the
>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>> as it is 50%
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the
>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is
>>>>>> 50% is
>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges
>>>>>> from
>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really
>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2.
>>>>
>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would want it
>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from
>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it?
>>>> Just state the facts.
>>>
>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4.
>>
>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so
>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be
>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild approximations.
>
>
> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than
> CO2 at glowball warming.
**That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar.
>
> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio "
>
> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either.
**LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of
this message for your snipped section. Idiot.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all.
>>>>
>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions,
>>>> causes more evaporation.
>>>
>>> and more evaporation causes more rain.
>>
>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to remain in
>> the atmosphere.
>
> so which is it?
**Both.
and why?
**See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school
stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it.
or are you waiting for me to tell you ?
**I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog,
benj, might understand it.
>
>>
>>
>> so, what are you propose to do
>>> about water vapor ?
>>
>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When
>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses.
>
> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie
**Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous
'responce' (sic).
>
>
>>
>>
>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it.
>>>>
>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ?
>>
>> **Cite.
>
> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2
**Cite your source of the 0.1% claim.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1%
>>
>> **Cite.
**Cite.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>> 0% is man made.
>>
>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for
>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>
>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was
>>> created.
>>
>> **Duh.
>>
>>
>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later
>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air what
>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of
>>> CO2 in the air.
>>
>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006.
>
> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air.
**And your point is what?
>
> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114
>
> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead
**And again: What is your point?
>
>
>>
>>
>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just
>>> fine.
>>
>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher
>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human
>> survival.
>
> URL ?
**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
how much hotter ?
**
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
1 degree C ?
** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C.
How much higher was the ocean
> in feet ?
**No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements
anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the
measurements used in science.
>
> get to specifics.
**Done. Unlike you, I supplied the requested cites.
>
> And, to re-state:
>>
>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher
>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will experience
>> considerable difficulty with global warming.
>>
>> No tipping point.
>
> <snip crap>
**And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my
questions, since I answered all of yours):
**Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a
'tipping point'.
>
> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural
> sources.
**Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments
for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have
increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is
VERY significant.
>
> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has
> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems...
**What the fuck are you talking about now?
More of your ignorance?
So, what the fuck are you talking about?
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 13:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdhs79$aj8$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685305 |
On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the
>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into
>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't.
>>>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory,
>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse
>>>>>>>>> gas was
>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>> as it is 50%
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the
>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is
>>>>>>> 50% is
>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really
>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would
>>>>> want it
>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from
>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it?
>>>>> Just state the facts.
>>>>
>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4.
>>>
>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so
>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be
>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild
>>> approximations.
>>
>>
>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than
>> CO2 at glowball warming.
>
> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar.
no need for course words,
it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on
5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread
MID
<flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Quote;
"**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the
time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is
a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from
36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really
dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG."
remember ?
>>
>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio "
>>
>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either.
>
> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of
> this message for your snipped section. Idiot.
" Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions,
>>>>> causes more evaporation.
>>>>
>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain.
>>>
>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to remain in
>>> the atmosphere.
>>
>> so which is it?
>
> **Both.
>
> and why?
>
> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school
> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it.
>
> or are you waiting for me to tell you ?
>
> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog,
> benj, might understand it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> so, what are you propose to do
>>>> about water vapor ?
>>>
>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When
>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses.
>>
>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie
>
> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous
> 'responce' (sic).
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ?
>>>
>>> **Cite.
>>
>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2
>
> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim.
>
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1%
>>>
>>> **Cite.
>
> **Cite.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 0% is man made.
>>>
>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for
>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>>
>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was
>>>> created.
>>>
>>> **Duh.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later
>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air what
>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of
>>>> CO2 in the air.
>>>
>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006.
>>
>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air.
>
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>
>
>>
>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114
>>
>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead
>
> **And again: What is your point?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just
>>>> fine.
>>>
>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher
>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human
>>> survival.
>>
>> URL ?
>
> **
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
>
>
>
> how much hotter ?
>
> **
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>
>
>
> 1 degree C ?
>
> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C.
>
>
> How much higher was the ocean
>> in feet ?
>
> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements
> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the
> measurements used in science.
>
>>
>> get to specifics.
>
> **Done. Unlike you, I supplied the requested cites.
>
>>
>> And, to re-state:
>>>
>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher
>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will experience
>>> considerable difficulty with global warming.
>>>
>>> No tipping point.
>>
>> <snip crap>
>
>
> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my
> questions, since I answered all of yours):
>
> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a
> 'tipping point'.
na
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>
>>
>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural
>> sources.
>
> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments
> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have
> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is
> VERY significant.
cite?
>
>>
>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has
>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems...
>
> **What the fuck are you talking about now?
science dude.
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>
> More of your ignorance?
insults towards me, only get you more science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
>
> So, what the fuck are you talking about?
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 06:32 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm3iseF98hqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685789 |
On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the >>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>> want it >>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from >>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it? >>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>> >>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>> >>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so >>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be >>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>> approximations. >>> >>> >>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than >>> CO2 at glowball warming. >> >> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. > > no need for course words, **"course words"? In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. > it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on > 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread > > MID > > <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> > > Quote; > > "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the > time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is > a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on > location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from > 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the > dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really > dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." > > remember ? **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, because that is what you are. > > > >>> >>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio " >>> >>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either. >> >> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of >> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. > > " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions, >>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>> >>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>> >>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to remain in >>>> the atmosphere. >>> >>> so which is it? >> >> **Both. >> >> and why? >> >> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >> >> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >> >> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog, >> benj, might understand it. **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so study up. >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>> about water vapor ? >>>> >>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When >>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>> >>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >> >> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >> 'responce' (sic). >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? >>>> >>>> **Cite. >>> >>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >> >> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >> > > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html **Failure to answer duly noted. Let me remind you of YOUR claim: "and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it." > > >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1% >>>> >>>> **Cite. >> >> **Cite. **Cite. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 0% is man made. >>>> >>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for >>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>> >>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>> created. >>>> >>>> **Duh. >>>> >>>> >>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air what >>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of >>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>> >>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>> >>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >> > > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html ** https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm)" > >> >> >>> >>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>> >>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >> >> **And again: What is your point? **And again: What is your point? >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>> fine. >>>> >>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>> survival. >>> >>> URL ? >> >> ** >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >> >> >> >> how much hotter ? >> >> ** >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >> >> >> >> 1 degree C ? >> >> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >> >> >> How much higher was the ocean >>> in feet ? >> >> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >> measurements used in science. >> >>> >>> get to specifics. >> >> **Done. Unlike you, I supplied the requested cites. >> >>> >>> And, to re-state: >>>> >>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will experience >>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>> >>>> No tipping point. >>> >>> <snip crap> >> >> >> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >> questions, since I answered all of yours): >> >> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >> 'tipping point'. > > na > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. > >> >>> >>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>> sources. >> >> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >> VERY significant. > > cite? **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. > >> >>> >>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >> >> **What the fuck are you talking about now? > > science dude. > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html **Again: What the fuck are you talking about now? CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If you make such fundamental errors, time after time, how can we possibly believe a single word you type. You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms". So much ignorance and so little time to educate. > >> >> More of your ignorance? > > insults towards me, only get you more science > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth **I don't insult you. I merely draw your attention to you more egregious errors. > >> >> So, what the fuck are you talking about? > > > https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > **OK, I get it now: You don't understand and you don't knw, so you just blather. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 16:05 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdi6eq$tcb$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685812 |
On 5/16/2018 3:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the >>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing >>>>>>>>> ranges >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>>> want it >>>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify >>>>>>> it? >>>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>>> >>>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so >>>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be >>>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>>> approximations. >>>> >>>> >>>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than >>>> CO2 at glowball warming. >>> >>> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. >> >> no need for course words, > > **"course words"? > > In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. > > >> it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on >> 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread >> >> MID >> >> <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> >> >> Quote; >> >> "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is >> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from >> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." >> >> remember ? > > **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." > > Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, > because that is what you are. > taking YOUR data I get water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2, and I stand by that. *Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2* co2 9% * 4 = 36% (water vapor) co2 26% * 3 = 78% (water vapor) and that's a fact jack. Done, over, cooked by your own data, goosie, your are roastin! data you got from ? where ? >> >> >> >>>> >>>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio " >>>> >>>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either. >>> >>> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of >>> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. >> >> " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 >>>>>>> emissions, >>>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>>> >>>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>>> >>>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to >>>>> remain in >>>>> the atmosphere. >>>> >>>> so which is it? >>> >>> **Both. >>> >>> and why? >>> >>> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >>> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >>> >>> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >>> >>> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog, >>> benj, might understand it. > > > **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so > study up. http://hydrologica.topdeal.site/ ? > >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>>> about water vapor ? >>>>> >>>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When >>>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>>> >>>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >>> >>> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >>> 'responce' (sic). >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? >>>>> >>>>> **Cite. >>>> >>>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >>> >>> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >>> >> >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Failure to answer duly noted. who is duly ? and who are you going to give that note to ? yer mom ? >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 0% is man made. >>>>> >>>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for >>>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>>> created. >>>>> >>>>> **Duh. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air >>>>>> what >>>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of >>>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>>> >>>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>>> >>>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >>> >> >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > ** > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration > > > "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, > (equal to 410 ppm)" > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>>> >>>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >>> >>> **And again: What is my point? > > **And again: What is my point? > > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>>> fine. >>>>> >>>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>>> survival. >>>> >>>> URL ? >>> >>> ** >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> how much hotter ? >>> >>> ** >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1 degree C ? >>> >>> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >>> >>> >>> How much higher was the ocean >>>> in feet ? >>> >>> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >>> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >>> measurements used in science. conversion is simplistic, you fail to discuss the topic, just emotional fluff and red herrings. >>> >>>> >>>> get to specifics. >>> >>> **Done. Unlike me, I supplied the requested cites. >>> >>>> >>>> And, to re-state: >>>>> >>>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will >>>>> experience >>>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>>> >>>>> No tipping point. >>>> >>>> <snip crap> >>> >>> >>> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >>> questions, since I answered all of yours): >>> >>> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >>> 'tipping point'. >> >> na >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. again, WHO THE FK IS DULY ? does he work for you ? are you going to give your note to yer mom ? why? what is she going to do with it ? > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>>> sources. >>> >>> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >>> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >>> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >>> VERY significant. >> >> cite? > > **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. cite your 43% ? where did that come from ? > >> >>> >>>> >>>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >>> >>> **What the fuck am I talking about now? >> >> science dude. >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Again: What the fuck am I talking about now? > > CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your > figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If I make such > fundamental errors, time after time, how can you possibly believe a > single word you type. so, you typing corrections officer ? > > You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that > CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms". which atom in the CO2 molecule does the light hit ? <snip crap>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 08:27 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm3pjmFaopaU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685825 |
On 17/05/2018 7:05 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/16/2018 3:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the >>>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most >>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing >>>>>>>>>> ranges >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a >>>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>>>> want it >>>>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and >>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify >>>>>>>> it? >>>>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>>>> >>>>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so >>>>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be >>>>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>>>> approximations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than >>>>> CO2 at glowball warming. >>>> >>>> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. >>> >>> no need for course words, >> >> **"course words"? >> >> In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. >> >> >>> it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on >>> 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread >>> >>> MID >>> >>> <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> >>> >>> Quote; >>> >>> "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is >>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from >>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." >>> >>> remember ? >> >> **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." >> >> Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, >> because that is what you are. >> > > taking YOUR data I get water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2, and I > stand by that. > > *Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2* > > co2 9% * 4 = 36% (water vapor) > co2 26% * 3 = 78% (water vapor) > > and that's a fact jack. > Done, over, cooked by your own data, goosie, your are roastin! > data you got from ? where ? **You seem to think that gross approximations is adequate in science. It isn't. Quote me PRECISELY, or not at all. Liar. > > > > > >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio " >>>>> >>>>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either. >>>> >>>> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of >>>> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. >>> >>> " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 >>>>>>>> emissions, >>>>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>>>> >>>>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to >>>>>> remain in >>>>>> the atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> so which is it? >>>> >>>> **Both. >>>> >>>> and why? >>>> >>>> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >>>> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >>>> >>>> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >>>> >>>> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog, >>>> benj, might understand it. >> >> >> **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so >> study up. > > http://hydrologica.topdeal.site/ ? **Nope. Try this: http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/smry.rxml > >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>>>> about water vapor ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When >>>>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>>>> >>>>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >>>> >>>> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >>>> 'responce' (sic). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Cite. >>>>> >>>>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >>>> >>>> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >>>> >>> >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Failure to answer duly noted. > > who is duly ? ** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duly?s=t > and who are you going to give that note to ? **You. > yer mom ? **Fuck off. Stop being a dickhead. Deal with the facts. > > >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0% is man made. >>>>>> >>>>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for >>>>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>>>> >>>>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>>>> created. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Duh. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of >>>>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>>>> >>>>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>>>> >>>>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >>>> >>> >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> ** >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration >> >> >> "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, >> (equal to 410 ppm)" **"It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, (equal to 410 ppm)" >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>>>> >>>>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >>>> >>>> **And again: What is my point? >> >> **And again: What is my point? **And again: What is my point? >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>>>> fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>>>> survival. >>>>> >>>>> URL ? >>>> >>>> ** >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> how much hotter ? >>>> >>>> ** >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1 degree C ? >>>> >>>> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >>>> >>>> >>>> How much higher was the ocean >>>>> in feet ? >>>> >>>> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >>>> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >>>> measurements used in science. > > conversion is simplistic, **I don't care. Imperial measurements are not used in science. > you fail to discuss the topic, **And you fail to deal with the science. > just emotional fluff and red herrings. **Just science. Nothing more, nothing less. > >>>> >>>>> >>>>> get to specifics. >>>> >>>> **Done. Unlike me, I supplied the requested cites. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And, to re-state: >>>>>> >>>>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will >>>>>> experience >>>>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>>>> >>>>>> No tipping point. >>>>> >>>>> <snip crap> >>>> >>>> >>>> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >>>> questions, since I answered all of yours): >>>> >>>> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >>>> 'tipping point'. >>> >>> na >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. > > again, WHO THE FK IS DULY ? ** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duly?s=t does he work for you ? > are you going to give your note to yer mom ? > why? what is she going to do with it ? > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>>>> sources. >>>> >>>> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >>>> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >>>> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >>>> VERY significant. >>> >>> cite? >> >> **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. > > > cite your 43% ? where did that come from ? **Do the math yourself. You CLAIM to know science. I doubt it, since you ask such banal questions. Hell, you don't even know the difference between atoms and molecules and your estimate of atmospheric CO2 concentrations is out by more than an order of magnitude. Is there are wonder why I treat your alleged scientific knowledge with contempt? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>>>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >>>> >>>> **What the fuck am I talking about now? >>> >>> science dude. >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Again: What the fuck am I talking about now? >> >> CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your >> figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If I make such >> fundamental errors, time after time, how can you possibly believe a >> single word you type. > > so, you typing corrections officer ? **Nope. Since you continually type incorrect statements, I can only reasonably assume that you are similarly misinformed about the actual atmospheric CO2 concentration. > >> >> You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that >> CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms". > > which atom in the CO2 molecule does the light hit ? **OK, again: Light doesn't "hit" the atom. Learn some physics before you discuss this stuff. You're WAY out of your depth. > > <snip crap> > -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 20:08 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdikng$1i02$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685858 |
On 5/16/2018 5:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 17/05/2018 7:05 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/16/2018 3:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G=emc^2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse
>>>>>>>>>>>>> gas was
>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates
>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is 50%
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most
>>>>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing
>>>>>>>>>>> factor is
>>>>>>>>>>> 50% is
>>>>>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
>>>>>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing
>>>>>>>>>>> ranges
>>>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
>>>>>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a
>>>>>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would
>>>>>>>>> want it
>>>>>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and
>>>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify
>>>>>>>>> it?
>>>>>>>>> Just state the facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors
>>>>>>> are so
>>>>>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data
>>>>>>> would be
>>>>>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild
>>>>>>> approximations.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater
>>>>>> than
>>>>>> CO2 at glowball warming.
>>>>>
>>>>> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar.
>>>>
>>>> no need for course words,
>>>
>>> **"course words"?
>>>
>>> In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>> it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on
>>>> 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread
>>>>
>>>> MID
>>>>
>>>> <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
>>>>
>>>> Quote;
>>>>
>>>> "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the
>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is
>>>> 50% is
>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges
>>>> from
>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really
>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG."
>>>>
>>>> remember ?
>>>
>>> **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..."
>>>
>>> Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar,
>>> because that is what you are.
>>>
>>
>> taking YOUR data I get water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2, and I
>> stand by that.
>>
>> *Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2*
>>
>> co2 9% * 4 = 36% (water vapor)
>> co2 26% * 3 = 78% (water vapor)
>>
>> and that's a fact jack.
>> Done, over, cooked by your own data, goosie, your are roastin!
>> data you got from ? where ?
>
>
> **You seem to think that gross approximations is adequate in science. It
> isn't.
you are the one that posted "gross approximations", not me.
CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%
Water ranges from 36% ~ 72%
>
> Quote me PRECISELY, or not at all. Liar.
*Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2*
so where did you get this "data" ? did you make it up ?
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google "
>>>>>> ratio "
>>>>>>
>>>>>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science
>>>>>> either.
>>>>>
>>>>> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the
>>>>> end of
>>>>> this message for your snipped section. Idiot.
>>>>
>>>> " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2
>>>>>>>>> emissions,
>>>>>>>>> causes more evaporation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to
>>>>>>> remain in
>>>>>>> the atmosphere.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Both.
>>>>>
>>>>> and why?
>>>>>
>>>>> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school
>>>>> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it.
>>>>>
>>>>> or are you waiting for me to tell you ?
>>>>>
>>>>> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your
>>>>> lap-dog,
>>>>> benj, might understand it.
>>>
>>>
>>> **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so
>>> study up.
>>
>> http://hydrologica.topdeal.site/ ?
>
>
> **Nope. Try this:
>
> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/smry.rxml
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> so, what are you propose to do
>>>>>>>> about water vapor ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses.
>>>>>>> When
>>>>>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous
>>>>> 'responce' (sic).
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid
>>>>>>>> ones ?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Cite.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2
>>>>>
>>>>> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>>>
>>> **Failure to answer duly noted.
>>
>> who is duly ?
>
> ** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duly?s=t
>
>> and who are you going to give that note to ?
>
> **You.
>
>> yer mom ?
>
> **Fuck off. Stop being a dickhead. Deal with the facts.
I'll write you a ticket for swearing, and fine you $4.99 to
makemerich@paypal.com
back to the facts;
water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~
26%.
co2 9% * 4 = 36% (water vapor)
co2 26% * 3 = 78% (water vapor)
*Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2*
and take that to the bank. (it is true anyway, just google for it)
>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> 0% is man made.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was
>>>>>>>> created.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Duh.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later
>>>>>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air
>>>>>>>> what
>>>>>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about
>>>>>>>> 380ppm of
>>>>>>>> CO2 in the air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>>>
>>> **
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere,
>>> (equal to 410 ppm)"
>
> **"It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere,
> (equal to 410 ppm)"
yep, about 1/2 of my wag of 0.1%
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114
>>>>>>
>>>>>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead
>>>>>
>>>>> **And again: What is my point?
>>>
>>> **And again: What is my point?
>
> **And again: What is my point?
remind me...
>
>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just
>>>>>>>> fine.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher
>>>>>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human
>>>>>>> survival.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> URL ?
>>>>>
>>>>> **
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> how much hotter ?
>>>>>
>>>>> **
>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 1 degree C ?
>>>>>
>>>>> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How much higher was the ocean
>>>>>> in feet ?
>>>>>
>>>>> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements
>>>>> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the
>>>>> measurements used in science.
>>
>> conversion is simplistic,
>
> **I don't care. Imperial measurements are not used in science.
immaterial, learn both.
>
>> you fail to discuss the topic,
>
> **And you fail to deal with the science.
>
>> just emotional fluff and red herrings.
>
> **Just science. Nothing more, nothing less.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> get to specifics.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Done. Unlike me, I supplied the requested cites.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And, to re-state:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher
>>>>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will
>>>>>>> experience
>>>>>>> considerable difficulty with global warming.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No tipping point.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <snip crap>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my
>>>>> questions, since I answered all of yours):
>>>>>
>>>>> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a
>>>>> 'tipping point'.
>>>>
>>>> na
>>>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>>>
>>> **Failure to make a valid point duly noted.
>>
>> again, WHO THE FK IS DULY ?
>
> ** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duly?s=t
>
do Duly is a stinking Adverb ? shocking!
Adverb Duly reporting sir! (sorry)
>
> does he work for you ?
>> are you going to give your note to yer mom ?
>> why? what is she going to do with it ?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural
>>>>>> sources.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments
>>>>> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have
>>>>> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is
>>>>> VERY significant.
>>>>
>>>> cite?
>>>
>>> **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim.
>>
>>
>> cite your 43% ? where did that come from ?
>
> **Do the math yourself. You CLAIM to know science. I doubt it, since you
> ask such banal questions. Hell, you don't even know the difference
> between atoms and molecules and your estimate of atmospheric CO2
> concentrations is out by more than an order of magnitude. Is there are
> wonder why I treat your alleged scientific knowledge with contempt?
you did not justify your numbers, did you forget where you ran across them ?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it
>>>>>> has
>>>>>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems...
>>>>>
>>>>> **What the fuck am I talking about now?
>>>>
>>>> science dude.
>>>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>>>
>>> **Again: What the fuck am I talking about now?
>>>
>>> CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your
>>> figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If I make such
>>> fundamental errors, time after time, how can you possibly believe a
>>> single word you type.
>>
>> so, you typing corrections officer ?
>
> **Nope. Since you continually type incorrect statements, I can only
> *reasonably assume* that you are *similarly* misinformed *about* the actual
> atmospheric CO2 concentration.
*weasel words* you already stated it above,
>
>>
>>>
>>> You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that
>>> CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms".
>>
>> which atom in the CO2 molecule does the light hit ?
>
> **OK, again: Light doesn't "hit" the atom.
light must interact with matter, else there are no greenhouse gasses.
so how does light hit an atom, on the molecule of H2O ? what does it do?
(why is CO2 a greenhouse gas?)
https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation
http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/images/irCO2.JPEG
http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/CO2_vibration.png
http://slideplayer.com/slide/5151101/16/images/25/IR+Absorption+Spectrum+of+CO2.jpg
last one, the sun is 6000K and Earth is 255k, both emit across a broad
band. the sun and earth cause CO2 to vibrate in the bands shown, and
energy (IR) gets readmitted. (in all directions)
very interesting area, you can tie in spectral lines to the vibration modes.
>
> Learn some physics before you discuss this stuff. You're WAY out of your
> depth.
>
>
>>
>> <snip crap>
>>
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-17 13:30 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fm4bc8Fe56pU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685874 |
On 17/05/2018 11:08 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 5/16/2018 5:27 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 17/05/2018 7:05 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/16/2018 3:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates >>>>>>>>>>>>> the >>>>>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most >>>>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing >>>>>>>>>>>> factor is >>>>>>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing >>>>>>>>>>>> ranges >>>>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a >>>>>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>>>>>> want it >>>>>>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify >>>>>>>>>> it? >>>>>>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors >>>>>>>> are so >>>>>>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data >>>>>>>> would be >>>>>>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>>>>>> approximations. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater >>>>>>> than >>>>>>> CO2 at glowball warming. >>>>>> >>>>>> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. >>>>> >>>>> no need for course words, >>>> >>>> **"course words"? >>>> >>>> In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. >>>> >>>> >>>>> it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on >>>>> 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread >>>>> >>>>> MID >>>>> >>>>> <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> >>>>> >>>>> Quote; >>>>> >>>>> "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>> 50% is >>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges >>>>> from >>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." >>>>> >>>>> remember ? >>>> >>>> **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." >>>> >>>> Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, >>>> because that is what you are. >>>> >>> >>> taking YOUR data I get water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2, and I >>> stand by that. >>> >>> *Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2* >>> >>> co2 9% * 4 = 36% (water vapor) >>> co2 26% * 3 = 78% (water vapor) >>> >>> and that's a fact jack. >>> Done, over, cooked by your own data, goosie, your are roastin! >>> data you got from ? where ? >> >> >> **You seem to think that gross approximations is adequate in science. It >> isn't. > > you are the one that posted "gross approximations", not me. **Nope. I provided accurate data. YOU posted gross approximations. > > CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26% > Water ranges from 36% ~ 72% **Correct. The Solar forcing varies, according to time of day and year. It is UTTERLY crucial to understand and appreciate that fact. Providing gross approximations is negligent science. Something you would understand, if you had any scientific training. > >> >> Quote me PRECISELY, or not at all. Liar. > > *Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2* **No, it does not. > > so where did you get this "data" ? Atmospheric Science: An Introductory Survey - John M Wallace and Peter V Hobbs. ISBN 978-0-12-732951-2 Read it. You might learn something. Correction: You WILL learn something. did you make it up ? **Nope. > >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " >>>>>>> ratio " >>>>>>> >>>>>>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science >>>>>>> either. >>>>>> >>>>>> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the >>>>>> end of >>>>>> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. >>>>> >>>>> " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 >>>>>>>>>> emissions, >>>>>>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to >>>>>>>> remain in >>>>>>>> the atmosphere. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so which is it? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Both. >>>>>> >>>>>> and why? >>>>>> >>>>>> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >>>>>> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >>>>>> >>>>>> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your >>>>>> lap-dog, >>>>>> benj, might understand it. >>>> >>>> >>>> **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so >>>> study up. >>> >>> http://hydrologica.topdeal.site/ ? >> >> >> **Nope. Try this: >> >> http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/hyd/smry.rxml **Have you looked at my cite yet? Learned anything? >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>>>>>> about water vapor ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. >>>>>>>> When >>>>>>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >>>>>> >>>>>> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >>>>>> 'responce' (sic). >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid >>>>>>>>> ones ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Cite. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >>>>>> >>>>>> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >>>> >>>> **Failure to answer duly noted. >>> >>> who is duly ? >> >> ** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duly?s=t >> >>> and who are you going to give that note to ? >> >> **You. >> >>> yer mom ? >> >> **Fuck off. Stop being a dickhead. Deal with the facts. > > I'll write you a ticket for swearing, and fine you $4.99 to > makemerich@paypal.com **Stick it up your arse. Keep to the science. > > > back to the facts; > water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ > 26%. > > co2 9% * 4 = 36% (water vapor) > co2 26% * 3 = 78% (water vapor) > > *Your data shows water vapor is 3 to 4 times more than CO2* **No, it does not. My cite shows: H2O Solar forcing = 36% ~ 72% CO2 Solar forcing = 9% ~ 26% Let's just use the correct data, rather than trying to muddle things with gross approximations. > > and take that to the bank. (it is true anyway, just google for it) > > >> >>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> 0% is man made. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible >>>>>>>> for >>>>>>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>>>>>> created. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Duh. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>>>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air >>>>>>>>> what >>>>>>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about >>>>>>>>> 380ppm of >>>>>>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >>>> >>>> ** >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, >>>> (equal to 410 ppm)" >> >> **"It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, >> (equal to 410 ppm)" > > yep, about 1/2 of my wag of 0.1% > >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >>>>>> >>>>>> **And again: What is my point? >>>> >>>> **And again: What is my point? >> >> **And again: What is my point? > > remind me... > > >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>>>>>> fine. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>>>>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>>>>>> survival. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> URL ? >>>>>> >>>>>> ** >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> how much hotter ? >>>>>> >>>>>> ** >>>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 1 degree C ? >>>>>> >>>>>> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How much higher was the ocean >>>>>>> in feet ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >>>>>> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >>>>>> measurements used in science. >>> >>> conversion is simplistic, >> >> **I don't care. Imperial measurements are not used in science. > > > immaterial, learn both. **No interest in learning Latin, Imperial measurements or other dead information. > > >> >>> you fail to discuss the topic, >> >> **And you fail to deal with the science. >> >>> just emotional fluff and red herrings. >> >> **Just science. Nothing more, nothing less. >> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> get to specifics. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Done. Unlike me, I supplied the requested cites. >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And, to re-state: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>>>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will >>>>>>>> experience >>>>>>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> No tipping point. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> <snip crap> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >>>>>> questions, since I answered all of yours): >>>>>> >>>>>> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >>>>>> 'tipping point'. >>>>> >>>>> na >>>>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >>>> >>>> **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. >>> >>> again, WHO THE FK IS DULY ? >> >> ** http://www.dictionary.com/browse/duly?s=t >> > > do Duly is a stinking Adverb ? shocking! > > Adverb Duly reporting sir! (sorry) > >> >> does he work for you ? >>> are you going to give your note to yer mom ? >>> why? what is she going to do with it ? >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>>>>>> sources. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >>>>>> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >>>>>> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >>>>>> VERY significant. >>>>> >>>>> cite? >>>> >>>> **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. >>> >>> >>> cite your 43% ? where did that come from ? >> >> **Do the math yourself. You CLAIM to know science. I doubt it, since you >> ask such banal questions. Hell, you don't even know the difference >> between atoms and molecules and your estimate of atmospheric CO2 >> concentrations is out by more than an order of magnitude. Is there are >> wonder why I treat your alleged scientific knowledge with contempt? > > you did not justify your numbers, did you forget where you ran across them ? **Nope. Do the math yourself: Atmospheric concentrations of CO2 in the 10,000 years prior to the 19th century were around 280 ~ 290ppm. There is presently around 410ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Therefore, since no new natural sources of CO2 have been found, humans have added approximately 43% of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere. If you had any real clue about science, you would not need to ask such banal questions. The information is available from a very large number of sources. I found 513,000 results on a simply Google search. > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it >>>>>>> has >>>>>>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >>>>>> >>>>>> **What the fuck am I talking about now? >>>>> >>>>> science dude. >>>>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >>>> >>>> **Again: What the fuck am I talking about now? >>>> >>>> CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your >>>> figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If I make such >>>> fundamental errors, time after time, how can you possibly believe a >>>> single word you type. >>> >>> so, you typing corrections officer ? >> >> **Nope. Since you continually type incorrect statements, I can only >> *reasonably assume* that you are *similarly* misinformed *about* the actual >> atmospheric CO2 concentration. > > *weasel words* you already stated it above, **And again: I allow for a certain number of typos (we all make such errors), but your 'mistakes' have reached a point where I can no longer regard them as simple typos. It appears that you are very seriously confused individual. Your ability to think critically is compromised. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that >>>> CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms". >>> >>> which atom in the CO2 molecule does the light hit ? >> >> **OK, again: Light doesn't "hit" the atom. > > light must interact with matter, else there are no greenhouse gasses. **Light does not "hit the atom". > > so how does light hit an atom, on the molecule of H2O ? what does it do? **Light does not "hit an atom". > > (why is CO2 a greenhouse gas?) **CO2 is a GHG, because the entire molecule has dimensions that lie in the region of several infra-red frequencies. The molecule acquires kinetic energy from the IR that reaches it. The kinetic energy from CO2 molecules causes it to vibrate at higher energy levels. That kinetic energy is transferred to nearby atmospheric molecules (O2, N2, et al), thus raising the energy of the entire system. And, here is the crucial point: CO2 (and other GHGs) also acquire energy emitted from the Earth's surface, at night. This causes night-time temperatures to rise as well. An example of a runaway Greenhouse effect is the planet Venus, whose surface temperature is higher than the day time temperature of Mercury. This, despite the fact that Mercury receives around FOUR times as much Solar radiation than Venus. > > https://scied.ucar.edu/carbon-dioxide-absorbs-and-re-emits-infrared-radiation > > http://chemistry.elmhurst.edu/vchembook/images/irCO2.JPEG > > http://scottishsceptic.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/CO2_vibration.png > > http://slideplayer.com/slide/5151101/16/images/25/IR+Absorption+Spectrum+of+CO2.jpg > > last one, the sun is 6000K and Earth is 255k, both emit across a broad > band. the sun and earth cause CO2 to vibrate in the bands shown, and > energy (IR) gets readmitted. (in all directions) > > very interesting area, you can tie in spectral lines to the vibration modes. > **Here's where it gets odd. You have acknowledged that CO2 is a GHG and leads to a warming planet. You even know the physics of how it occurs and the magnitude of its effect. What are we arguing about? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 18:36 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <un2LC.141963$1e7.97459@fx38.iad> |
| In reply to | #685812 |
On 5/16/2018 4:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the >>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing >>>>>>>>> ranges >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>>> want it >>>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify >>>>>>> it? >>>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>>> >>>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so >>>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be >>>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>>> approximations. >>>> >>>> >>>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than >>>> CO2 at glowball warming. >>> >>> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. >> >> no need for course words, > > **"course words"? > > In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. > > >> it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on >> 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread >> >> MID >> >> <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> >> >> Quote; >> >> "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is >> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from >> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." >> >> remember ? > > **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." > > Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, > because that is what you are. > >> >> >> >>>> >>>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio " >>>> >>>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either. >>> >>> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of >>> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. >> >> " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 >>>>>>> emissions, >>>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>>> >>>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>>> >>>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to >>>>> remain in >>>>> the atmosphere. >>>> >>>> so which is it? >>> >>> **Both. >>> >>> and why? >>> >>> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >>> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >>> >>> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >>> >>> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog, >>> benj, might understand it. > > > **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so > study up. > >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>>> about water vapor ? >>>>> >>>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When >>>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>>> >>>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >>> >>> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >>> 'responce' (sic). >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? >>>>> >>>>> **Cite. >>>> >>>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >>> >>> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >>> >> >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Failure to answer duly noted. > > Let me remind you of YOUR claim: > > "and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it." > >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1% >>>>> >>>>> **Cite. >>> >>> **Cite. > > > **Cite. > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 0% is man made. >>>>> >>>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for >>>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>>> created. >>>>> >>>>> **Duh. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air >>>>>> what >>>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of >>>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>>> >>>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>>> >>>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >>> >> >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > ** > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration > > > "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, > (equal to 410 ppm)" > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>>> >>>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >>> >>> **And again: What is your point? > > **And again: What is your point? > > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>>> fine. >>>>> >>>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>>> survival. >>>> >>>> URL ? >>> >>> ** >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> how much hotter ? >>> >>> ** >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1 degree C ? >>> >>> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >>> >>> >>> How much higher was the ocean >>>> in feet ? >>> >>> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >>> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >>> measurements used in science. >>> >>>> >>>> get to specifics. >>> >>> **Done. Unlike you, I supplied the requested cites. >>> >>>> >>>> And, to re-state: >>>>> >>>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will >>>>> experience >>>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>>> >>>>> No tipping point. >>>> >>>> <snip crap> >>> >>> >>> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >>> questions, since I answered all of yours): >>> >>> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >>> 'tipping point'. >> >> na >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>>> sources. >>> >>> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >>> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >>> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >>> VERY significant. >> >> cite? > > **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >>> >>> **What the fuck are you talking about now? >> >> science dude. >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Again: What the fuck are you talking about now? > > CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your > figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If you make such > fundamental errors, time after time, how can we possibly believe a > single word you type. > > You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that > CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms". > > So much ignorance and so little time to educate. > >> >>> >>> More of your ignorance? >> >> insults towards me, only get you more science >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth > > **I don't insult you. I merely draw your attention to you more egregious > errors. Yeah, Sergio misspells quite a bit! Hey Trevor, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg See that Pie chart for CO2? Just as you've been telling the deniers all along, CO2 is almost 94% of the minor gasses!!!! Obviously YOU are right and yapping Sergio and Benj are dead wrong as usual. CO2 is a MAJOR minor gas. There can be little doubt now that you know your stuff! >>> So, what the fuck are you talking about? >> >> >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> > > **OK, I get it now: You don't understand and you don't knw, so you just > blather. I think we just proved that above where we found CO2 to be a MAJOR minor gas! Trevor you da man! Chortle (Rule #5)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-16 20:14 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pdil15$1i85$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #685859 |
On 5/16/2018 5:36 PM, benj wrote: > On 5/16/2018 4:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the >>>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most >>>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing >>>>>>>>>> ranges >>>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a >>>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>>>> want it >>>>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day >>>>>>>> and from >>>>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to >>>>>>>> simplify it? >>>>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>>>> >>>>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so >>>>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be >>>>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>>>> approximations. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than >>>>> CO2 at glowball warming. >>>> >>>> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. >>> >>> no need for course words, >> >> **"course words"? >> >> In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. >> >> >>> it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on >>> 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread >>> >>> MID >>> >>> <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> >>> >>> Quote; >>> >>> "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is >>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from >>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." >>> >>> remember ? >> >> **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." >> >> Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, >> because that is what you are. >> >>> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " >>>>> ratio " >>>>> >>>>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science >>>>> either. >>>> >>>> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the >>>> end of >>>> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. >>> >>> " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 >>>>>>>> emissions, >>>>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>>>> >>>>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to >>>>>> remain in >>>>>> the atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> so which is it? >>>> >>>> **Both. >>>> >>>> and why? >>>> >>>> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >>>> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >>>> >>>> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >>>> >>>> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your >>>> lap-dog, >>>> benj, might understand it. >> >> >> **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, >> so study up. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>>>> about water vapor ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When >>>>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>>>> >>>>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >>>> >>>> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >>>> 'responce' (sic). >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Cite. >>>>> >>>>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >>>> >>>> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >>>> >>> >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Failure to answer duly noted. >> >> Let me remind you of YOUR claim: >> >> "and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it." >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1% >>>>>> >>>>>> **Cite. >>>> >>>> **Cite. >> >> >> **Cite. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 0% is man made. >>>>>> >>>>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for >>>>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>>>> >>>>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>>>> created. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Duh. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air >>>>>>> what >>>>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about >>>>>>> 380ppm of >>>>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>>>> >>>>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>>>> >>>>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >>>> >>> >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> ** >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration >> >> >> "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, >> (equal to 410 ppm)" >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>>>> >>>>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >>>> >>>> **And again: What is your point? >> >> **And again: What is your point? >> >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>>>> fine. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>>>> survival. >>>>> >>>>> URL ? >>>> >>>> ** >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> how much hotter ? >>>> >>>> ** >>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1 degree C ? >>>> >>>> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >>>> >>>> >>>> How much higher was the ocean >>>>> in feet ? >>>> >>>> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >>>> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >>>> measurements used in science. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> get to specifics. >>>> >>>> **Done. Unlike you, I supplied the requested cites. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> And, to re-state: >>>>>> >>>>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will >>>>>> experience >>>>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>>>> >>>>>> No tipping point. >>>>> >>>>> <snip crap> >>>> >>>> >>>> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >>>> questions, since I answered all of yours): >>>> >>>> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >>>> 'tipping point'. >>> >>> na >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>>>> sources. >>>> >>>> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >>>> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >>>> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >>>> VERY significant. >>> >>> cite? >> >> **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>>>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >>>> >>>> **What the fuck are you talking about now? >>> >>> science dude. >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> >> **Again: What the fuck are you talking about now? >> >> CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your >> figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If you make such >> fundamental errors, time after time, how can we possibly believe a >> single word you type. >> >> You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know >> that CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 >> atoms". >> >> So much ignorance and so little time to educate. >> >>> >>>> >>>> More of your ignorance? >>> >>> insults towards me, only get you more science >>> >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth >> >> **I don't insult you. I merely draw your attention to you more >> egregious errors. > > Yeah, Sergio misspells quite a bit! > > Hey Trevor, look at this: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg > > > See that Pie chart for CO2? Just as you've been telling the deniers all > along, CO2 is almost 94% of the minor gasses!!!! > > Obviously YOU are right and yapping Sergio and Benj are dead wrong as > usual. CO2 is a MAJOR minor gas. There can be little doubt now that you > know your stuff! > > >>>> So, what the fuck are you talking about? >>> >>> >>> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >>> >> >> **OK, I get it now: You don't understand and you don't knw, so you >> just blather. > > I think we just proved that above where we found CO2 to be a MAJOR minor > gas! Trevor you da man! > > > Chortle (Rule #5) well, I think they left out water vapor in that one. Must be dried air, the kind McGinn likes. but it is major minor gas for sure 0.000407 is not nothing.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 08:36 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <250165f0-4e24-4be4-b8e4-505bd065ddc8@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685041 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:53:12 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: > > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > >> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > >>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > >>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > >>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. > >>>>> > >>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. > >>>>> > >>>>> Go away, once and for all... > >>>> > >>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert > >>> > >>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the atmosphere. > >>> > >>> Get the picture? > >> > >> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into space.That is reality of global warming.Bert > > > > Why do you believe that? > > > > **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your > beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, > experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was > proven way back in the 19th century. > > > -- > Trevor Wilson > www.rageaudio.com.au Show us the proof. Go ahead. What are you waiting for? You got nothing!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-13 05:42 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <floudoFsqtjU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #685064 |
On 13/05/2018 1:36 AM, James McGinn wrote: > On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 9:53:12 PM UTC-7, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: >>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: >>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: >>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>> >>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>> >>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> Get the picture? >>>> >>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>> >>> Why do you believe that? >>> >> >> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. Your >> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse gas was >> proven way back in the 19th century. >> >> >> -- >> Trevor Wilson >> www.rageaudio.com.au > > Show us the proof. **Certainly: http://www.rsc.org/Education/Teachers/Resources/jesei/co2green/home.htm http://peabody.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/education/Global%20Warming%20In%20A%20Jar.pdf Go ahead. What are you waiting for? **Done. > > You got nothing!!! **Incorrect, as usual. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-11 19:19 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <f4482599-8b62-4000-82f2-694521052dab@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #684797 |
On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. > > > > > > Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. > > > > > > Go away, once and for all... > > > > P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert > > CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the atmosphere. > > Get the picture? The mind reels in thinking what "evidence" you would accept if it did. You can't even understand PV=nRT well enough to work a real life problem. How would you be expected to figure out why Venus is even hotter than Mercury?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-12 08:53 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <9118148e-a588-4f3e-908a-3ab2e4530674@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #685028 |
On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 7:19:27 PM UTC-7, Steve BH wrote: > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn wrote: > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote: > > > On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, pnal...@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. > > > > > > > > Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support it. You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist since you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. > > > > > > > > Go away, once and for all... > > > > > > P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs its dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert > > > > CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the atmosphere. > > > > Get the picture? > > The mind reels in thinking what "evidence" you would accept if it did. LOL. Yes, because you got nothing!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-05-10 12:54 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <pd2862$mqf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #684789 |
"Get the picture" that Bert really does not know a lot since Bert is always full of snot ------- See: Glazier's Dossier -------
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web