Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #678885 > unrolled thread
| Started by | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2018-03-29 06:12 -0400 |
| Last post | 2018-04-05 14:42 +0000 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 226 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics
Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-03-29 06:12 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 08:55 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-03-29 10:03 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 11:11 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 13:51 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 13:56 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-03-30 05:40 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-30 09:04 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-03-30 08:25 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-30 11:53 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 07:30 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 19:46 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 10:08 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-03-31 19:26 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 20:56 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 11:27 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 22:00 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 14:57 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 00:41 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 17:31 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 11:46 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-02 10:37 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 22:11 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 00:03 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-02 05:27 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 09:25 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 07:12 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 20:10 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 13:18 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 23:12 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 14:39 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:40 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:15 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:04 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:02 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 00:01 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 09:25 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-02 05:16 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 09:26 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 19:38 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-01 12:39 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-02 11:22 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 18:29 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-03 12:07 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Dinsdale <yup@ayup.yup> - 2018-04-02 22:26 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-02 05:35 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 09:29 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 19:57 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-03 15:51 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 09:30 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-03 14:20 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 12:23 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 13:47 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 13:21 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 15:39 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 14:54 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 13:59 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 15:03 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 14:09 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 18:48 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:15 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:23 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:26 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:40 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:51 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:57 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 19:39 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 18:43 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 19:48 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-03 18:50 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:53 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 08:57 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:04 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-03 07:09 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 09:31 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:13 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 01:45 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:29 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-01 05:46 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 00:49 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 01:20 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:25 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 18:38 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:45 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 01:50 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:26 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 13:37 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 02:12 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 02:31 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:24 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 06:53 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-31 17:57 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-03-31 18:20 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 09:42 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 20:52 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-31 20:18 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 15:03 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 00:46 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 19:14 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-01 15:34 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-02 18:10 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-03 16:38 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 09:35 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 06:03 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 14:26 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 07:19 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 15:24 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 08:01 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 16:06 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 09:05 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 18:58 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 10:04 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:17 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 10:37 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:50 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 22:29 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:13 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 12:39 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 22:35 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 15:44 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 14:58 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 07:21 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 19:14 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 10:41 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 22:49 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 14:03 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 09:15 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-04 10:20 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 08:32 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 10:55 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-04 19:16 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 13:17 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 14:33 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 18:17 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-04 22:23 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:24 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-05 08:35 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:41 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 20:06 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-05 10:19 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 22:35 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-05 13:44 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 23:04 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-05 07:00 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 08:26 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-05 09:47 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 08:57 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-06 06:17 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 15:26 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-06 06:43 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 15:54 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 14:00 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-06 07:04 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-05 20:33 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 17:39 -0700
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-05 20:46 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-05 20:31 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-05 20:27 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 19:38 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 22:37 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-04 17:40 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:59 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 20:18 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Just Wondering <JustWondering@hotmail.com> - 2018-04-03 17:16 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-04 10:02 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-03 18:14 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-03 19:17 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 20:40 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-04-01 11:28 +1000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-31 22:05 -0400
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-01 08:57 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-01 04:42 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-01 06:29 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-02 17:34 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-02 13:26 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-02 20:05 +0000
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-02 15:41 -0500
NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-04 19:17 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 13:20 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-04 22:26 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:36 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-04 22:46 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 17:02 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 11:21 -0700
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Tom Niven <tniven7694@herringmail.invalid> - 2018-04-05 14:51 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps onion@anon.invalid (Mr On!on) - 2018-04-05 17:38 +0100
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 11:04 -0700
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-06 17:36 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 11:42 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe) - 2018-04-06 20:11 +0100
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-06 12:48 -0500
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 11:52 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2018-04-06 10:49 -0700
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-06 19:25 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 13:57 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-06 20:19 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 14:31 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-06 21:41 -0700
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-07 00:50 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-04-06 20:01 -0500
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-06 20:39 -0600
Re: ❄ Snowflake ❄ NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps ❄ Snowflake ❄ Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-04-06 21:56 -0500
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-04-05 11:20 -0700
Re: MORE NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> - 2018-04-07 11:13 -0400
Re: MORE NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-07 23:41 +0000
Re: MORE NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-07 17:57 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-04-04 18:25 -0400
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 16:33 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Libtard <libtard@sandernistas.edu> - 2018-04-04 22:47 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 17:03 -0600
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Nadegda <nad318b404@gmail.invalid> - 2018-04-04 23:52 +0000
Re: NOMINATIONS Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2018-04-04 17:55 -0600
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Your Friendly Neighbourhood Puppy Whistle Holder Emeritus 🐶笛 <root@127.0.0.1> - 2018-03-31 23:14 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-31 20:23 -0500
Re: Climate change is shrinking mountain hares' habitat in the Alps % <persent@gmail.com> - 2018-03-31 18:28 -0700
China is winning the game (imperialism). Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-29 08:46 -0700
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 11:14 -0500
If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ? Jeff-Relf.Me @. - 2018-03-29 09:26 -0700
Re: If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ? Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 15:05 -0500
Re: If your ambition is that low, you deserve it, right ? benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 18:00 -0400
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 13:53 -0400
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). mixed nuts <melopsitticus@undulatus.budgie> - 2018-03-29 14:32 -0400
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). Checkmate <ricksabian1@gmail.com> - 2018-03-29 13:34 -0700
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-03-29 17:54 -0400
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-03-29 18:33 -0500
Re: China is winning the game (imperialism). Tom Niven <tniven7694@herringmail.invalid> - 2018-04-05 14:42 +0000
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 11:46 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p9r2de$1ma$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679374 |
On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: >>> > >>>> >>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>> >>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very >>> broad. >>> >> >> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. > > **Really? You sure about that? > I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs. >> >> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, > > **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? > sure, havent got time to look them up right now. >> >>> >>> >>>> >> >> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated > > **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. > I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. > Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the > area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, > you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. > > Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be > forced to do so. wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him. > >> >>> >>> >>>> > >>> >>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>> >>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many >>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note >>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>> understand): >> >> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. > > **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and they vanish as the water evaporates. > > >>> >>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> And you have >>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>> >>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >> >> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures, >> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? > > **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement > criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not > been available for most of the period under discussion. so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of the earth. > > >> >>> >>> >>> How >>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>> >>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant >>> that you. >>> >> >> tut tut. > > **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant. > He scurries away, when asked questions. your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die with a 0.1 F change in temperature. > >> >>> >>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>> >>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When >>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2 >>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to >>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus >>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts >>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus >>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >> >> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be >> meaningful. > > **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three > frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and > a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another > scientific reference, rather than Fox News. true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think you will find this is less than 3%. so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer wavelengths ? > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax >>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>> >>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >> >> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and >> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start. > > **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. it dosent matter what you think, that is the goal of climate change movement, once you pars out the green stuff. >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 10:37 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fidca4Fpt7rU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #679430 |
On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: > >>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>> >>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very >>>> broad. >>>> >>> >>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. >> >> **Really? You sure about that? >> > > I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs. **OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you. > > >>> >>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, >> >> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? >> > > sure, havent got time to look them up right now. **Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got nothing. > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>> >>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated >> >> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. >> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the >> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, >> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >> >> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be >> forced to do so. > > > wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him. **It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron: Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly disinterested. And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who work in climate research. Clear? Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to be. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>> >>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many >>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note >>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>>> understand): >>> >>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. >> >> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? > > they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and > they vanish as the water evaporates. **OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can understand): Are jet trails near the ground? A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine. > >> >> >>>> >>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And you have >>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>> >>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>> >>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures, >>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? >> >> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement >> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not >> been available for most of the period under discussion. > > so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of > the earth. **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to think I said such a thing? Take your time. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How >>>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>>> >>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant >>>> that you. >>>> >>> >>> tut tut. >> >> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant. >> He scurries away, when asked questions. > > your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die > with a 0.1 F change in temperature. **Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim. Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge. > > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>> >>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When >>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2 >>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to >>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus >>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts >>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus >>>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >>> >>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be >>> meaningful. >> >> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three >> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and >> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another >> scientific reference, rather than Fox News. > > true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use > W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think > you will find this is less than 3%. **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7% ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors. > > so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer > wavelengths ? **You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is important. You're wrong (again). I will explain: Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well. > > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax >>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>> >>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>> >>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and >>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start. >> >> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. > > it dosent matter what you think, **I said: "I am not trying to set up any kind of tax." I did not provide an opinion either way. that is the goal of climate change > movement, once you pars out the green stuff. **Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple. Others will likely make decisions based on that information. Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-01 22:11 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p9s71a$1o7a$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679500 |
On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
>>>>>
>>>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is
>>>>> very
>>>>> broad.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
>>>
>>> **Really? You sure about that?
>>>
>>
>> I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs.
>
> **OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you.
no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual
meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary.
Obviously, English is not your first language.
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
>>>
>>> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
>>>
>>
>> sure, havent got time to look them up right now.
>
> **Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got
> nothing.
I don't owe you anything.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
>>>
>>> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
>>> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
>>> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
>>> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
>>> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
>>>
>>> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
>>> forced to do so.
>>
>>
>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
>
> **It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay
> close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron:
>
> Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I
> am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please
> pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of
> (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote
> (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
>
> Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly
> disinterested.
no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency"
global worming articles that you have not read.
You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change.
> And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who
> work in climate research.
>
> Clear?
Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, from
your leftist mags.
I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or it is
munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is
where they fall short every time.
>
> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to
> be.
whoa! your asshole is puckering!
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
>>>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many,
>>>>> many
>>>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
>>>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
>>>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
>>>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
>>>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
>>>>> understand):
>>>>
>>>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
>>>
>>> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
>>
>> they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and
>> they vanish as the water evaporates.
>
> **OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can
> understand):
>
> Are jet trails near the ground?
do you think they are ? are water tower plumes near the ground ?
>
> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine.
yes, your asshole is puckered!
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> And you have
>>>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable.
>>>>
>>>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
>>>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
>>>
>>> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
>>> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
>>> been available for most of the period under discussion.
>>
>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
>> the earth.
>
> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to
> think I said such a thing? Take your time.
you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time
refocusing your brain as it is too loose.
"...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under
discussion."
you have short term memory loss.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How
>>>>>> ignorant are you anyway.
>>>>>
>>>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
>>>>> that you.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> tut tut.
>>>
>>> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
>>> He scurries away, when asked questions.
>>
>> your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die
>> with a 0.1 F change in temperature.
>
> **Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim.
**Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a
0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science.
>
> Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with
> cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't
> get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm
> losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge.
isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? Global worming will
cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths.
Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit!
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you show how much science you know
>>>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
>>>>>
>>>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies.
>>>>> When
>>>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
>>>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
>>>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their
>>>>> energy to
>>>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
>>>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2
>>>>> acts
>>>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
>>>>> nighttime temperatures are raised.
>>>>
>>>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
>>>> meaningful.
>>>
>>> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
>>> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
>>> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
>>> scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
>>
>> true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use
>> W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think
>> you will find this is less than 3%.
>
> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7%
> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors.
I want you to show the math, this is a physics group.
So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density.
>
>>
>> so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer
>> wavelengths ?
>
> **You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is
> important. You're wrong (again). I will explain:
I see you don't do this often at all.
>
> Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the
> Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin
> cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well.
try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2
absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming
Greenhouse Gas;
http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
>>>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
>>>>>
>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
>>>>
>>>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
>>>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
>>>
>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
>>
>> it dosent matter what you think,
>
> **I said:
>
> "I am not trying to set up any kind of tax."
>
> I did not provide an opinion either way.
>
>
> that is the goal of climate change
>> movement, once you pars out the green stuff.
>
> **Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information
> pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple.
> Others will likely make decisions based on that information.
no, that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking
what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago.
http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg
>
> Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions.
>
>
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 00:03 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <KYhwC.97600$q15.63610@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #679520 |
On 4/1/2018 11:11 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: >>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>>>> >>>>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is >>>>>> very >>>>>> broad. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. >>>> >>>> **Really? You sure about that? >>>> >>> >>> I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs. >> >> **OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you. > > no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual > meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary. > > Obviously, English is not your first language. > >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, >>>> >>>> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? >>>> >>> >>> sure, havent got time to look them up right now. >> >> **Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got >> nothing. > > I don't owe you anything. > >> >>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated >>>> >>>> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. >>>> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >>>> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the >>>> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, >>>> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>>> >>>> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be >>>> forced to do so. >>> >>> >>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him. >> >> **It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay >> close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron: >> >> Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I >> am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please >> pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of >> (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote >> (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. > > wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him. > >> >> Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly >> disinterested. > > no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" > global worming articles that you have not read. > > You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. > >> And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who >> work in climate research. >> >> Clear? > > Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, from > your leftist mags. > > I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or it is > munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is > where they fall short every time. > >> >> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to >> be. > > whoa! your asshole is puckering! > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, >>>>>> many >>>>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>>>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note >>>>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>>>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>>>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>>>>> understand): >>>>> >>>>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. >>>> >>>> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? >>> >>> they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and >>> they vanish as the water evaporates. >> >> **OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can >> understand): >> >> Are jet trails near the ground? > > do you think they are ? are water tower plumes near the ground ? > >> >> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine. > > yes, your asshole is puckered! > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> And you have >>>>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>>>> >>>>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures, >>>>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? >>>> >>>> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement >>>> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not >>>> been available for most of the period under discussion. >>> >>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of >>> the earth. >> >> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to >> think I said such a thing? Take your time. > > you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time > refocusing your brain as it is too loose. > > "...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under > discussion." > > you have short term memory loss. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> How >>>>>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>>>>> >>>>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant >>>>>> that you. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> tut tut. >>>> >>>> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant. >>>> He scurries away, when asked questions. >>> >>> your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die >>> with a 0.1 F change in temperature. >> >> **Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim. > > **Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a > 0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science. > >> >> Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with >> cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't >> get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm >> losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge. > > isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? Global worming will > cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths. > > Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit! > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>>>> >>>>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >>>>>> When >>>>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>>>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2 >>>>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their >>>>>> energy to >>>>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus >>>>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 >>>>>> acts >>>>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus >>>>>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >>>>> >>>>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be >>>>> meaningful. >>>> >>>> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three >>>> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and >>>> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another >>>> scientific reference, rather than Fox News. >>> >>> true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use >>> W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think >>> you will find this is less than 3%. >> >> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7% >> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors. > > I want you to show the math, this is a physics group. > So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density. > >> >>> >>> so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer >>> wavelengths ? >> >> **You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is >> important. You're wrong (again). I will explain: > > I see you don't do this often at all. > >> >> Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the >> Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin >> cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well. > > try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2 > absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming > Greenhouse Gas; > > > http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg > >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax >>>>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>>>> >>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>>> >>>>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and >>>>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start. >>>> >>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>> >>> it dosent matter what you think, >> >> **I said: >> >> "I am not trying to set up any kind of tax." >> >> I did not provide an opinion either way. >> >> >> that is the goal of climate change >>> movement, once you pars out the green stuff. >> >> **Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information >> pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple. >> Others will likely make decisions based on that information. > > no, that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking > what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. > > > http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg > > > >> >> Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. >> >> > AS usual Trevor puts his fingers in his ears and sings: LA LA LA LA LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! YOU POSTED NOTHING! (he calls this "discussing" science. )
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 05:27 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p9st27$ohu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679520 |
On 4/1/2018 11:11 PM, Sergio wrote: > no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" > global worming articles that you have not read. ... says the parrot of rightist "oily" climate change denial talking-points that you have no actual scientific understanding of. > You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. ... says the one whose side is the more politically active and better funded by vested interests. >>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of >>> the earth. >> >> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to >> think I said such a thing? Take your time. > > "...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under > discussion." And now kOoky Sergio confuses time with space! > isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? Global worming will > cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths. That's not what the researchers found. > Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit! Except he didn't, and neither did you. >> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7% >> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors. > > I want you to show the math, this is a physics group. > So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density. Meanwhile *you* cannot even *spell* it correctly. You're hardly one to talk! > try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2 > absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming > Greenhouse Gas; > > > http://ice-age-ahead-BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGHAHAHAHAHAobviousdeniershite BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGHAHAHAHAHA! Obvious denier shite. Try again? > no, that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking > what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. > > http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg I assume this is about as authentic as the Planned Parenthood so-called "baby parts" video? -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p9tefs$1m94$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679547 |
On 4/2/2018 4:27 AM, kensi wrote: > On 4/1/2018 11:11 PM, Sergio wrote: > >> no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" >> global worming articles that you have not read. > > ... says the parrot of rightist "oily" climate change denial > talking-points that you have no actual scientific understanding of. > >> You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. > > ... says the one whose side is the more politically active and better > funded by vested interests. wrong, he is not a dempcrapp > >>>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of >>>> the earth. >>> >>> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to >>> think I said such a thing? Take your time. >> >> "...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under >> discussion." > > And now kOoky Sergio confuses time with space! you are confused, the report says that, and that says it is based upon assumptions. > >> isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? Global worming will >> cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths. > > That's not what the researchers found. that is what the People Of Austrailia found out, when temps go up, you get more bunnies by the billions. > >> Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit! > > Except he didn't, and neither did you. yes he did, google Austrailia Rabbit infestation > >>> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7% >>> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors. >> >> I want you to show the math, this is a physics group. >> So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density. > > Meanwhile *you* cannot even *spell* it correctly. You're hardly one to > talk! you revert to Engrlish teacher, instead of showing him how to integrate across spectral density, so you not physics at all. > >> try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2 >> absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming >> Greenhouse Gas; >> >> >> http://ice-age-ahead-BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGHAHAHAHAHAobviousdeniershite >> > > BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAFUCKINGHAHAHAHAHA! Obvious denier shite. Try again? your link is wrong, it went to some religious site in india; try this one: http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg > >> no, that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking >> what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. >> >> http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg > > I assume this is about as authentic as the Planned Parenthood so-called > "baby parts" video? try to stay on topic, your change in topic shows you admit lost argument, which is noted, in the notebook, I WILL turn over to your mom, .... soon.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 07:12 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fii92bFsumfU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #679520 |
On 2/04/2018 1:11 PM, Sergio wrote:
> On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is
>>>>>> very
>>>>>> broad.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words.
>>>>
>>>> **Really? You sure about that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs.
>>
>> **OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you.
>
> no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual
> meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary.
>
> Obviously, English is not your first language.
**My first and only language.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it,
>>>>
>>>> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim?
>>>>
>>>
>>> sure, havent got time to look them up right now.
>>
>> **Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got
>> nothing.
>
> I don't owe you anything.
**Correct.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated
>>>>
>>>> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference.
>>>> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE.
>>>> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the
>>>> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science,
>>>> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
>>>>
>>>> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be
>>>> forced to do so.
>>>
>>>
>>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
>>
>> **It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay
>> close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron:
>>
>> Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I
>> am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please
>> pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of
>> (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote
>> (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS.
>
> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him.
**Al Gore is a politician and DID NOT invent the internet. Dunno about
"Glowball Worming" (whatever that is). What is "Glowball Worming"?
Don't forget: English is my first and only language. Here's all I could
find:
'Glowball' - Nothing in any English dictionary I can find. You'll need
to provide a definition for us.
'Worming' - Much easier to find:
"
verb (used without object)
14.
to move or act like a worm; creep, crawl, or advance slowly or stealthily.
15.
to achieve something by insidious procedure (usually followed by into):
to worm into another's favor.
16.
Metallurgy. craze (def 8a).
verb (used with object)
17.
to cause to move or advance in a devious or stealthy manner:
The thief wormed his hand into my coat pocket.
18.
to get by persistent, insidious efforts (usually followed by out or from):
to worm a secret out of a person.
19.
to insinuate (oneself or one's way) into another's favor, confidence, etc.:
to worm his way into the king's favor.
20.
to free from worms:
He wormed the puppies.
21.
Nautical. to wind yarn or the like spirally round (a rope) so as to fill
the spaces between the strands and render the surface smooth."
Which of the above definitions do you mean by the word: 'worming'?
I am sorry to say that much of what you say makes no sense. Please try
to stick to proper English where possible. I do not speak whatever
language you are using.
>
>>
>> Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly
>> disinterested.
>
> no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency"
> global worming articles that you have not read.
**I will say again: Stop quoting POLITICIANS when discussing science.
>
> You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change.
**I am citing SCIENCE. YOU are the one citing politicians. Therefore,
YOU are the one with some kind of political agenda.
>
>> And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who
>> work in climate research.
>>
>> Clear?
>
> Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, from
> your leftist mags.
**I'll say again: I have no idea what Al Gore has to say about anything.
AL Gore is a POLITICIAN. I don't listen to politicians. They're all full
of shit. I listen to scientists on matters of science. That you pay
attention to Al Gore and the Fox network on matters of science is
obvious. And very, very stupid. I suggest you constrain your information
stream on matters of science to SCIENTISTS, not POLITICIANS.
>
> I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or it is
> munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is
> where they fall short every time.
**Yep. I see Fox Network propaganda in your words:
http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-367
I suggest you start reading, Science, Nature, NASA reports and the usual
SCIENCE journals. Watching Fox will destroy what is left of your brain.
>
>>
>> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to
>> be.
>
> whoa! your asshole is puckering!
**Nope. The sad thing is this: Unlike benj, you APPEAR to be reasonably
intelligent, yet you clearly ignore the overwhelming science that
comprehensively destroys the opinions of the muppets on Fox. Weird.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970
>>>>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many,
>>>>>> many
>>>>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol
>>>>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note
>>>>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when
>>>>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol
>>>>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor
>>>>>> understand):
>>>>>
>>>>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates.
>>>>
>>>> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too?
>>>
>>> they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and
>>> they vanish as the water evaporates.
>>
>> **OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can
>> understand):
>>
>> Are jet trails near the ground?
>
> do you think they are ?
**No. Now YOU answer the question.
are water tower plumes near the ground ?
**What is a "water tower plume"?
>
>>
>> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine.
>
> yes, your asshole is puckered!
**I have no idea what the fuck you're smoking, but you really should
stop. It is screwing your brain.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And you have
>>>>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable.
>>>>>
>>>>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures,
>>>>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ?
>>>>
>>>> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement
>>>> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not
>>>> been available for most of the period under discussion.
>>>
>>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of
>>> the earth.
>>
>> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to
>> think I said such a thing? Take your time.
>
> you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time
> refocusing your brain as it is too loose.
**Please point out PRECISELY what words I used to cause you to think
that I said such a thing?
I find it curious that you are so clearly unable to follow a logical,
structured discussion. You manage to read words that were never placed
on the screen. What is wrong with you? Presumably, you are under some
kind of psychiatric care? Is it the drugs you are taking? Please let me
know and I will make allowances for your apparent cognitive dissonance.
>
> "...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under
> discussion."
>
> you have short term memory loss.
**Nope. Direct temperature measurements have been available for the past
several hundred years. As a consequence, I do not restrict temperature
measurements to satellite data. Nor should you.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How
>>>>>>> ignorant are you anyway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant
>>>>>> that you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> tut tut.
>>>>
>>>> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant.
>>>> He scurries away, when asked questions.
>>>
>>> your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die
>>> with a 0.1 F change in temperature.
>>
>> **Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim.
>
> **Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a
> 0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science.
>
>>
>> Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with
>> cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't
>> get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm
>> losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge.
>
> isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ?
**Please re-parse that question in English. If I understand the question
correctly (and it is not easy), then the answer is sometimes and in some
places. At other times and places, no.
Global worming will
> cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths.
**What is "Glowball worming"? The dictionary definitions don't assist
with us being able to understand what the fuck you're trying to say.
>
> Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit!
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why don't you show how much science you know
>>>>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies.
>>>>>> When
>>>>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate
>>>>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2
>>>>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their
>>>>>> energy to
>>>>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus
>>>>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2
>>>>>> acts
>>>>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus
>>>>>> nighttime temperatures are raised.
>>>>>
>>>>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be
>>>>> meaningful.
>>>>
>>>> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three
>>>> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and
>>>> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another
>>>> scientific reference, rather than Fox News.
>>>
>>> true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use
>>> W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think
>>> you will find this is less than 3%.
>>
>> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7%
>> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors.
>
> I want you to show the math, this is a physics group.
**It's difficult with ASCII, but I will do my best:
DeltaT8 = Lambda X DeltaF Where:
Lambda = Climate sensitivity paramater (K(W/m^2)
DeltaF = Radiative forcing factor in W/m
For CO2, the expression would be:
LambdaF = 5.35 X lnC/CoWm^-2
Where:
C = CO2 concentration in ppm
Co = reference concentration
> So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density.
**What is: "spectrial density"? It is not a term I am familiar with, nor
is any scientific dictionary able to shed light on what you're trying to
say.
>
>>
>>>
>>> so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer
>>> wavelengths ?
>>
>> **You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is
>> important. You're wrong (again). I will explain:
>
> I see you don't do this often at all.
**I try my best with you, but your inability to concentrate and
communicate clearly makes it very difficult.
>
>>
>> Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the
>> Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin
>> cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well.
>
> try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2
> absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming
> Greenhouse Gas;
>
>
> http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg
**You seem to be under some kind of delusion that CO2 is completely
irrelevant, just because the effect from CO2 is smaller than that of
water vapour. That is your delusion. CO2 contributes between 9% ~ 26% of
Solar forcing. Those figures are considerably smaller than the
contribution of water vapour, but they are not insignificant.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax
>>>>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
>>>>>
>>>>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and
>>>>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start.
>>>>
>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax.
>>>
>>> it dosent matter what you think,
>>
>> **I said:
>>
>> "I am not trying to set up any kind of tax."
>>
>> I did not provide an opinion either way.
>>
>>
>> that is the goal of climate change
>>> movement, once you pars out the green stuff.
>>
>> **Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information
>> pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple.
>> Others will likely make decisions based on that information.
>
> no,
**Yes.
that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking
> what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago.
**Huh?
>
>
> http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg
**
http://www.noaa.gov/news/noaa-2017-was-3rd-warmest-year-on-record-for-globe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Annual_Mean_Temperature_Change_for_Land_and_for_Ocean_NASA_GISTEMP_2017_October.png
>
>
>
>>
>> Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions.
**Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. Nor the opinions of the
Fox network.
--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 20:10 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pa18lo$gbi$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679803 |
On 4/3/2018 4:12 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 2/04/2018 1:11 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is >>>>>>> very >>>>>>> broad. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. >>>>> >>>>> **Really? You sure about that? >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs. >>> >>> **OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you. >> >> no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual >> meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary. >> >> Obviously, English is not your first language. > > **My first and only language. Queens English ? > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, >>>>> >>>>> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? >>>>> >>>> >>>> sure, havent got time to look them up right now. >>> >>> **Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got >>> nothing. >> >> I don't owe you anything. > > **Correct. can you loan me $5 ? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated >>>>> >>>>> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the >>>>> difference. >>>>> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >>>>> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the >>>>> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, >>>>> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>>>> >>>>> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be >>>>> forced to do so. >>>> >>>> >>>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask >>>> him. >>> >>> **It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay >>> close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron: >>> >>> Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I >>> am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please >>> pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of >>> (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote >>> (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >> >> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him. > > > **Al Gore is a politician and DID NOT invent the internet. Dunno about > "Glowball Worming" (whatever that is). What is "Glowball Worming"? > > Don't forget: English is my first and only language. Here's all I could > find: > > 'Glowball' - Nothing in any English dictionary I can find. You'll need > to provide a definition for us. > > 'Worming' - Much easier to find: > " > verb (used without object) > 14. > to move or act like a worm; creep, crawl, or advance slowly or stealthily. > 15. > to achieve something by insidious procedure (usually followed by into): > to worm into another's favor. > 16. > Metallurgy. craze (def 8a). > verb (used with object) > 17. > to cause to move or advance in a devious or stealthy manner: > The thief wormed his hand into my coat pocket. > 18. > to get by persistent, insidious efforts (usually followed by out or from): > to worm a secret out of a person. > 19. > to insinuate (oneself or one's way) into another's favor, confidence, etc.: > to worm his way into the king's favor. > 20. > to free from worms: > He wormed the puppies. > 21. > Nautical. to wind yarn or the like spirally round (a rope) so as to fill > the spaces between the strands and render the surface smooth." > > Which of the above definitions do you mean by the word: 'worming'? > > I am sorry to say that much of what you say makes no sense. Please try > to stick to proper English where possible. I do not speak whatever > language you are using. that is your problem, dude. You need to try harder, or perhaps you have never traveled to other countries where Queens English is not precisely spoken in order, or not spoken at all. You will have great trouble. I can travel most of the world and not have any of your problem of not understanding 2 words. > > >> >>> >>> Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly >>> disinterested. >> >> no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" >> global worming articles that you have not read. > > > **I will say again: Stop quoting POLITICIANS when discussing science. > >> >> You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. > > **I am citing SCIENCE. YOU are the one citing politicians. Therefore, > YOU are the one with some kind of political agenda. > >> >>> And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who >>> work in climate research. >>> >>> Clear? >> >> Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, from >> your leftist mags. > > > **I'll say again: I have no idea what Al Gore has to say about anything. > AL Gore is a POLITICIAN. I don't listen to politicians. They're all full > of shit. I listen to scientists on matters of science. That you pay > attention to Al Gore and the Fox network on matters of science is > obvious. And very, very stupid. I suggest you constrain your information > stream on matters of science to SCIENTISTS, not POLITICIANS. Political parties pay for your news. try this, find the orgional data sets of global surface temperatures, not modified by someone, or made consice in a graph, but the numbers as recorded.... > >> >> I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or it is >> munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is >> where they fall short every time. > > **Yep. I see Fox Network propaganda in your words: > > http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-367 > > > I suggest you start reading, Science, Nature, NASA reports and the usual > SCIENCE journals. Watching Fox will destroy what is left of your brain. why do you watch Fox news ? > >> >>> >>> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to >>> be. >> >> whoa! your asshole is puckering! > > **Nope. The sad thing is this: Unlike benj, you APPEAR to be reasonably > intelligent, yet you clearly ignore the overwhelming science that > comprehensively destroys the opinions of the muppets on Fox. Weird. nope, fox, cnn, pbs, NYTimes, NBC, CBS all poopus. the are all shit. Even Reuters has some tinge on it. Journalism cannot support itself on just reporting news, they get paid by promoters of that news. (happened about 10 years ago) we are in a vast ocean of fake news, Facebook says they will fix it, (which is impossible) as they sell your name and phone number to anybody they want too. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>>>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, >>>>>>> many >>>>>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>>>>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to >>>>>>> note >>>>>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>>>>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>>>>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>>>>>> understand): >>>>>> >>>>>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. >>>>> >>>>> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? >>>> >>>> they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and >>>> they vanish as the water evaporates. >>> >>> **OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can >>> understand): >>> >>> Are jet trails near the ground? >> >> do you think they are ? > > > **No. Now YOU answer the question. > > are water tower plumes near the ground ? > > **What is a "water tower plume"? https://www.process-cooling.com/ext/resources/issues/2016/November/PC1116_ePublishing_Products05.jpg?1477927962 if you are going to try to discuss this subject, you need to read more about it, read the science not the fluff. > >> >>> >>> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine. >> >> yes, your asshole is puckered! > > **I have no idea what the fuck you're smoking, but you really should > stop. It is screwing your brain. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> And you have >>>>>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>>>>> >>>>>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface >>>>>> temperatures, >>>>>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? >>>>> >>>>> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all >>>>> measurement >>>>> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has >>>>> not >>>>> been available for most of the period under discussion. >>>> >>>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of >>>> the earth. >>> >>> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to >>> think I said such a thing? Take your time. >> >> you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time >> refocusing your brain as it is too loose. > > **Please point out PRECISELY what words I used to cause you to think > that I said such a thing? > > I find it curious that you are so clearly unable to follow a logical, > structured discussion. You manage to read words that were never placed > on the screen. What is wrong with you? Presumably, you are under some > kind of psychiatric care? Is it the drugs you are taking? Please let me > know and I will make allowances for your apparent cognitive dissonance. you write poopus. That means you insult people when you are losing the argument. > > >> >> "...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under >> discussion." >> >> you have short term memory loss. > > **Nope. Direct temperature measurements have been available for the past > several hundred years. As a consequence, I do not restrict temperature > measurements to satellite data. Nor should you. so what is the tolerance band of older measurements ? what % of locations on the Earth were older measurement taken ? > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> How >>>>>>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less >>>>>>> ignorant >>>>>>> that you. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> tut tut. >>>>> >>>>> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant. >>>>> He scurries away, when asked questions. >>>> >>>> your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies >>>> die >>>> with a 0.1 F change in temperature. >>> >>> **Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim. >> >> **Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a >> 0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science. >> >>> >>> Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with >>> cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't >>> get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm >>> losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge. >> >> isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? > > **Please re-parse that question in English. If I understand the question > correctly (and it is not easy), then the answer is sometimes and in some > places. At other times and places, no. > > > Global worming will >> cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths. > > **What is "Glowball worming"? The dictionary definitions don't assist > with us being able to understand what the fuck you're trying to say. > >> >> Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit! >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>>>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >>>>>>> When >>>>>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>>>>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2 >>>>>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their >>>>>>> energy to >>>>>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), >>>>>>> thus >>>>>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 >>>>>>> acts >>>>>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, >>>>>>> thus >>>>>>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >>>>>> >>>>>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 >>>>>> to be >>>>>> meaningful. >>>>> >>>>> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three >>>>> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and >>>>> 4um and >>>>> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another >>>>> scientific reference, rather than Fox News. >>>> >>>> true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use >>>> W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I >>>> think >>>> you will find this is less than 3%. >>> >>> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7% >>> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors. >> >> I want you to show the math, this is a physics group. > > **It's difficult with ASCII, but I will do my best: > > DeltaT8 = Lambda X DeltaF Where: > > Lambda = Climate sensitivity paramater (K(W/m^2) > DeltaF = Radiative forcing factor in W/m > > For CO2, the expression would be: > > LambdaF = 5.35 X lnC/CoWm^-2 > > Where: > C = CO2 concentration in ppm > Co = reference concentration > > >> So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density. > > **What is: "spectrial density"? It is not a term I am familiar with, nor > is any scientific dictionary able to shed light on what you're trying to > say. > it is plot of spectrum of the sun power vs wavelength. http://book.bionumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/320-f1-SolarSpectrum-11.png (ez google) integrate (or find the area under the curve) for co2, which is from about 2000 to 2300 nm and you can do it for H2O, there are a lot more bands this one is better; https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/atmospheric_absorption_bands-co2.png?w=850 have you seen these before ? > >> >>> >>>> >>>> so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer >>>> wavelengths ? >>> >>> **You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is >>> important. You're wrong (again). I will explain: >> >> I see you don't do this often at all. > > **I try my best with you, but your inability to concentrate and > communicate clearly makes it very difficult. I ignore your poopus, you want to end the discussion via insults ? > >> >>> >>> Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the >>> Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin >>> cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well. >> >> try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2 >> absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming >> Greenhouse Gas; >> >> >> http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg > > **You seem to be under some kind of delusion that CO2 is completely > irrelevant, just because the effect from CO2 is smaller than that of > water vapour. That is your delusion. CO2 contributes between 9% ~ 26% of > Solar forcing. Those figures are considerably smaller than the > contribution of water vapour, but they are not insignificant. Water vapor is dominant, 65% and no one can fix that. and you should read more, methane (cows) and both silicon tetrachloride, Hydrofluoric acid, Nitrogen Trifluoride are used in solar cell production have higher costs than CO2 again, we are tired of spoon feeding you. CO2 has a small effect, http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/solar-companies-creating-millions-of-pounds-of-polluted-sludge-contaminated-water/ Global Warming Potentials Of Gases (100 Year Time Horizon) GAS GWP ======================== Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 Methane (CH4) 23 Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296 Hydrofluorocarbons HFC-23 12,000 HFC-125 3,400 HFC-134a 1,300 HFC-143a 4,300 HFC-152a 120 HFC-227ea 3,500 HFC-43-10mee 1,500 Fully Fluorinated Gases SF6 22,200 CF4 5,700 C2F6 11,900 C4F10 8,600 C6F14 9,000 The concept of the global warming potential (GWP) was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. In this case, CO2 is the reference gas. Methane, for example, has a GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. This means that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, methane is 23 times more potent than CO2 over a 100-year period. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake >>>>>>>> tax >>>>>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>>>> >>>>>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and >>>>>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start. >>>>> >>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>> >>>> it dosent matter what you think, >>> >>> **I said: >>> >>> "I am not trying to set up any kind of tax." >>> >>> I did not provide an opinion either way. >>> >>> >>> that is the goal of climate change >>>> movement, once you pars out the green stuff. >>> >>> **Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information >>> pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple. >>> Others will likely make decisions based on that information. >> >> no, > > **Yes. no, they baby sit computer models. > > > that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking >> what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. > > **Huh? you can't remember stuff from 2009 ? long term memory loss ? http://www.businessinsider.com/inconvenient-emails-heat-up-global-warming-conspiracy-2009-11 > >> >> >> http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg >> >> >> >>> >>> Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. > > > **Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. Nor the opinions of the > Fox network. > > you are obviously upset by Fox network. Instead listen to the EIB network, Rush will set your confused thinking straight.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 13:18 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fiiug8F2n7lU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #679849 |
On 4/04/2018 11:10 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/3/2018 4:12 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 2/04/2018 1:11 PM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is >>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>> broad. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Really? You sure about that? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs. >>>> >>>> **OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you. >>> >>> no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual >>> meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary. >>> >>> Obviously, English is not your first language. >> >> **My first and only language. > > Queens English ? **Just English. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, >>>>>> >>>>>> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> sure, havent got time to look them up right now. >>>> >>>> **Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got >>>> nothing. >>> >>> I don't owe you anything. >> >> **Correct. > > can you loan me $5 ? **Of course I can. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated >>>>>> >>>>>> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the >>>>>> difference. >>>>>> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >>>>>> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the >>>>>> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, >>>>>> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>>>>> >>>>>> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be >>>>>> forced to do so. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask >>>>> him. >>>> >>>> **It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay >>>> close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron: >>>> >>>> Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. I >>>> am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. Please >>>> pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the area of >>>> (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you quote >>>> (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>> >>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him. >> >> >> **Al Gore is a politician and DID NOT invent the internet. Dunno about >> "Glowball Worming" (whatever that is). What is "Glowball Worming"? >> >> Don't forget: English is my first and only language. Here's all I could >> find: >> >> 'Glowball' - Nothing in any English dictionary I can find. You'll need >> to provide a definition for us. >> >> 'Worming' - Much easier to find: >> " >> verb (used without object) >> 14. >> to move or act like a worm; creep, crawl, or advance slowly or stealthily. >> 15. >> to achieve something by insidious procedure (usually followed by into): >> to worm into another's favor. >> 16. >> Metallurgy. craze (def 8a). >> verb (used with object) >> 17. >> to cause to move or advance in a devious or stealthy manner: >> The thief wormed his hand into my coat pocket. >> 18. >> to get by persistent, insidious efforts (usually followed by out or from): >> to worm a secret out of a person. >> 19. >> to insinuate (oneself or one's way) into another's favor, confidence, etc.: >> to worm his way into the king's favor. >> 20. >> to free from worms: >> He wormed the puppies. >> 21. >> Nautical. to wind yarn or the like spirally round (a rope) so as to fill >> the spaces between the strands and render the surface smooth." >> >> Which of the above definitions do you mean by the word: 'worming'? >> >> I am sorry to say that much of what you say makes no sense.Please try >> to stick to proper English where possible. I do not speak whatever >> language you are using. > > that is your problem, dude. **Well, perhaps. > > You need to try harder, or perhaps you have never traveled to other > countries where Queens English is not precisely spoken in order, or not > spoken at all. You will have great trouble. **Not so far. > > I can travel most of the world and not have any of your problem of not > understanding 2 words. **Then why don't you explain what those two words mean? Why do you continue to obfuscate? > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am singularly >>>> disinterested. >>> >>> no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" >>> global worming articles that you have not read. >> >> >> **I will say again: Stop quoting POLITICIANS when discussing science. >> >>> >>> You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. >> >> **I am citing SCIENCE. YOU are the one citing politicians. Therefore, >> YOU are the one with some kind of political agenda. >> >>> >>>> And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who >>>> work in climate research. >>>> >>>> Clear? >>> >>> Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, from >>> your leftist mags. >> >> >> **I'll say again: I have no idea what Al Gore has to say about anything. >> AL Gore is a POLITICIAN. I don't listen to politicians. They're all full >> of shit. I listen to scientists on matters of science. That you pay >> attention to Al Gore and the Fox network on matters of science is >> obvious. And very, very stupid. I suggest you constrain your information >> stream on matters of science to SCIENTISTS, not POLITICIANS. > > Political parties pay for your news. **You sure about that? > > try this, find the orgional data sets of global surface temperatures, > not modified by someone, or made consice in a graph, but the numbers as > recorded.... **Why? Anyway, here is the data you require: https://datahub.io/core/global-temp > >> >>> >>> I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or it is >>> munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is >>> where they fall short every time. >> >> **Yep. I see Fox Network propaganda in your words: >> >> http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-367 >> >> >> I suggest you start reading, Science, Nature, NASA reports and the usual >> SCIENCE journals. Watching Fox will destroy what is left of your brain. > > why do you watch Fox news ? **I don't, but the question is: Why do you? > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you deserve to >>>> be. >>> >>> whoa! your asshole is puckering! >> >> **Nope. The sad thing is this: Unlike benj, you APPEAR to be reasonably >> intelligent, yet you clearly ignore the overwhelming science that >> comprehensively destroys the opinions of the muppets on Fox. Weird. > > nope, fox, cnn, pbs, NYTimes, NBC, CBS all poopus. the are all shit. > Even Reuters has some tinge on it. > Journalism cannot support itself on just reporting news, they get paid > by promoters of that news. (happened about 10 years ago) > > we are in a vast ocean of fake news, Facebook says they will fix it, > (which is impossible) as they sell your name and phone number to anybody > they want too. > > > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>>>>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, >>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>>>>>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to >>>>>>>> note >>>>>>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>>>>>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>>>>>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>>>>>>> understand): >>>>>>> >>>>>>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? >>>>> >>>>> they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and >>>>> they vanish as the water evaporates. >>>> >>>> **OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you can >>>> understand): >>>> >>>> Are jet trails near the ground? >>> >>> do you think they are ? >> >> >> **No. Now YOU answer the question. >> >> are water tower plumes near the ground ? >> >> **What is a "water tower plume"? > > https://www.process-cooling.com/ext/resources/issues/2016/November/PC1116_ePublishing_Products05.jpg?1477927962 > > if you are going to try to discuss this subject, you need to read more > about it, read the science not the fluff. **There you go. That was easy. I wonder why you are so incapable of answering any of my other requests? Anyway, to respond to your earlier question: Yes. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine. >>> >>> yes, your asshole is puckered! >> >> **I have no idea what the fuck you're smoking, but you really should >> stop. It is screwing your brain. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And you have >>>>>>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface >>>>>>> temperatures, >>>>>>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all >>>>>> measurement >>>>>> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has >>>>>> not >>>>>> been available for most of the period under discussion. >>>>> >>>>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of >>>>> the earth. >>>> >>>> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to >>>> think I said such a thing? Take your time. >>> >>> you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time >>> refocusing your brain as it is too loose. >> >> **Please point out PRECISELY what words I used to cause you to think >> that I said such a thing? >> >> I find it curious that you are so clearly unable to follow a logical, >> structured discussion. You manage to read words that were never placed >> on the screen. What is wrong with you? Presumably, you are under some >> kind of psychiatric care? Is it the drugs you are taking? Please let me >> know and I will make allowances for your apparent cognitive dissonance. > > you write poopus. That means you insult people when you are losing the > argument. **No, it does not: https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poopus > >> >> >>> >>> "...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under >>> discussion." >>> >>> you have short term memory loss. >> >> **Nope. Direct temperature measurements have been available for the past >> several hundred years. As a consequence, I do not restrict temperature >> measurements to satellite data. Nor should you. > > so what is the tolerance band of older measurements ? **This will educate you: http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-05-28/news/0005280042_1_thermometers-readings-accurate > > what % of locations on the Earth were older measurement taken ? **Dunno. > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> How >>>>>>>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less >>>>>>>> ignorant >>>>>>>> that you. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> tut tut. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant. >>>>>> He scurries away, when asked questions. >>>>> >>>>> your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies >>>>> die >>>>> with a 0.1 F change in temperature. >>>> >>>> **Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim. >>> >>> **Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a >>> 0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science. >>> >>>> >>>> Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with >>>> cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't >>>> get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm >>>> losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge. >>> >>> isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? >> >> **Please re-parse that question in English. If I understand the question >> correctly (and it is not easy), then the answer is sometimes and in some >> places. At other times and places, no. **Was my response to your satisfaction? > >> >> >> Global worming will >>> cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths. >> >> **What is "Glowball worming"? The dictionary definitions don't assist >> with us being able to understand what the fuck you're trying to say. >> >>> >>> Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit! >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>>>>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >>>>>>>> When >>>>>>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>>>>>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2 >>>>>>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their >>>>>>>> energy to >>>>>>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), >>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 >>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, >>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 >>>>>>> to be >>>>>>> meaningful. >>>>>> >>>>>> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three >>>>>> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and >>>>>> 4um and >>>>>> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another >>>>>> scientific reference, rather than Fox News. >>>>> >>>>> true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use >>>>> W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I >>>>> think >>>>> you will find this is less than 3%. >>>> >>>> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is between 7% >>>> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors. >>> >>> I want you to show the math, this is a physics group. >> >> **It's difficult with ASCII, but I will do my best: >> >> DeltaT8 = Lambda X DeltaF Where: >> >> Lambda = Climate sensitivity paramater (K(W/m^2) >> DeltaF = Radiative forcing factor in W/m >> >> For CO2, the expression would be: >> >> LambdaF = 5.35 X lnC/CoWm^-2 >> >> Where: >> C = CO2 concentration in ppm >> Co = reference concentration >> >> >>> So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density. >> >> **What is: "spectrial density"? It is not a term I am familiar with, nor >> is any scientific dictionary able to shed light on what you're trying to >> say. >> > > it is plot of spectrum of the sun power vs wavelength. **Ah, SPECTRAL density. That I am familiar with. I should mention that I am trained in electronics and communications and my partner studies the Sun. Any questions I have WRT Solar physics, I refer to her. > > http://book.bionumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/320-f1-SolarSpectrum-11.png > > (ez google) > > integrate (or find the area under the curve) for co2, which is from > about 2000 to 2300 nm **Since I am trained in electronics, I am quite comfortable with Fourier analysis. There is no need for you to attempt to simplify your questions. > > and you can do it for H2O, there are a lot more bands > > this one is better; > https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/atmospheric_absorption_bands-co2.png?w=850 > > have you seen these before ? **Of course. What's your point? That water vapour has a larger Solar forcing effect than CO2? I knew that. Trouble is, you seem to believe that the effects of CO2 are insignificant. They're not. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer >>>>> wavelengths ? >>>> >>>> **You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is >>>> important. You're wrong (again). I will explain: >>> >>> I see you don't do this often at all. >> >> **I try my best with you, but your inability to concentrate and >> communicate clearly makes it very difficult. > > I ignore your poopus, you want to end the discussion via insults ? **I want you to use English in your responses. I want you to discuss things rationally. If you do these things I will respond in kind. Act like a dickhead and I will respond accordingly. Fair enough? > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches the >>>> Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin >>>> cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well. >>> >>> try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2 >>> absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming >>> Greenhouse Gas; >>> >>> >>> http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg >> >> **You seem to be under some kind of delusion that CO2 is completely >> irrelevant, just because the effect from CO2 is smaller than that of >> water vapour. That is your delusion. CO2 contributes between 9% ~ 26% of >> Solar forcing. Those figures are considerably smaller than the >> contribution of water vapour, but they are not insignificant. > > Water vapor is dominant, 65% and no one can fix that. **Water vapour the most significant GHG. However, despite what you seem to believe, CO2 is not insignificant. > > and you should read more, > methane (cows) and both silicon tetrachloride, Hydrofluoric acid, > Nitrogen Trifluoride are used in solar cell production have higher costs > than CO2 **Sure. No dispute from my end. BTW: Methane release from permafrost is rapidly becoming a very serious problem. The methane releases are occurring because the planet is warming. > > again, we are tired of spoon feeding you. CO2 has a small effect, **Wrong. CO2 is, behind water vapour, the next most significant GHG. Smaller, but not insignificant. > > > http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/solar-companies-creating-millions-of-pounds-of-polluted-sludge-contaminated-water/ > > Global Warming Potentials Of Gases > (100 Year Time Horizon) > GAS GWP > ======================== > Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 > Methane (CH4) 23 > Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296 > > Hydrofluorocarbons > HFC-23 12,000 > HFC-125 3,400 > HFC-134a 1,300 > HFC-143a 4,300 > HFC-152a 120 > HFC-227ea 3,500 > HFC-43-10mee 1,500 > > Fully Fluorinated Gases > SF6 22,200 > CF4 5,700 > C2F6 11,900 > C4F10 8,600 > C6F14 9,000 > > The concept of the global warming potential (GWP) was developed to > compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the > atmosphere relative to another gas. In this case, CO2 is the reference > gas. Methane, for example, has a GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. This > means that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, methane is 23 times more > potent than CO2 over a 100-year period. **Sort of. CO2 is a very stable molecule and has, therefore quite a long atmospheric life-span (ca. 100 years). Methane has a relatively short atmospheric life-span of around 10 years. Breakdown products include CO2. That said, methane is a very serious problem and will become more serious as more enters the atmosphere. Fortunately, sulfur hexafluoride (the stuff they use in Nike shoes) is not generated in large amounts. Nonetheless gases like the Nike stuff are very nasty GHGs. > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake >>>>>>>>> tax >>>>>>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and >>>>>>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start. >>>>>> >>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>>> >>>>> it dosent matter what you think, >>>> >>>> **I said: >>>> >>>> "I am not trying to set up any kind of tax." >>>> >>>> I did not provide an opinion either way. >>>> >>>> >>>> that is the goal of climate change >>>>> movement, once you pars out the green stuff. >>>> >>>> **Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information >>>> pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple. >>>> Others will likely make decisions based on that information. >>> >>> no, >> >> **Yes. > > no, they baby sit computer models. **You have no idea. None, whatsoever. I explained earlier that my partner works as a Solar physicist. She regularly travels to stations where remote monitoring takes place. She writes code and issues warnings for interested parties (military, satellite companies, etc). Many of her colleagues study climate science. They do similar stuff, but on a much larger scale. They do not (all) "baby sit computer models". They do actual RESEARCH. > >> >> >> that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking >>> what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. >> >> **Huh? > > you can't remember stuff from 2009 ? long term memory loss ? **No. You comment made no sense whatsoever. Re-read it. Again: English please. I can't read your mind. > > http://www.businessinsider.com/inconvenient-emails-heat-up-global-warming-conspiracy-2009-11 > >> >>> >>> >>> http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg > >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. >> >> >> **Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. Nor the opinions of the >> Fox network. >> >> > > you are obviously upset by Fox network. Instead listen to the EIB > network, Rush will set your confused thinking straight. **Unlikely. I pay attention to the science. Something you would be well advised to do. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-03 23:12 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <pa1jb6$vo6$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679865 |
On 4/3/2018 10:18 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 4/04/2018 11:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 4/3/2018 4:12 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 2/04/2018 1:11 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: >>>>>>>>> 'journalist' is >>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>> broad. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Really? You sure about that? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different >>>>>> jobs. >>>>> >>>>> **OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you. >>>> >>>> no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual >>>> meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary. >>>> >>>> Obviously, English is not your first language. >>> >>> **My first and only language. >> >> Queens English ? > > **Just English. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> sure, havent got time to look them up right now. >>>>> >>>>> **Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got >>>>> nothing. >>>> >>>> I don't owe you anything. >>> >>> **Correct. >> >> can you loan me $5 ? > > **Of course I can. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the >>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >>>>>>> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians >>>>>>> in the >>>>>>> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of >>>>>>> science, >>>>>>> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and >>>>>>> we'll be >>>>>>> forced to do so. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask >>>>>> him. >>>>> >>>>> **It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay >>>>> close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron: >>>>> >>>>> Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the >>>>> difference. I >>>>> am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >>>>> Please >>>>> pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the >>>>> area of >>>>> (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you >>>>> quote >>>>> (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>>> >>>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask >>>> him. >>> >>> >>> **Al Gore is a politician and DID NOT invent the internet. Dunno about >>> "Glowball Worming" (whatever that is). What is "Glowball Worming"? >>> >>> Don't forget: English is my first and only language. Here's all I could >>> find: >>> >>> 'Glowball' - Nothing in any English dictionary I can find. You'll need >>> to provide a definition for us. >>> >>> 'Worming' - Much easier to find: >>> " >>> verb (used without object) >>> 14. >>> to move or act like a worm; creep, crawl, or advance slowly or >>> stealthily. >>> 15. >>> to achieve something by insidious procedure (usually followed by into): >>> to worm into another's favor. >>> 16. >>> Metallurgy. craze (def 8a). >>> verb (used with object) >>> 17. >>> to cause to move or advance in a devious or stealthy manner: >>> The thief wormed his hand into my coat pocket. >>> 18. >>> to get by persistent, insidious efforts (usually followed by out or >>> from): >>> to worm a secret out of a person. >>> 19. >>> to insinuate (oneself or one's way) into another's favor, confidence, >>> etc.: >>> to worm his way into the king's favor. >>> 20. >>> to free from worms: >>> He wormed the puppies. >>> 21. >>> Nautical. to wind yarn or the like spirally round (a rope) so as to fill >>> the spaces between the strands and render the surface smooth." >>> >>> Which of the above definitions do you mean by the word: 'worming'? >>> >>> I am sorry to say that much of what you say makes no sense.Please try >>> to stick to proper English where possible. I do not speak whatever >>> language you are using. >> >> that is your problem, dude. > > **Well, perhaps. > > >> >> You need to try harder, or perhaps you have never traveled to other >> countries where Queens English is not precisely spoken in order, or not >> spoken at all. You will have great trouble. > > **Not so far. > >> >> I can travel most of the world and not have any of your problem of not >> understanding 2 words. > > **Then why don't you explain what those two words mean? Why do you > continue to obfuscate? > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am >>>>> singularly >>>>> disinterested. >>>> >>>> no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" >>>> global worming articles that you have not read. >>> >>> >>> **I will say again: Stop quoting POLITICIANS when discussing science. >>> >>>> >>>> You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. >>> >>> **I am citing SCIENCE. YOU are the one citing politicians. Therefore, >>> YOU are the one with some kind of political agenda. >>> >>>> >>>>> And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who >>>>> work in climate research. >>>>> >>>>> Clear? >>>> >>>> Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, >>>> from >>>> your leftist mags. >>> >>> >>> **I'll say again: I have no idea what Al Gore has to say about anything. >>> AL Gore is a POLITICIAN. I don't listen to politicians. They're all full >>> of shit. I listen to scientists on matters of science. That you pay >>> attention to Al Gore and the Fox network on matters of science is >>> obvious. And very, very stupid. I suggest you constrain your information >>> stream on matters of science to SCIENTISTS, not POLITICIANS. >> >> Political parties pay for your news. > > **You sure about that? > >> >> try this, find the orgional data sets of global surface temperatures, >> not modified by someone, or made consice in a graph, but the numbers as >> recorded.... > > **Why? > > Anyway, here is the data you require: > > https://datahub.io/core/global-temp > > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or >>>> it is >>>> munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is >>>> where they fall short every time. >>> >>> **Yep. I see Fox Network propaganda in your words: >>> >>> http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-367 >>> >>> >>> >>> I suggest you start reading, Science, Nature, NASA reports and the usual >>> SCIENCE journals. Watching Fox will destroy what is left of your brain. >> >> why do you watch Fox news ? > > **I don't, but the question is: Why do you? > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you >>>>> deserve to >>>>> be. >>>> >>>> whoa! your asshole is puckering! >>> >>> **Nope. The sad thing is this: Unlike benj, you APPEAR to be reasonably >>> intelligent, yet you clearly ignore the overwhelming science that >>> comprehensively destroys the opinions of the muppets on Fox. Weird. >> >> nope, fox, cnn, pbs, NYTimes, NBC, CBS all poopus. the are all shit. >> Even Reuters has some tinge on it. >> Journalism cannot support itself on just reporting news, they get paid >> by promoters of that news. (happened about 10 years ago) >> >> we are in a vast ocean of fake news, Facebook says they will fix it, >> (which is impossible) as they sell your name and phone number to anybody >> they want too. >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>>>>>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail >>>>>>>>> many, >>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>>>>>>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to >>>>>>>>> note >>>>>>>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>>>>>>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>>>>>>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>>>>>>>> understand): >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? >>>>>> >>>>>> they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up >>>>>> there, and >>>>>> they vanish as the water evaporates. >>>>> >>>>> **OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you >>>>> can >>>>> understand): >>>>> >>>>> Are jet trails near the ground? >>>> >>>> do you think they are ? >>> >>> >>> **No. Now YOU answer the question. >>> >>> are water tower plumes near the ground ? >>> >>> **What is a "water tower plume"? >> >> https://www.process-cooling.com/ext/resources/issues/2016/November/PC1116_ePublishing_Products05.jpg?1477927962 >> >> >> if you are going to try to discuss this subject, you need to read more >> about it, read the science not the fluff. > > > **There you go. That was easy. I wonder why you are so incapable of > answering any of my other requests? > > Anyway, to respond to your earlier question: > > Yes. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine. >>>> >>>> yes, your asshole is puckered! >>> >>> **I have no idea what the fuck you're smoking, but you really should >>> stop. It is screwing your brain. >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> And you have >>>>>>>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface >>>>>>>> temperatures, >>>>>>>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all >>>>>>> measurement >>>>>>> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has >>>>>>> not >>>>>>> been available for most of the period under discussion. >>>>>> >>>>>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of >>>>>> the earth. >>>>> >>>>> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to >>>>> think I said such a thing? Take your time. >>>> >>>> you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time >>>> refocusing your brain as it is too loose. >>> >>> **Please point out PRECISELY what words I used to cause you to think >>> that I said such a thing? >>> >>> I find it curious that you are so clearly unable to follow a logical, >>> structured discussion. You manage to read words that were never placed >>> on the screen. What is wrong with you? Presumably, you are under some >>> kind of psychiatric care? Is it the drugs you are taking? Please let me >>> know and I will make allowances for your apparent cognitive dissonance. >> >> you write poopus. That means you insult people when you are losing the >> argument. > > **No, it does not: > > https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poopus > > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> "...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under >>>> discussion." >>>> >>>> you have short term memory loss. >>> >>> **Nope. Direct temperature measurements have been available for the past >>> several hundred years. As a consequence, I do not restrict temperature >>> measurements to satellite data. Nor should you. >> >> so what is the tolerance band of older measurements ? > > **This will educate you: > > http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-05-28/news/0005280042_1_thermometers-readings-accurate > > >> >> what % of locations on the Earth were older measurement taken ? > > **Dunno. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> How >>>>>>>>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less >>>>>>>>> ignorant >>>>>>>>> that you. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> tut tut. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly >>>>>>> ignorant. >>>>>>> He scurries away, when asked questions. >>>>>> >>>>>> your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies >>>>>> die >>>>>> with a 0.1 F change in temperature. >>>>> >>>>> **Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim. >>>> >>>> **Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a >>>> 0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with >>>>> cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't >>>>> get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm >>>>> losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge. >>>> >>>> isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? >>> >>> **Please re-parse that question in English. If I understand the question >>> correctly (and it is not easy), then the answer is sometimes and in some >>> places. At other times and places, no. > > **Was my response to your satisfaction? vague, but bunnies find the optimum temperagure range to live in AU, same with the alps, but it seems the temp range for the bunnies is better suited for rabbits in AU, than the alps (colder winters) > > >> >>> >>> >>> Global worming will >>>> cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths. >>> >>> **What is "Glowball worming"? The dictionary definitions don't assist >>> with us being able to understand what the fuck you're trying to say. >>> >>>> >>>> Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit! >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>>>>>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >>>>>>>>> When >>>>>>>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>>>>>>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The >>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their >>>>>>>>> energy to >>>>>>>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), >>>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, >>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, >>>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 >>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>> meaningful. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three >>>>>>> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and >>>>>>> 4um and >>>>>>> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose >>>>>>> another >>>>>>> scientific reference, rather than Fox News. >>>>>> >>>>>> true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use >>>>>> W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I >>>>>> think >>>>>> you will find this is less than 3%. >>>>> >>>>> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is >>>>> between 7% >>>>> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors. >>>> >>>> I want you to show the math, this is a physics group. >>> >>> **It's difficult with ASCII, but I will do my best: >>> >>> DeltaT8 = Lambda X DeltaF Where: >>> >>> Lambda = Climate sensitivity paramater (K(W/m^2) >>> DeltaF = Radiative forcing factor in W/m >>> >>> For CO2, the expression would be: >>> >>> LambdaF = 5.35 X lnC/CoWm^-2 >>> >>> Where: >>> C = CO2 concentration in ppm >>> Co = reference concentration >>> >>> >>>> So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density. >>> >>> **What is: "spectrial density"? It is not a term I am familiar with, nor >>> is any scientific dictionary able to shed light on what you're trying to >>> say. >>> >> >> it is plot of spectrum of the sun power vs wavelength. > > **Ah, SPECTRAL density. That I am familiar with. I should mention that I > am trained in electronics and communications and my partner studies the > Sun. Any questions I have WRT Solar physics, I refer to her. > > >> >> http://book.bionumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/320-f1-SolarSpectrum-11.png >> >> >> (ez google) >> >> integrate (or find the area under the curve) for co2, which is from >> about 2000 to 2300 nm > > **Since I am trained in electronics, I am quite comfortable with Fourier > analysis. There is no need for you to attempt to simplify your questions. > no need for Fourier, simple integral to measure under the curve, actually, there is another graph posted in this thread somewhere that had the gasses and spectrum already pulled out, >> >> and you can do it for H2O, there are a lot more bands >> >> this one is better; >> https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/atmospheric_absorption_bands-co2.png?w=850 >> >> >> have you seen these before ? > > **Of course. What's your point? That water vapour has a larger Solar > forcing effect than CO2? I knew that. Trouble is, you seem to believe > that the effects of CO2 are insignificant. They're not. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to >>>>>> longer >>>>>> wavelengths ? >>>>> >>>>> **You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is >>>>> important. You're wrong (again). I will explain: >>>> >>>> I see you don't do this often at all. >>> >>> **I try my best with you, but your inability to concentrate and >>> communicate clearly makes it very difficult. >> >> I ignore your poopus, you want to end the discussion via insults ? > > **I want you to use English in your responses. I want you to discuss > things rationally. If you do these things I will respond in kind. Act > like a dickhead and I will respond accordingly. Fair enough? no problem, > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches >>>>> the >>>>> Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin >>>>> cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well. >>>> >>>> try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2 >>>> absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming >>>> Greenhouse Gas; >>>> >>>> >>>> http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg >>> >>> **You seem to be under some kind of delusion that CO2 is completely >>> irrelevant, just because the effect from CO2 is smaller than that of >>> water vapour. That is your delusion. CO2 contributes between 9% ~ 26% of >>> Solar forcing. Those figures are considerably smaller than the >>> contribution of water vapour, but they are not insignificant. >> >> Water vapor is dominant, 65% and no one can fix that. > > **Water vapour the most significant GHG. However, despite what you seem > to believe, CO2 is not insignificant. call wv 65% and co2 10%, but that is only one dimension of the problem, relitive volumes, but look at table below at the other trace gasses with huge effect, a multipling effect, which weights the effective gas volumes. at $$$$$ > >> >> and you should read more, >> methane (cows) and both silicon tetrachloride, Hydrofluoric acid, >> Nitrogen Trifluoride are used in solar cell production have higher costs >> than CO2 > > **Sure. No dispute from my end. BTW: Methane release from permafrost is > rapidly becoming a very serious problem. The methane releases are > occurring because the planet is warming. > >> >> again, we are tired of spoon feeding you. CO2 has a small effect, > > **Wrong. CO2 is, behind water vapour, the next most significant GHG. > Smaller, but not insignificant. > > >> >> >> http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/solar-companies-creating-millions-of-pounds-of-polluted-sludge-contaminated-water/ >> $$$$$$ >> Global Warming Potentials Of Gases >> (100 Year Time Horizon) >> GAS GWP >> ======================== >> Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 >> Methane (CH4) 23 >> Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296 >> >> Hydrofluorocarbons >> HFC-23 12,000 >> HFC-125 3,400 >> HFC-134a 1,300 >> HFC-143a 4,300 >> HFC-152a 120 >> HFC-227ea 3,500 >> HFC-43-10mee 1,500 >> >> Fully Fluorinated Gases >> SF6 22,200 >> CF4 5,700 >> C2F6 11,900 >> C4F10 8,600 >> C6F14 9,000 >> >> The concept of the global warming potential (GWP) was developed to >> compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the >> atmosphere relative to another gas. In this case, CO2 is the reference >> gas. Methane, for example, has a GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. This >> means that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, methane is 23 times more >> potent than CO2 over a 100-year period. > > **Sort of. CO2 is a very stable molecule and has, therefore quite a long > atmospheric life-span (ca. 100 years). Methane has a relatively short > atmospheric life-span of around 10 years. Breakdown products include > CO2. That said, methane is a very serious problem and will become more > serious as more enters the atmosphere. Fortunately, sulfur hexafluoride > (the stuff they use in Nike shoes) is not generated in large amounts. > Nonetheless gases like the Nike stuff are very nasty GHGs. that is another dimention, degredation rate of the gasses, then another is where the gases are in the atmosphere, or where they like to accumulate to, or density vs height the point I am getting to, is problem complexity, as is we are adding dimentions to the problem, and after about 5 or 6, in general the problem is very hard to understand. I think with global warming we have 300 to 500 important dimentions, which generally indicates an unsolvable problem. you can bound it with obvious goals, decrease some of the gasses, but what will that do. a black box with say 800 inputs and adjustments with one output which is global average temperature. and the relations within the box are mostly linear, but many not linear. and the output effects the 800 imputs in some way (800 more adjustments) > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake >>>>>>>>>> tax >>>>>>>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to >>>>>>>> start. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>>>> >>>>>> it dosent matter what you think, >>>>> >>>>> **I said: >>>>> >>>>> "I am not trying to set up any kind of tax." >>>>> >>>>> I did not provide an opinion either way. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> that is the goal of climate change >>>>>> movement, once you pars out the green stuff. >>>>> >>>>> **Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information >>>>> pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple. >>>>> Others will likely make decisions based on that information. >>>> >>>> no, >>> >>> **Yes. >> >> no, they baby sit computer models. > > **You have no idea. None, whatsoever. I explained earlier that my > partner works as a Solar physicist. She regularly travels to stations > where remote monitoring takes place. She writes code and issues warnings > for interested parties (military, satellite companies, etc). Many of her > colleagues study climate science. They do similar stuff, but on a much > larger scale. They do not (all) "baby sit computer models". They do > actual RESEARCH. > Excellent! Are they surface stations, wind, temp, humidity, or more ? interconnected by sattilite or wireless? that kind of work is hard, but when you look back on it years later, it makes you proud you did it all. and it is fun to have the real data, to try to figure it out. complicated stuff. > >> >>> >>> >>> that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking >>>> what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. >>> >>> **Huh? >> >> you can't remember stuff from 2009 ? long term memory loss ? > > **No. You comment made no sense whatsoever. Re-read it. Again: English > please. I can't read your mind. > >> >> http://www.businessinsider.com/inconvenient-emails-heat-up-global-warming-conspiracy-2009-11 >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg >> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. >>> >>> >>> **Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. Nor the opinions of the >>> Fox network. >>> >>> >> >> you are obviously upset by Fox network. Instead listen to the EIB >> network, Rush will set your confused thinking straight. > > **Unlikely. I pay attention to the science. Something you would be well > advised to do. > > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 14:39 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <fij38cF3li5U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #679874 |
On 4/04/2018 2:12 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/3/2018 10:18 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 4/04/2018 11:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >>> On 4/3/2018 4:12 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>> On 2/04/2018 1:11 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>> On 4/1/2018 7:37 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>> On 2/04/2018 2:46 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: >>>>>>>>>> 'journalist' is >>>>>>>>>> very >>>>>>>>>> broad. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Really? You sure about that? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different >>>>>>> jobs. >>>>>> >>>>>> **OK. You're wrong (again). I proved it to you. >>>>> >>>>> no, you did not. they are two different words, with individual >>>>> meanings. and you don't know how to use a dictionary. >>>>> >>>>> Obviously, English is not your first language. >>>> >>>> **My first and only language. >>> >>> Queens English ? >> >> **Just English. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> sure, havent got time to look them up right now. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Of course. I expected nothing less of you. You have, as usual, got >>>>>> nothing. >>>>> >>>>> I don't owe you anything. >>>> >>>> **Correct. >>> >>> can you loan me $5 ? >> >> **Of course I can. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the >>>>>>>> difference. >>>>>>>> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >>>>>>>> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians >>>>>>>> in the >>>>>>>> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of >>>>>>>> science, >>>>>>>> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and >>>>>>>> we'll be >>>>>>>> forced to do so. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask >>>>>>> him. >>>>>> >>>>>> **It seems I need to make my words easier for you to understand. Pay >>>>>> close attention, lest I be forced to call you a moron: >>>>>> >>>>>> Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the >>>>>> difference. I >>>>>> am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >>>>>> Please >>>>>> pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the >>>>>> area of >>>>>> (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, you >>>>>> quote >>>>>> (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>>>> >>>>> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask >>>>> him. >>>> >>>> >>>> **Al Gore is a politician and DID NOT invent the internet. Dunno about >>>> "Glowball Worming" (whatever that is). What is "Glowball Worming"? >>>> >>>> Don't forget: English is my first and only language. Here's all I could >>>> find: >>>> >>>> 'Glowball' - Nothing in any English dictionary I can find. You'll need >>>> to provide a definition for us. >>>> >>>> 'Worming' - Much easier to find: >>>> " >>>> verb (used without object) >>>> 14. >>>> to move or act like a worm; creep, crawl, or advance slowly or >>>> stealthily. >>>> 15. >>>> to achieve something by insidious procedure (usually followed by into): >>>> to worm into another's favor. >>>> 16. >>>> Metallurgy. craze (def 8a). >>>> verb (used with object) >>>> 17. >>>> to cause to move or advance in a devious or stealthy manner: >>>> The thief wormed his hand into my coat pocket. >>>> 18. >>>> to get by persistent, insidious efforts (usually followed by out or >>>> from): >>>> to worm a secret out of a person. >>>> 19. >>>> to insinuate (oneself or one's way) into another's favor, confidence, >>>> etc.: >>>> to worm his way into the king's favor. >>>> 20. >>>> to free from worms: >>>> He wormed the puppies. >>>> 21. >>>> Nautical. to wind yarn or the like spirally round (a rope) so as to fill >>>> the spaces between the strands and render the surface smooth." >>>> >>>> Which of the above definitions do you mean by the word: 'worming'? >>>> >>>> I am sorry to say that much of what you say makes no sense.Please try >>>> to stick to proper English where possible. I do not speak whatever >>>> language you are using. >>> >>> that is your problem, dude. >> >> **Well, perhaps. >> >> >>> >>> You need to try harder, or perhaps you have never traveled to other >>> countries where Queens English is not precisely spoken in order, or not >>> spoken at all. You will have great trouble. >> >> **Not so far. >> >>> >>> I can travel most of the world and not have any of your problem of not >>> understanding 2 words. >> >> **Then why don't you explain what those two words mean? Why do you >> continue to obfuscate? >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Stop telling what some politician thinks about science. I am >>>>>> singularly >>>>>> disinterested. >>>>> >>>>> no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" >>>>> global worming articles that you have not read. >>>> >>>> >>>> **I will say again: Stop quoting POLITICIANS when discussing science. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. >>>> >>>> **I am citing SCIENCE. YOU are the one citing politicians. Therefore, >>>> YOU are the one with some kind of political agenda. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> And so should you be. Pay attention to the SCIENTISTS who >>>>>> work in climate research. >>>>>> >>>>>> Clear? >>>>> >>>>> Go ahead and believe your Al Gore, or some "scientests say" phrase, >>>>> from >>>>> your leftist mags. >>>> >>>> >>>> **I'll say again: I have no idea what Al Gore has to say about anything. >>>> AL Gore is a POLITICIAN. I don't listen to politicians. They're all full >>>> of shit. I listen to scientists on matters of science. That you pay >>>> attention to Al Gore and the Fox network on matters of science is >>>> obvious. And very, very stupid. I suggest you constrain your information >>>> stream on matters of science to SCIENTISTS, not POLITICIANS. >>> >>> Political parties pay for your news. >> >> **You sure about that? >> >>> >>> try this, find the orgional data sets of global surface temperatures, >>> not modified by someone, or made consice in a graph, but the numbers as >>> recorded.... >> >> **Why? >> >> Anyway, here is the data you require: >> >> https://datahub.io/core/global-temp >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> I ask for the data that they use, usally they cannot produce it or >>>>> it is >>>>> munged by a computer program to get answers somebody wants, and that is >>>>> where they fall short every time. >>>> >>>> **Yep. I see Fox Network propaganda in your words: >>>> >>>> http://climatescience.oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228620.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228620-e-367 >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I suggest you start reading, Science, Nature, NASA reports and the usual >>>> SCIENCE journals. Watching Fox will destroy what is left of your brain. >>> >>> why do you watch Fox news ? >> >> **I don't, but the question is: Why do you? >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Make such a mistake again and you will be treated the way you >>>>>> deserve to >>>>>> be. >>>>> >>>>> whoa! your asshole is puckering! >>>> >>>> **Nope. The sad thing is this: Unlike benj, you APPEAR to be reasonably >>>> intelligent, yet you clearly ignore the overwhelming science that >>>> comprehensively destroys the opinions of the muppets on Fox. Weird. >>> >>> nope, fox, cnn, pbs, NYTimes, NBC, CBS all poopus. the are all shit. >>> Even Reuters has some tinge on it. >>> Journalism cannot support itself on just reporting news, they get paid >>> by promoters of that news. (happened about 10 years ago) >>> >>> we are in a vast ocean of fake news, Facebook says they will fix it, >>> (which is impossible) as they sell your name and phone number to anybody >>> they want too. >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>>>>>>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail >>>>>>>>>> many, >>>>>>>>>> many >>>>>>>>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>>>>>>>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to >>>>>>>>>> note >>>>>>>>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>>>>>>>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>>>>>>>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>>>>>>>>> understand): >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up >>>>>>> there, and >>>>>>> they vanish as the water evaporates. >>>>>> >>>>>> **OK, I'll ask the question once more (in a simpler fashion, so you >>>>>> can >>>>>> understand): >>>>>> >>>>>> Are jet trails near the ground? >>>>> >>>>> do you think they are ? >>>> >>>> >>>> **No. Now YOU answer the question. >>>> >>>> are water tower plumes near the ground ? >>>> >>>> **What is a "water tower plume"? >>> >>> https://www.process-cooling.com/ext/resources/issues/2016/November/PC1116_ePublishing_Products05.jpg?1477927962 >>> >>> >>> if you are going to try to discuss this subject, you need to read more >>> about it, read the science not the fluff. >> >> >> **There you go. That was easy. I wonder why you are so incapable of >> answering any of my other requests? >> >> Anyway, to respond to your earlier question: >> >> Yes. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> A 'yes' or 'no' will be fine. >>>>> >>>>> yes, your asshole is puckered! >>>> >>>> **I have no idea what the fuck you're smoking, but you really should >>>> stop. It is screwing your brain. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> And you have >>>>>>>>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface >>>>>>>>> temperatures, >>>>>>>>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all >>>>>>>> measurement >>>>>>>> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has >>>>>>>> not >>>>>>>> been available for most of the period under discussion. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of >>>>>>> the earth. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Huh? Please point out precisely what words I used to cause you to >>>>>> think I said such a thing? Take your time. >>>>> >>>>> you are so confused, try to keep up, I dont want to spend my time >>>>> refocusing your brain as it is too loose. >>>> >>>> **Please point out PRECISELY what words I used to cause you to think >>>> that I said such a thing? >>>> >>>> I find it curious that you are so clearly unable to follow a logical, >>>> structured discussion. You manage to read words that were never placed >>>> on the screen. What is wrong with you? Presumably, you are under some >>>> kind of psychiatric care? Is it the drugs you are taking? Please let me >>>> know and I will make allowances for your apparent cognitive dissonance. >>> >>> you write poopus. That means you insult people when you are losing the >>> argument. >> >> **No, it does not: >> >> https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Poopus >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> "...satellite data has not been available for most of the period under >>>>> discussion." >>>>> >>>>> you have short term memory loss. >>>> >>>> **Nope. Direct temperature measurements have been available for the past >>>> several hundred years. As a consequence, I do not restrict temperature >>>> measurements to satellite data. Nor should you. >>> >>> so what is the tolerance band of older measurements ? >> >> **This will educate you: >> >> http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2000-05-28/news/0005280042_1_thermometers-readings-accurate >> >> >>> >>> what % of locations on the Earth were older measurement taken ? >> >> **Dunno. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> How >>>>>>>>>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less >>>>>>>>>> ignorant >>>>>>>>>> that you. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> tut tut. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly >>>>>>>> ignorant. >>>>>>>> He scurries away, when asked questions. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies >>>>>>> die >>>>>>> with a 0.1 F change in temperature. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Again: Please point out precisely where I made such a claim. >>>>> >>>>> **Again: you support articles like the OP, about Bunnies dying with a >>>>> 0.1F change, where Journalist reinterpret science. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Also, FWIW: Rabbits are a declared pest in Australia. They, along with >>>>>> cats, rats, pigs, goats and feral dogs, should be exterminated. Don't >>>>>> get me started on rabbits. Horrible creatures (in Australia). Farm >>>>>> losses, due to rabbit infestation is huge. >>>>> >>>>> isnt a lot warmer in Austrailia than in the Alps ? >>>> >>>> **Please re-parse that question in English. If I understand the question >>>> correctly (and it is not easy), then the answer is sometimes and in some >>>> places. At other times and places, no. >> >> **Was my response to your satisfaction? > > vague, but bunnies find the optimum temperagure range to live in AU, > same with the alps, but it seems the temp range for the bunnies is > better suited for rabbits in AU, than the alps (colder winters) **You say vague, but I answered the question in the only way possible. Some areas of Australia get quite cold in the Winter and some areas of the Alps get quite warm in the Summer. There are areas of Australia, where snow is on the ground for most of the year. Either way, the issue of rabbits is yet another strawman. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Global worming will >>>>> cause a HUGE BUNNIE BOOM in the ALps, not their deaths. >>>> >>>> **What is "Glowball worming"? The dictionary definitions don't assist >>>> with us being able to understand what the fuck you're trying to say. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thank you for proving the OP is bullshit! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>>>>>>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >>>>>>>>>> When >>>>>>>>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>>>>>>>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The >>>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their >>>>>>>>>> energy to >>>>>>>>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), >>>>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, >>>>>>>>>> CO2 >>>>>>>>>> acts >>>>>>>>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, >>>>>>>>>> thus >>>>>>>>>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 >>>>>>>>> to be >>>>>>>>> meaningful. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three >>>>>>>> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and >>>>>>>> 4um and >>>>>>>> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose >>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>> scientific reference, rather than Fox News. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use >>>>>>> W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I >>>>>>> think >>>>>>> you will find this is less than 3%. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Not even close to reality. Radiative forcing due to CO2 is >>>>>> between 7% >>>>>> ~ 26%, depending on time of day, year and other factors. >>>>> >>>>> I want you to show the math, this is a physics group. >>>> >>>> **It's difficult with ASCII, but I will do my best: >>>> >>>> DeltaT8 = Lambda X DeltaF Where: >>>> >>>> Lambda = Climate sensitivity paramater (K(W/m^2) >>>> DeltaF = Radiative forcing factor in W/m >>>> >>>> For CO2, the expression would be: >>>> >>>> LambdaF = 5.35 X lnC/CoWm^-2 >>>> >>>> Where: >>>> C = CO2 concentration in ppm >>>> Co = reference concentration >>>> >>>> >>>>> So far you cannot integrate the spectrial density. >>>> >>>> **What is: "spectrial density"? It is not a term I am familiar with, nor >>>> is any scientific dictionary able to shed light on what you're trying to >>>> say. >>>> >>> >>> it is plot of spectrum of the sun power vs wavelength. >> >> **Ah, SPECTRAL density. That I am familiar with. I should mention that I >> am trained in electronics and communications and my partner studies the >> Sun. Any questions I have WRT Solar physics, I refer to her. >> >> >>> >>> http://book.bionumbers.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/320-f1-SolarSpectrum-11.png >>> >>> >>> (ez google) >>> >>> integrate (or find the area under the curve) for co2, which is from >>> about 2000 to 2300 nm >> >> **Since I am trained in electronics, I am quite comfortable with Fourier >> analysis. There is no need for you to attempt to simplify your questions. >> > no need for Fourier, > simple integral to measure under the curve, actually, > there is another graph posted in this thread somewhere that had the > gasses and spectrum already pulled out, **Again, power under the curve is something I deal with on a daily basis. Mathematics is part of my job. And again: Introducing another strawman is your business. You built it, you burn it down. CO2 acts as a Solar forcing agent. Pure and simple. It acts on a level below H2O and above all other gases. > >>> >>> and you can do it for H2O, there are a lot more bands >>> >>> this one is better; >>> https://chiefio.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/atmospheric_absorption_bands-co2.png?w=850 >>> >>> >>> have you seen these before ? >> >> **Of course. What's your point? That water vapour has a larger Solar >> forcing effect than CO2? I knew that. Trouble is, you seem to believe >> that the effects of CO2 are insignificant. They're not. **Please answer the question. >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to >>>>>>> longer >>>>>>> wavelengths ? >>>>>> >>>>>> **You seem to be suffering some kind of delusion that the peak is >>>>>> important. You're wrong (again). I will explain: >>>>> >>>>> I see you don't do this often at all. >>>> >>>> **I try my best with you, but your inability to concentrate and >>>> communicate clearly makes it very difficult. >>> >>> I ignore your poopus, you want to end the discussion via insults ? >> >> **I want you to use English in your responses. I want you to discuss >> things rationally. If you do these things I will respond in kind. Act >> like a dickhead and I will respond accordingly. Fair enough? > > no problem, **Good stuff. > >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Only a very tiny amount of UV radiation (much less than IR) reaches >>>>>> the >>>>>> Earth, yet that UV is sufficient to cause Australia to be the skin >>>>>> cancer capital of the planet. The Sun radiates plenty of IR as well. >>>>> >>>>> try this link; it shows where UV is scattered, and where piddley CO2 >>>>> absorbation band is, and how H2O is the dominant Global Worming >>>>> Greenhouse Gas; >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://ice-age-ahead-iaa.ca/1/incoming_solar_irradiation1.jpg >>>> >>>> **You seem to be under some kind of delusion that CO2 is completely >>>> irrelevant, just because the effect from CO2 is smaller than that of >>>> water vapour. That is your delusion. CO2 contributes between 9% ~ 26% of >>>> Solar forcing. Those figures are considerably smaller than the >>>> contribution of water vapour, but they are not insignificant. >>> >>> Water vapor is dominant, 65% and no one can fix that. >> >> **Water vapour the most significant GHG. However, despite what you seem >> to believe, CO2 is not insignificant. > > call wv 65% and co2 10%, **No. Call water vapour between 36% ~ 72% and CO2, 9% ~ 26%. The mean level of water vapour would, therefore, be: 54% and the mean level CO2 forcing would be 17.5%. The influence of the gases varies according to season, time of day, etc. but that is only one dimension of the problem, > relitive volumes, but look at table below at the other trace gasses > with huge effect, a multipling effect, which weights the effective gas > volumes. at $$$$$ **You're missing the forest, because you're examining the bark on the trees. Sure, all those other gasses are very, very nasty and possess much high Solar forcing capacity than CO2. Trouble is: There is SO MUCH CO2 in the atmosphere and that level is increasing at a faster rate than at any time in (at least) the past million years. So, yes, we should act to reduce ALL GHGs. That includes CO2. And, before you say, there is no much we can do about H2O. > >> >>> >>> and you should read more, >>> methane (cows) and both silicon tetrachloride, Hydrofluoric acid, >>> Nitrogen Trifluoride are used in solar cell production have higher costs >>> than CO2 >> >> **Sure. No dispute from my end. BTW: Methane release from permafrost is >> rapidly becoming a very serious problem. The methane releases are >> occurring because the planet is warming. >> >>> >>> again, we are tired of spoon feeding you. CO2 has a small effect, >> >> **Wrong. CO2 is, behind water vapour, the next most significant GHG. >> Smaller, but not insignificant. >> >> >>> >>> >>> http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/02/11/solar-companies-creating-millions-of-pounds-of-polluted-sludge-contaminated-water/ >>> > > > $$$$$$ >>> Global Warming Potentials Of Gases >>> (100 Year Time Horizon) >>> GAS GWP >>> ======================== >>> Carbon dioxide (CO2) 1 >>> Methane (CH4) 23 >>> Nitrous oxide (N2O) 296 >>> >>> Hydrofluorocarbons >>> HFC-23 12,000 >>> HFC-125 3,400 >>> HFC-134a 1,300 >>> HFC-143a 4,300 >>> HFC-152a 120 >>> HFC-227ea 3,500 >>> HFC-43-10mee 1,500 >>> >>> Fully Fluorinated Gases >>> SF6 22,200 >>> CF4 5,700 >>> C2F6 11,900 >>> C4F10 8,600 >>> C6F14 9,000 >>> >>> The concept of the global warming potential (GWP) was developed to >>> compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the >>> atmosphere relative to another gas. In this case, CO2 is the reference >>> gas. Methane, for example, has a GWP of 23 over a 100-year period. This >>> means that on a kilogram for kilogram basis, methane is 23 times more >>> potent than CO2 over a 100-year period. >> >> **Sort of. CO2 is a very stable molecule and has, therefore quite a long >> atmospheric life-span (ca. 100 years). Methane has a relatively short >> atmospheric life-span of around 10 years. Breakdown products include >> CO2. That said, methane is a very serious problem and will become more >> serious as more enters the atmosphere. Fortunately, sulfur hexafluoride >> (the stuff they use in Nike shoes) is not generated in large amounts. >> Nonetheless gases like the Nike stuff are very nasty GHGs. > > that is another dimention, degredation rate of the gasses, then another > is where the gases are in the atmosphere, or where they like to > accumulate to, or density vs height **Yep. All true. However, CO2 is quite a stable molecule. > > the point I am getting to, is problem complexity, as is we are adding > dimentions to the problem, and after about 5 or 6, in general the > problem is very hard to understand. **No, it's not that hard to understand. CO2 is, far and away, the biggest problem we can deal with. It makes sense to deal with the stuff we can. > > I think with global warming we have 300 to 500 important dimentions, **Really? What are those dimensions? Feel free to list (say) 50. > which generally indicates an unsolvable problem. you can bound it with > obvious goals, decrease some of the gasses, but what will that do. **It would be insoluble, IF what you claim is correct. However, your claims do not hold water. For the past 10,000 years, we have enjoyed a relatively mild climate on this planet. For all that time, atmospheric CO2 levels have hovered around 280ppm. When humans began increasing those CO2 levels, temperatures began to rise. By continuing to increase CO2 levels, we are making the problem worse. Solution: Decrease CO2 emissions and, hopefully, decrease CO2 levels. > > a black box with say 800 inputs and adjustments with one output which is > global average temperature. and the relations within the box are mostly > linear, but many not linear. and the output effects the 800 imputs in > some way (800 more adjustments) **Again: IF your claims are correct, then yes. I doubt you can list 50 inputs, let alone 800. > > > > >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake >>>>>>>>>>> tax >>>>>>>>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to >>>>>>>>> start. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> it dosent matter what you think, >>>>>> >>>>>> **I said: >>>>>> >>>>>> "I am not trying to set up any kind of tax." >>>>>> >>>>>> I did not provide an opinion either way. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> that is the goal of climate change >>>>>>> movement, once you pars out the green stuff. >>>>>> >>>>>> **Wrong. The goal of climate scientists is to provide information >>>>>> pertaining to the reasons why the planet is warming. It's THAT simple. >>>>>> Others will likely make decisions based on that information. >>>>> >>>>> no, >>>> >>>> **Yes. >>> >>> no, they baby sit computer models. >> >> **You have no idea. None, whatsoever. I explained earlier that my >> partner works as a Solar physicist. She regularly travels to stations >> where remote monitoring takes place. She writes code and issues warnings >> for interested parties (military, satellite companies, etc). Many of her >> colleagues study climate science. They do similar stuff, but on a much >> larger scale. They do not (all) "baby sit computer models". They do >> actual RESEARCH. >> > > Excellent! Are they surface stations, wind, temp, humidity, or more ? **All the above and much, much more. Satellite data as well. > interconnected by sattilite or wireless? that kind of work is hard, but > when you look back on it years later, it makes you proud you did it all. > and it is fun to have the real data, to try to figure it out. > complicated stuff. **Indeed it is. And this is the kind of information they publish: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/index.shtml#tabs=Tracker&tracker=timeseries > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking >>>>> what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. >>>> >>>> **Huh? >>> >>> you can't remember stuff from 2009 ? long term memory loss ? >> >> **No. You comment made no sense whatsoever. Re-read it. Again: English >> please. I can't read your mind. >> >>> >>> http://www.businessinsider.com/inconvenient-emails-heat-up-global-warming-conspiracy-2009-11 >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> http://b.vimeocdn.com/ts/136/136007_640.jpg >>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. >>>> >>>> >>>> **Again: It's about the SCIENCE, not opinions. Nor the opinions of the >>>> Fox network. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> you are obviously upset by Fox network. Instead listen to the EIB >>> network, Rush will set your confused thinking straight. >> >> **Unlikely. I pay attention to the science. Something you would be well >> advised to do. >> >> >> > -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 08:40 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pa2h3k$leu$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679874 |
On 4/4/2018 12:12 AM, Sergio wrote: > bunnies find the optimum temperagure range to live in AU, > same with the alps, but it seems the temp range for the bunnies is > better suited for rabbits in AU, than the alps (colder winters) There are dozens of species of rabbit. There is no single "optimum temperature range" for all of them. > call wv 65% and co2 10%, but that is only one dimension of the problem, > relitive volumes, but look at table below at the other trace gasses > with huge effect, a multipling effect, which weights the effective gas > volumes. at $$$$$ "Trace gases" are, by definition, present at such dilution that even if gram for gram they are tens of thousands of times as potent as CO2 their net contribution is a minuscule fraction of CO2's. Most of them also have short residency times (excepting, unfortunately, CFCs, though we've phased out the use of those so at least more aren't accumulating). > I think with global warming we have 300 to 500 important dimentions, > which generally indicates an unsolvable problem. you can bound it with > obvious goals, decrease some of the gasses, but what will that do. No, actually, it's easy: since most of them are trace gases or have short residency times or (CFCs) are no longer accumulating, there are precisely 2 we need to focus on: CO2 and methane. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 08:15 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pa2fkb$isp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679849 |
On 4/3/2018 9:10 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/3/2018 4:12 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> comprehensively destroys the opinions of the muppets on Fox. Weird. > > nope, fox, cnn, pbs, NYTimes, NBC, CBS all poopus. the are all shit. > Even Reuters has some tinge on it. So you believe everything you read at 4chan and breitbart instead? Out of the frying pan, into the fire ... > Journalism cannot support itself on just reporting news, they get paid > by promoters of that news. (happened about 10 years ago) > > we are in a vast ocean of fake news, Another standard trumpie conspiracy theory. >> I find it curious that you are so clearly unable to follow a logical, >> structured discussion. You manage to read words that were never placed >> on the screen. What is wrong with you? Presumably, you are under some >> kind of psychiatric care? Is it the drugs you are taking? Please let me >> know and I will make allowances for your apparent cognitive dissonance. > > you write poopus. That means you insult people when you are losing the > argument. ... says the koOk who calls me "kensi pupa" every time he loses an argument to me. > Water vapor is dominant, 65% and no one can fix that. Water vapor has a very short residency time compared to CO2. So it basically just acts as an amplification factor on warming caused by CO2 or other sources. Lower CO2, temperatures drop, water vapor condenses out, temperatures drop more, more condensation, etc. until quickly a new equilibrium at a lower temperature is reached. Evaporate a bunch of water, and you get temporary warming before it settles back down to the same equilibrium within days. (You've likely experienced this yourself, in the form of a string of hot and humid summer days followed by thunderstorms and a spell of milder temperatures.) You have to raise one of the other ones (methane, residency time of decades; CO2, residency time over 1000 years; CFCs, etc.) to get a lasting period of higher temperatures. > and you should read more, > methane (cows) and both silicon tetrachloride, Hydrofluoric acid, > Nitrogen Trifluoride are used in solar cell production have higher costs > than CO2 We don't barf large quantitites of silicon tetrachloride into the atmosphere. Unfortunately the same can't be said for CO2. > http://www.businessinsider.com/inconvenient-emails-heat-up-global-warming-conspiracy-2009-11 Always conspiracy theories from right-wing media with you k00ks ... > you are obviously upset by Fox network. Instead listen to the EIB > network, Rush will set your confused thinking straight. *choke* *sputter* Speaking of "out of the frying pan and into the fire" ... -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 08:04 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <pa2evh$hbd$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679803 |
On 4/3/2018 5:12 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 2/04/2018 1:11 PM, Sergio wrote: >> no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" >> global worming articles that you have not read. > > **I will say again: Stop quoting POLITICIANS when discussing science. > >> You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. > > **I am citing SCIENCE. YOU are the one citing politicians. Therefore, > YOU are the one with some kind of political agenda. SPNAK! > I suggest you start reading, Science, Nature, NASA reports and the usual > SCIENCE journals. Watching Fox will destroy what is left of your brain. Sadly, I think that ship has long since sailed. > **Nope. The sad thing is this: Unlike benj, you APPEAR to be reasonably > intelligent, yet you clearly ignore the overwhelming science that > comprehensively destroys the opinions of the muppets on Fox. Weird. It is difficult to get someone to understand a thing, when their salary depends on their not understanding it. >> that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking >> what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. > > **Huh? Right-wing conspiracy theory. Since he's fallen for one, expect more: Pizzagate, AnonQ, 9/11 trutherism, chemtrails (oh wait he already alluded to those a few posts ago), Jade Helm, FEMA camps, Roswell, etc. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-04 08:02 -0600 |
| Message-ID | <jmm9cdhntn39qi7ke7us1ah74tdj7d9fcr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #679890 |
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 08:04:01 -0400, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> wrote: >On 4/3/2018 5:12 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 2/04/2018 1:11 PM, Sergio wrote: >>> no one cares what you think, you only parrot leftist "sciency" >>> global worming articles that you have not read. >> >> **I will say again: Stop quoting POLITICIANS when discussing science. >> >>> You are the one pushing *political agenda* for Climate change. >> >> **I am citing SCIENCE. YOU are the one citing politicians. Therefore, >> YOU are the one with some kind of political agenda. > >SPNAK! > >> I suggest you start reading, Science, Nature, NASA reports and the usual >> SCIENCE journals. Watching Fox will destroy what is left of your brain. > >Sadly, I think that ship has long since sailed. > >> **Nope. The sad thing is this: Unlike benj, you APPEAR to be reasonably >> intelligent, yet you clearly ignore the overwhelming science that >> comprehensively destroys the opinions of the muppets on Fox. Weird. > >It is difficult to get someone to understand a thing, when their salary >depends on their not understanding it. > >>> that was blow out by climate computer modelers leaked emails asking >>> what # did they want for Global Warming several years ago. >> >> **Huh? > >Right-wing conspiracy theory. Since he's fallen for one, expect more: >Pizzagate, AnonQ, 9/11 trutherism, chemtrails (oh wait he already >alluded to those a few posts ago), Jade Helm, FEMA camps, Roswell, etc. Let's not forget BLM,FBI,ANTIFA etc.....
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 00:01 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <BWhwC.97599$q15.39727@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #679430 |
On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: > >>>> >> >>>>> >>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>> >>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is very >>>> broad. >>>> >>> >>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. >> >> **Really? You sure about that? >> > > I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs. > > >>> >>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, >> >> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? >> > > sure, havent got time to look them up right now. > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >>> >>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated >> >> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. >> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the >> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, >> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >> >> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be >> forced to do so. > > > wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> > >> >>>> >>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>> >>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, many >>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note >>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>>> understand): >>> >>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. >> >> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? > > they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and > they vanish as the water evaporates. > >> >> >>>> >>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And you have >>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>> >>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>> >>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures, >>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? >> >> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement >> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not >> been available for most of the period under discussion. > > so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of > the earth. > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> How >>>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>>> >>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant >>>> that you. >>>> >>> >>> tut tut. >> >> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant. >> He scurries away, when asked questions. > > your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die > with a 0.1 F change in temperature. > > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>> >>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. When >>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2 >>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their energy to >>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus >>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 acts >>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus >>>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >>> >>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be >>> meaningful. >> >> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three >> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and >> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another >> scientific reference, rather than Fox News. > > true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use > W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think > you will find this is less than 3%. > > so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer > wavelengths ? > > > >> >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax >>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>> >>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>> >>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and >>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start. >> >> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. > > it dosent matter what you think, that is the goal of climate change > movement, once you pars out the green stuff. As usual waste of time, Trevor blathers on pretending to know science when he is obviously totally ignorant. IF he knew any science he would know that only ONE CO2 band is significant and why. Instead he tries to pretend to know some science by just babbling on with irrelevant nonsense hoping to fool the ignorant public into his energy tax. As I said, he's a total waste of time. He's obviously a paid propagandist for the scam.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 09:25 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p9tehe$1m94$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679528 |
On 4/1/2018 11:01 PM, benj wrote: > On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote: >> On 4/1/2018 2:31 AM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 1/04/2018 3:41 PM, Sergio wrote: >> >>>>> >>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Can't you get the difference between journalist and writer? >>>>> >>>>> **They can be regarded as the same thing. The term: 'journalist' is >>>>> very >>>>> broad. >>>>> >>>> >>>> wrong, they cannot be the same thing, they are two different words. >>> >>> **Really? You sure about that? >>> >> >> I'm sure about that. Some are both, most are not, two different jobs. >> >> >>>> >>>> failed scientists can become journlists, but most hate it, >>> >>> **Do they? Got some proof of that claim? >>> >> >> sure, havent got time to look them up right now. >> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>>> >>>> Al Gore showed a graph where they are unrelated >>> >>> **Al Gore is a POLITICIAN, not a SCIENTIST. Please learn the difference. >>> I am not interested in what a POLITICIAN has to say about SCIENCE. >>> Please pay attention to the emphasis. You may quote politicians in the >>> area of (you guessed it) POLITICS. When discussing matters of science, >>> you quote (you guessed it again) SCIENTISTS. >>> >>> Let's not place in at the same level as benj. Keep it up and we'll be >>> forced to do so. >> >> >> wrong, Al Gore invented Glowball Worming AND the internet, just ask him. >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >> >>> >>>>> >>>>> Do you notice that from 1940 - 1970 >>>>>> these data showed Temperature going DOWN while CO2 went up? >>>>> >>>>> **Yes. And that has been explained to you in exquisite detail many, >>>>> many >>>>> times previously. Do you ever pay attention? It is due to aerosol >>>>> pollution, caused by industry and motor vehicles. You may care to note >>>>> (but you probably won't) that temperatures began to rise when >>>>> governments around the world got serious about reducing aerosol >>>>> pollution. Here's some science that you won't bother reading (nor >>>>> understand): >>>> >>>> aerosol polution stays near the ground, and disipates. >>> >>> **Does it? How about jet trails? Are they near the ground too? >> >> they dissipate, just keep watching your chem trails up there, and >> they vanish as the water evaporates. >> >>> >>> >>>>> >>>>> https://www.ucsusa.org/global-warming/science-and-impacts/science/aerosols-and-global-warming-faq.html#.Wr3OO39x1pg >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> And you have >>>>>> the absolute balls to say this proves that CO2 "causes" warming? >>>>> >>>>> **Idiot. The science is undeniable. >>>> >>>> look at the data, it is sattilite data measuring surface temperatures, >>>> then highly averaged, ever see an error analysis of that muck ? >>> >>> **When examining temperatures, it is appropriate to use all measurement >>> criteria. That includes satellite data. However, satellite data has not >>> been available for most of the period under discussion. >> >> so you admit they do not have consistent data over the entire face of >> the earth. >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> How >>>>>> ignorant are you anyway. >>>>> >>>>> **I assume that was a question. I am clearly a whole lot less ignorant >>>>> that you. >>>>> >>>> >>>> tut tut. >>> >>> **Again: I calls it the way I sees it. benj is spectacularly ignorant. >>> He scurries away, when asked questions. >> >> your saying you are less ignorant than benj, but you believe bunnies die >> with a 0.1 F change in temperature. >> >> >> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Why don't you show how much science you know >>>>>> down in Oz and explain how radiative forcing made this happen? >>>>> >>>>> **Certainly. CO2 is resonant at a couple of infra-red frequencies. >>>>> When >>>>> infra-red (IR) hits those CO2 molecules, it causes them to vibrate >>>>> (accumulate kinetic energy). More IR = more kinetic energy. The CO2 >>>>> molecules are agitated sufficiently to transfer some of their >>>>> energy to >>>>> nearby molecules of atmospheric gases (nitrogen, oxygen, et al), thus >>>>> raising the energy level of the entire system. Most critically, CO2 >>>>> acts >>>>> at night, when IR energy is re-radiated from the Earth's surface, thus >>>>> nighttime temperatures are raised. >>>> >>>> try calculating it, your absorbation bands are too narrow on CO2 to be >>>> meaningful. >>> >>> **I HAVE calculated it. Many years ago. CO2 is resonant at three >>> frequencies in the IR band. Two narrow peaks at around 2.5um and 4um and >>> a much broader peak at around 15 ~ 20um. I suggest you choose another >>> scientific reference, rather than Fox News. >> >> true answer is to integrate across the wavelengths widths, (use >> W/m^2/nm) and compare to incoming sunlight to get a percentage. I think >> you will find this is less than 3%. >> >> so how does sunlight, which peaks at 0.5um with get converted to longer >> wavelengths ? >> >> >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> You are all liars criminals and scammers trying to set up a fake tax >>>>> to steal trillions of dollars. Shame on YOU. >>>>> >>>>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >>>> >>>> Carbon Market is the new stock market for trading carbon credits and >>>> futures, Wall street is pushing for it, about a 200B market to start. >>> >>> **I am not trying to set up any kind of tax. >> >> it dosent matter what you think, that is the goal of climate change >> movement, once you pars out the green stuff. > > As usual waste of time, Trevor blathers on pretending to know science > when he is obviously totally ignorant. IF he knew any science he would > know that only ONE CO2 band is significant and why. Instead he tries to > pretend to know some science by just babbling on with irrelevant > nonsense hoping to fool the ignorant public into his energy tax. > > As I said, he's a total waste of time. > He's obviously a paid propagandist for the scam. yep, no science or math from him.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | kensi <kkensington01@gmail.nospam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 05:16 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <p9ssdu$mh7$2@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679430 |
On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote: > chem trails It figures. -- "To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks "I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade in here." ~Checkmate
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 09:26 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <p9teil$1m94$3@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #679546 |
On 4/2/2018 4:16 AM, kensi wrote: > On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote: >> chem trails > > It figures. > Chem trails figure ?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2018-04-02 19:38 -0400 |
| Message-ID | <eazwC.98582$q15.55772@fx34.iad> |
| In reply to | #679566 |
On 4/2/2018 10:26 AM, Sergio wrote: > On 4/2/2018 4:16 AM, kensi wrote: >> On 4/1/2018 12:46 PM, Sergio wrote: >>> chem trails >> >> It figures. >> > > Chem trails figure ? > Yep. They spell out secret messages to "kensi' telling of coming doom from global warming!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 12 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 … 12 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics
csiph-web