Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #685789
| From | Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| Subject | Re: Global Warming is a religion |
| Date | 2018-05-16 13:10 -0500 |
| Organization | Aioe.org NNTP Server |
| Message-ID | <pdhs79$aj8$1@gioia.aioe.org> (permalink) |
| References | (10 earlier) <flpte4F4f6bU1@mid.individual.net> <pd8klu$nma$1@gioia.aioe.org> <flrm4tFgsh4U1@mid.individual.net> <pda8vk$1ioo$1@gioia.aioe.org> <flro4hFhajbU1@mid.individual.net> |
On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote:
>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote:
>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2
>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in another
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to support
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth needs
>>>>>>>>>>>>> its
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the
>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into
>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't.
>>>>>>>>> Your
>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory,
>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse
>>>>>>>>> gas was
>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the
>>>>>>>> others
>>>>>>>> as it is 50%
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the
>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is
>>>>>>> 50% is
>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really
>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would
>>>>> want it
>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and from
>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify it?
>>>>> Just state the facts.
>>>>
>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4.
>>>
>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so
>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be
>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild
>>> approximations.
>>
>>
>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than
>> CO2 at glowball warming.
>
> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar.
no need for course words,
it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on
5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread
MID
<flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org>
Quote;
"**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the
time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is
a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on
location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from
36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the
dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really
dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG."
remember ?
>>
>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio "
>>
>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either.
>
> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of
> this message for your snipped section. Idiot.
" Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 emissions,
>>>>> causes more evaporation.
>>>>
>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain.
>>>
>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to remain in
>>> the atmosphere.
>>
>> so which is it?
>
> **Both.
>
> and why?
>
> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school
> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it.
>
> or are you waiting for me to tell you ?
>
> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog,
> benj, might understand it.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> so, what are you propose to do
>>>> about water vapor ?
>>>
>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When
>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses.
>>
>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie
>
> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous
> 'responce' (sic).
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ?
>>>
>>> **Cite.
>>
>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2
>
> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim.
>
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1%
>>>
>>> **Cite.
>
> **Cite.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 0% is man made.
>>>
>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for
>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>>
>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was
>>>> created.
>>>
>>> **Duh.
>>>
>>>
>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later
>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air what
>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of
>>>> CO2 in the air.
>>>
>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006.
>>
>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air.
>
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>
>
>>
>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114
>>
>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead
>
> **And again: What is your point?
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just
>>>> fine.
>>>
>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher
>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human
>>> survival.
>>
>> URL ?
>
> **
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png
>
>
>
> how much hotter ?
>
> **
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png
>
>
>
> 1 degree C ?
>
> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C.
>
>
> How much higher was the ocean
>> in feet ?
>
> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements
> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the
> measurements used in science.
>
>>
>> get to specifics.
>
> **Done. Unlike you, I supplied the requested cites.
>
>>
>> And, to re-state:
>>>
>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher
>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will experience
>>> considerable difficulty with global warming.
>>>
>>> No tipping point.
>>
>> <snip crap>
>
>
> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my
> questions, since I answered all of yours):
>
> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a
> 'tipping point'.
na
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>
>>
>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural
>> sources.
>
> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments
> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have
> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is
> VERY significant.
cite?
>
>>
>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has
>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems...
>
> **What the fuck are you talking about now?
science dude.
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
>
> More of your ignorance?
insults towards me, only get you more science
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth
>
> So, what the fuck are you talking about?
https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html
Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 09:56 -0700
Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 10:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 10:55 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 12:25 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 16:06 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 16:30 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-10 17:26 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 18:16 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 13:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 15:28 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:02 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 23:03 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-11 14:49 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 20:58 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 21:11 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-11 21:42 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 14:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:20 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:55 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 12:27 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:46 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:21 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 14:31 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 01:06 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 06:39 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-13 15:59 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-14 07:13 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 13:10 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 06:32 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 16:05 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 08:27 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:08 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-17 13:30 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-16 18:36 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-16 20:14 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:36 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:42 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Steve BH <sbharris@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 19:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:53 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-10 12:54 -0700
Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-10 11:19 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 10:23 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-22 14:35 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-22 16:28 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-11 13:52 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-11 07:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 06:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-11 18:27 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 11:59 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 00:02 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-11 21:13 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-12 12:00 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 10:25 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 15:00 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 08:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 06:01 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:17 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 21:07 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 22:13 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-05-12 13:40 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "reber G=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 14:52 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2018-05-12 16:03 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2018-05-12 17:45 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 16:18 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion Sergio <invalid@invalid.com> - 2018-05-12 19:22 -0500
Re: Global Warming is a religion James McGinn <jimmcginn9@gmail.com> - 2018-05-12 17:57 -0700
Re: Global Warming is a religion benj <benj@nobody.net> - 2018-05-12 14:42 -0400
Re: Global Warming is a religion Trevor Wilson <trevor@SPAMBLOCKrageaudio.com.au> - 2018-05-13 05:49 +1000
Re: Global Warming is a religion Arindam Banerjee <banerjeeadda1234@gmail.com> - 2018-05-13 04:34 -0700
csiph-web