Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics > #685859
| Subject | Re: Global Warming is a religion |
|---|---|
| Newsgroups | sci.physics |
| References | (12 earlier) <flrm4tFgsh4U1@mid.individual.net> <pda8vk$1ioo$1@gioia.aioe.org> <flro4hFhajbU1@mid.individual.net> <pdhs79$aj8$1@gioia.aioe.org> <fm3iseF98hqU1@mid.individual.net> |
| From | benj <benj@nobody.net> |
| Message-ID | <un2LC.141963$1e7.97459@fx38.iad> (permalink) |
| Date | 2018-05-16 18:36 -0400 |
On 5/16/2018 4:32 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: > On 17/05/2018 4:10 AM, Sergio wrote: >> On 5/13/2018 4:13 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>> On 14/05/2018 6:59 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>> On 5/13/2018 3:39 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>> On 13/05/2018 4:06 PM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>> On 5/12/2018 11:31 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 10:21 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>> On 5/12/2018 2:46 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 13/05/2018 1:20 AM, Sergio wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On 5/11/2018 11:52 PM, Trevor Wilson wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On 12/05/2018 2:11 PM, James McGinn wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, May 11, 2018 at 1:18:59 PM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 12:25:37 PM UTC-7, James McGinn >>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:55:51 AM UTC-7, reber G=emc^2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, May 10, 2018 at 10:43:02 AM UTC-7, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pnal...@gmail.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really, Jim, you should be peddling your Snake Oil in >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> forum, you have worn out your welcome in this one. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Everyone knows, without a shred of a doubt, that you are >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> another physics Crank with a goofy theory that has neither >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> observations nor experiments to offer as evidence to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> support >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You are just another waste of oxygen who is in search of an >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> audience, and there is zero chance that you are a physicist >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> since >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you don't even know that basics of that branch of science. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Go away, once and for all... >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> P.E.Worlds biggest air polluter will tell you the earth >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> needs >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> its >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dirty coal.Trump is now their big gun. Get the picture Bert >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 is beneficial. There is zero evidence that it warms the >>>>>>>>>>>>>> atmosphere. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Get the picture? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> CO2 acts as an insulating blanket.Heat doesnot leak back into >>>>>>>>>>>>> space.That is reality of global warming.Bert >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Why do you believe that? >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> **You seem to think that science is a belief system. It isn't. >>>>>>>>>>> Your >>>>>>>>>>> beliefs are not relevant. Science involves hypothesis, theory, >>>>>>>>>>> experiment and proof. The FACT that CO2 acts as a greenhouse >>>>>>>>>>> gas was >>>>>>>>>>> proven way back in the 19th century. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> same with Water Vapor, it is a greenhouse gas, and dominates the >>>>>>>>>> others >>>>>>>>>> as it is 50% >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> **Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most >>>>>>>>> of the >>>>>>>>> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is >>>>>>>>> 50% is >>>>>>>>> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >>>>>>>>> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing >>>>>>>>> ranges >>>>>>>>> from >>>>>>>>> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >>>>>>>>> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a >>>>>>>>> really >>>>>>>>> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> so water vapor is 3 to 4 time greater than CO2. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Nope. Read what I wrote. It is not as simplistic as you would >>>>>>> want it >>>>>>> to be. Both gases vary considerably, depending on time of day and >>>>>>> from >>>>>>> year to year. In any case, why do you continue to try to simplify >>>>>>> it? >>>>>>> Just state the facts. >>>>>> >>>>>> its ratioed, 36%/9% =4 and 72%/26% = 3 good ballpark of 3 to 4. >>>>> >>>>> **This is not 'best guess' stuff. This is science. Your errors are so >>>>> huge that any predictions of global warming, using your data would be >>>>> utterly useless. Let's stick the actual data, not your wild >>>>> approximations. >>>> >>>> >>>> The data *you presented* says Water Vapor is 3 to 4 times greater than >>>> CO2 at glowball warming. >>> >>> **That is NOT what I presented, you fucking liar. >> >> no need for course words, > > **"course words"? > > In any case, you're a fucking liar. It's a fact. > > >> it is written, and google has it now forever, you posted it on >> 5/12/2018, right after benj, this thread >> >> MID >> >> <flna9lFhfqfU1@mid.individual.net> <pd70p1$6nt$1@gioia.aioe.org> >> >> Quote; >> >> "**Not quite. Water vapour is certainly the dominant GHG, most of the >> time and in most places. To say that it's Solar forcing factor is 50% is >> a gross and highly misleading over-simplification. Depending on >> location, time of day and year, water vapour's Solar forcing ranges from >> 36% ~ 72%. CO2 ranges from 9% ~ 26%. So yes, water vapour is the >> dominant GHG, BUT, to label CO2 as 'insignificant' would be a really >> dumb thing to say. CO2 is a significant GHG." >> >> remember ? > > **Correct. I did NOT say: "3 to 4 times greater..." > > Quote me correctly, or I will continue to call you a fucking liar, > because that is what you are. > >> >> >> >>>> >>>> get over it. it is simple math using your data. google " ratio " >>>> >>>> guess you do not know math, which means you do not know science either. >>> >>> **LOL! Let's read further and see how much math you know. See the end of >>> this message for your snipped section. Idiot. >> >> " Ever ski on the slopes of tensor calculus ? " -Sergio >> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> And we cannot do anything about water vapor at all. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Well, not quite. A warming planet, through excessive CO2 >>>>>>> emissions, >>>>>>> causes more evaporation. >>>>>> >>>>>> and more evaporation causes more rain. >>>>> >>>>> **It MAY cause more rain, or it may cause more water vapour to >>>>> remain in >>>>> the atmosphere. >>>> >>>> so which is it? >>> >>> **Both. >>> >>> and why? >>> >>> **See: 'The hydrologic cycle'. Google it. It's basic year 10 school >>> stuff. Ask a 10 year old, if you can't understand it. >>> >>> or are you waiting for me to tell you ? >>> >>> **I've provided a starting point for you. Off you go. Even your lap-dog, >>> benj, might understand it. > > > **Have you studied the hydrologic cycle yet? There will be questions, so > study up. > >>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> so, what are you propose to do >>>>>> about water vapor ? >>>>> >>>>> **You keep asking that question. Refer to my previous responses. When >>>>> you ask the question again, refer, again, to my previous responses. >>>> >>>> your responce is un-responsive, like a zombie >>> >>> **Nope. I've already answered your question. Refer to my previous >>> 'responce' (sic). >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> nothing, cant, that term cannot be fixed >>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> **Really? How do you arrive at that figure? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> internet sources, here are some others, do you have any solid ones ? >>>>> >>>>> **Cite. >>>> >>>> you do not have any other evidence to counter 0.1 % CO2 >>> >>> **Cite your source of the 0.1% claim. >>> >> >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Failure to answer duly noted. > > Let me remind you of YOUR claim: > > "and we cannot do anything about CO2 except 0.1% of it." > >> >> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Percentage we are (supposedly) responsible for= 0.1% >>>>> >>>>> **Cite. >>> >>> **Cite. > > > **Cite. > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> 0% is man made. >>>>> >>>>> **That would be extremely pedantic of you. Humans are responsible for >>>>> the release of billions of Tonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere. >>>>> >>>>> The carbon has been on this planet since it was >>>>>> created. >>>>> >>>>> **Duh. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It was once in the air and was captured by plants that later >>>>>> turned into coal and oil. Man is just releasing back into the air >>>>>> what >>>>>> was once there in the first place. Right now there is about 380ppm of >>>>>> CO2 in the air. >>>>> >>>>> **BZZTT! It's MUCH closer to 410ppm. It was 380ppm way back in 2006. >>>> >>>> and that is only a 0.038% or 0.00038 of air. >>> >> >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > ** > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Current_concentration > > > "It currently constitutes about 0.041% by volume of the atmosphere, > (equal to 410 ppm)" > >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> of that human contribute less than 3% of that, or .0000114 >>>> >>>> parts per MILLION a trace gas bonehead >>> >>> **And again: What is your point? > > **And again: What is your point? > > >>> >>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> In the past it was over 5000ppm and the earth did just >>>>>> fine. >>>>> >>>>> **Well, it did, except sea levels were several hundred Metres higher >>>>> than they are today. It was also MUCH hotter. Too hot for human >>>>> survival. >>>> >>>> URL ? >>> >>> ** >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Past_sea_level#/media/File:Phanerozoic_Sea_Level.png >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> how much hotter ? >>> >>> ** >>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 1 degree C ? >>> >>> ** Nope. Nearer 12 degrees C. >>> >>> >>> How much higher was the ocean >>>> in feet ? >>> >>> **No idea. No scientist on this planet uses such arcane measurements >>> anymore. If you want to discuss science, then you need to adopt the >>> measurements used in science. >>> >>>> >>>> get to specifics. >>> >>> **Done. Unlike you, I supplied the requested cites. >>> >>>> >>>> And, to re-state: >>>>> >>>>> No one ever claimed that the planet would not be fine with higher >>>>> atmospheric CO2 levels. The problem is that many humans will >>>>> experience >>>>> considerable difficulty with global warming. >>>>> >>>>> No tipping point. >>>> >>>> <snip crap> >>> >>> >>> **And here is where I unsnip your stupidity How about you answer my >>> questions, since I answered all of yours): >>> >>> **Well, it could be argued that the high CO2 WERE the result of a >>> 'tipping point'. >> >> na >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Failure to make a valid point duly noted. > > >> >>> >>>> >>>> About 6% comes from human activities , totally overwhelmed by natural >>>> sources. >>> >>> **Huh? If I could obtain a 6% year on year interest on my investments >>> for 150 years, I'd be pretty damned happy. Like it or not, humans have >>> increased atmospheric CO2 levels by around 43%. That means your 6% is >>> VERY significant. >> >> cite? > > **Cite what? YOU made the 6% claim. > >> >>> >>>> >>>> So before it was something like 0.3% but over the last 20 years it has >>>> risen to 0.4%, and so that is what is causing all the problems... >>> >>> **What the fuck are you talking about now? >> >> science dude. >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html > > **Again: What the fuck are you talking about now? > > CO2 concentration is currently around 410ppm (0.041%, NOT 0.4%). Your > figures are out by more than an order of magnitude! If you make such > fundamental errors, time after time, how can we possibly believe a > single word you type. > > You don't know the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, you don't know that > CO2 is a molecule and you seem to think that the "Sun hits CO2 atoms". > > So much ignorance and so little time to educate. > >> >>> >>> More of your ignorance? >> >> insults towards me, only get you more science >> >> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth > > **I don't insult you. I merely draw your attention to you more egregious > errors. Yeah, Sergio misspells quite a bit! Hey Trevor, look at this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth#/media/File:Atmosphere_gas_proportions.svg See that Pie chart for CO2? Just as you've been telling the deniers all along, CO2 is almost 94% of the minor gasses!!!! Obviously YOU are right and yapping Sergio and Benj are dead wrong as usual. CO2 is a MAJOR minor gas. There can be little doubt now that you know your stuff! >>> So, what the fuck are you talking about? >> >> >> https://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html >> > > **OK, I get it now: You don't understand and you don't knw, so you just > blather. I think we just proved that above where we found CO2 to be a MAJOR minor gas! Trevor you da man! Chortle (Rule #5)
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