RE: Be Careful What You Wish For...

RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

DomKen -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/28/2014 10:07:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen It's too bad that when Kirata was furiously Googling he didn't bother checking to see that the real scientific community had already had their fun with such a silly claim. Yes, I knew about that comment and was hoping you'd post it. Thanks ever so much. Now bend over, bozo. It is shown that the notorious claim by Halpern et al. recently repeated in their comment that the method, logic, and conclusions of our "Falsification Of The CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics" would be in error has no foundation. Since Halpern et al. communicate our arguments incorrectly, their comment is scientifically vacuous. In particular, it is not true that we are "trying to apply the Clausius statement of the Second Law of Thermodynamics to only one side of a heat transfer process rather than the entire process" and that we are "systematically ignoring most non-radiative heat ows applicable to Earth's surface and atmosphere". Rather, our falsification paper discusses the violation of fundamental physical and mathematical principles in 14 examples of common pseudo-derivations of fictitious greenhouse effects... ~Link K. lol I read the paper. The comment is right these guys made basic fundamental errors of both science and logic. You can read the paper and see for yourself unless you are too fucking stupid to understand it. If CO2 doesn't trap photons then all of modern physics is wrong. Did your computer stop working? No? Then EM still works as it always has. And if you have the math, I know you don't but I dare you to try and refute this: http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324

Kirata -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 4:10:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen lol I read the paper. The comment is right these guys made basic fundamental errors of both science and logic. You can read the paper and see for yourself unless you are too fucking stupid to understand it. If CO2 doesn't trap photons then all of modern physics is wrong. Did your computer stop working? No? Then EM still works as it always has. I'm glad you're amused, but you don't get to stand up yet. Nowhere do Gerlich and Tscheuschner claim that CO2 doesn't absorb photons, nor is any such thing necessary to their argument. You're just making shit up again. K.

DomKen -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 4:53:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen lol I read the paper. The comment is right these guys made basic fundamental errors of both science and logic. You can read the paper and see for yourself unless you are too fucking stupid to understand it. If CO2 doesn't trap photons then all of modern physics is wrong. Did your computer stop working? No? Then EM still works as it always has. I'm glad you're amused, but you don't get to stand up yet. Nowhere do Gerlich and Tscheuschner claim that CO2 doesn't absorb photons, nor is any such thing necessary to their argument. You're just making shit up again. K. Yes, it is. That is what GHG's do. They trap and hold photons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_House_Gas Read the first line of the wiki. They use big words so get some one to explain it to you.

Kirata -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 5:06:00 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That is what GHG's do. They trap and hold photons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_House_Gas Read the first line of the wiki. They use big words so get some one to explain it to you. You're making shit up again. They don't "trap and hold" photons. They absorb and re-radiate them. A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. Get someone to explain to you what lying means. K.

DomKen -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 5:13:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That is what GHG's do. They trap and hold photons. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_House_Gas Read the first line of the wiki. They use big words so get some one to explain it to you. You're making shit up again. They don't "trap and hold" photons. They absorb and re-radiate them. A greenhouse gas (sometimes abbreviated GHG) is a gas in an atmosphere that absorbs and emits radiation within the thermal infrared range. That's the first of the link. I emphasized the big words for you in case you need to look them up. K. I'll try to explain this slowly for you. If the emission was instant then there would be no concern. It is how long it absorbs and holds the radiation that matters. Do try no to be so stupid.

Kirata -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 5:20:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll try to explain this slowly for you. If the emission was instant then there would be no concern. It is how long it absorbs and holds the radiation that matters. Do try no to be so stupid. Wrong again, bozo. What the theory argues is that when the molecules re-radiate they do so in all directions and therefore part of the heat (IR) that would otherwise have radiated into space ends up being re-directed back toward the Earth, warming it. K.

DomKen -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 2:07:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen I'll try to explain this slowly for you. If the emission was instant then there would be no concern. It is how long it absorbs and holds the radiation that matters. Do try no to be so stupid. Wrong again, bozo. What the theory argues is that when the molecules re-radiate they do so in all directions and therefore part of the heat (IR) that would otherwise have radiated into space ends up being re-directed back toward the Earth, warming it. Wrong. Everything radiates heat in every direction. That is the nature of heat. What matters is how long a GHG holds photons. Most gasses are essentially transparent to photons and therefore trap next to no heat. GHG do trap photons and therefor do build up and retain heat. That's why low humidity deserts get cold quickly at night and places that are very high humidity do not cool off very much at night (H2O is a very powerful GHG). This explains it in some depth http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html

Kirata -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 2:55:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This explains it in some depth http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html This also explains it in some depth... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/ Settled science, eh? K.

mnottertail -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 3:00:11 PM)
Well it is more settled than not settled, but nobody pays attention to the nuances, in certain (lower) concentrations, it is going to cool................at higher concentrations? Venus. At what point then, can we turn the spigot off? That is the shits here. If it raises concentrations enough, it runs wild and there will be no stopping it. If it stays low enough, it can get scrubbed off in time, but we cant adjust that like buttons on a radio, so............ Be careful what you wish for.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 3:08:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Gauge quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri I don't have a problem with informed consent laws, provided the information given is based in science, and not just rhetoric/propaganda. While it's true that it's your body, aren't the best decisions made when you have the most accurate information? There is a difference between being given a risk assessment of a medical procedure and being made to submit to political/religious propaganda. My slut is a nurse and we talked about this at great length today. Informed Consent is supposed to deal in factual information regarding the procedure being undertaken, anything outside of exact science is unnecessary. I agree completely. quote: I am truly fascinated with the legal aspect of this quandary. What are the States going to do? If they allow this exemption based on the religious objection to it, then doesn't that open doors for people to object to even more things based on their religion, or lack thereof? This whole religious freedom thing must also include the ability to choose to not have a religion and still be protected by the same laws. Will this cause Atheists to form an official religion with science as their God? I don't think the Supreme Court ever really expected this, well, except for Ginsburg. If the States enforce it, then it sets up a challenge in court that the Satanists will likely win. When they do, that then opens the door further for more civil actions in court to claim exemptions. What a fucked up situation that one court decision has created. I am stocking up on popcorn. [:)] I disagree that's it's a fucked up situation, though. But, I'm also opposed to forcing a business to pay for their employee's benefits, too. I think it's a good thing for them to do, but I'd much rather they make the decision on their own, rather than because of the threat of government action against them.

DomKen -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 5:30:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen This explains it in some depth http://www.windows2universe.org/earth/climate/greenhouse_effect_gases.html This also explains it in some depth... http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/05/co2-heats-the-atmosphere-a-counter-view/ Settled science, eh? That is the most completely full of shit crap I've ever seen. I'm guessing you're either too stupid, biased or uneducated to see where he is pulling the wool over your eyes. He assumes that the CO2* -> N2 collisions will occur at the same frequency as the N2* -> CO2 collisions which is simply ridiculous. The excited CO2 molecules is much larger than the excited N2 molecule and is therefore simply more likely to collide with other molecules. Further the N2 molecule will not remain excited for as long so it is far more likely to simply radiate a photon back into "space" than it is to transmit it to a neighboring air molecule. The only way his claim would be true is if the gas were held at a constant temp and an even mix of only CO2 and N2. Since that is not even remotely true of our atmosphere he is completely full of shit. You are welcome to check with real physicists if you want. He's making claims that simply aren't true.

Kirata -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/29/2014 6:01:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That is the most completely full of shit crap I've ever seen... He's making claims that simply aren't true. Well hey, Ken, thanks for sharing. But so far, it's been you making claims that aren't true and smart money never bucks a trend. [:)] K.

DomKen -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/30/2014 11:14:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen That is the most completely full of shit crap I've ever seen... He's making claims that simply aren't true. Well hey, Ken, thanks for sharing. But so far, it's been you making claims that aren't true and smart money never bucks a trend. [:)] K. Such a loser. Since I knew you were incapable of actually checking facts I held back the real killer. If this liars claims were true then the entire atmosphere would never change temperature. Consider, if CO2 <-> N2 prevented any rise in air temperature then what allows Any other gas in the air to increase or decrease in temperature? The exact same gas laws and processes apply to the interaction between all gases. H20 <-> N2 couldn't warm the air. Neither could O2 <-> N2 or N2 <-> O2 or CO2 <-> H2O which are all the common atmospheric gases. So since we all aren't frozen solid... You will notice, if you had actually bothered that the comments on that blog even include well educated climate deniers who say the guy is full of shit.

Kirata -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/30/2014 12:26:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen loser... liars... deniers yawn

DomKen -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/30/2014 1:12:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Kirata quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen loser... liars... deniers yawn What's that one you love about holes dumbass? You should run away. According to your source Venus should not be hot. Too bad it is.

Kirata -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/30/2014 1:20:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen According to your source Venus should not be hot. The statement we proved cannot be interpreted as “CO2 has no impact on the dynamics of the Earth-atmosphere system” . What we have proven is that the CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere in the bulk... Reading comprehension has never been your strong suit. K.

mnottertail -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/30/2014 2:05:54 PM)
What we have proven is that the CO2 cannot heat the atmosphere in the bulk... ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ No proof of that, Venus is, and it does and did, just that way.

freedomdwarf1 -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/30/2014 2:22:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen According to your source Venus should not be hot. Too bad it is. Could it be that Venus is a tad warmer because it's almost 26 million (25,724,740) miles closer to the sun?

Musicmystery -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/30/2014 2:30:21 PM)
It's because she's got it: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xo0l9_shocking-blue-venus-1970_music

mnottertail -> RE: Be Careful What You Wish For... (7/30/2014 2:45:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: freedomdwarf1 quote: ORIGINAL: DomKen According to your source Venus should not be hot. Too bad it is. Could it be that Venus is a tad warmer because it's almost 26 million (25,724,740) miles closer to the sun? OK, say we all stipulate that is the cause. You now have to explain how there is ice on Mercury (perhaps another 26 million miles closer to the sun) and temperatures of -170, to our satisfaction. You may use atmosphere in your explanation, if you wish.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625