Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN

[mamooth]

Put yourself in my shoes. If you had a stalker following you around the board for a year, constantly declaring your military service was fraudulent in thread after thread, how would you feel? I never bring the topic of my service up, only my stalker here does.

Another of my stalkers, xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx though that was more for stalking Saigon and calling his Finnish heritage fraudulent. The last guy in the feud, he and I have smoked the peace pipe, and we treat each other with much civility. Westwall? He simply won't stop, despite me repeatedly asking nicely for him to please cut it out. Having been left with no other options, I'll now be reporting him whenever he violates the board rules. Which isn't just the stalking. Calling people socks, as he did with oregonicman, is also directly against board rules.

 

[SSDD]

Reported again. Stalking, harassment and calling people socks are all violations of board rules.

Stalking and harassment? Sorta thin skinned ain't ya?

Bitter old dried up woman. After she finishes feeding her 178 cats, she has nothing to do the rest of the day other than test the limits of how badly she can be offended over inconsequential BS.

 

[polarbear]

Put yourself in my shoes. If you had a stalker following you around the board for a year, constantly declaring your military service was fraudulent in thread after thread, how would you feel? I never bring the topic of my service up, only my stalker here does.

Another of my stalkers, gslack, got permabanned, though that was more for stalking Saigon and calling his Finnish heritage fraudulent. The last guy in the feud, he and I have smoked the peace pipe, and we treat each other with much civility. Westwall? He simply won't stop, despite me repeatedly asking nicely for him to please cut it out. Having been left with no other options, I'll now be reporting him whenever he violates the board rules. Which isn't just the stalking. Calling people socks, as he did with oregonicman, is also directly against board rules.

I`m going out on a limb here by assuming you referred to me as "the last guy in the feud, he and I smoked the peace pipe"
I did the same thing with "OldRocks", also with equally positive results.
It`s not all that hard, all you have to do is give it a try but it does take both parties to cooperate.
I`ve tried it with some other folks here but they just bit the hand with which I offered the peace pipe and kept it up with the unnecessary insults or wrote a squall of incendiary 1 liner posts to derail any discussion which poses a problem for their point of view.
But I`m okay with that because I have to deal with this every day, settling heated arguments that erupt between my grand children,...even now as I`m writing this.
Those of you who are parents know what I`m talking about and will agree that it is better if a 3.rd party mitigates.
In a forum that would be the moderator but as soon as they do there are (sometimes legitimate) questions of impartiality.
Besides that, there is nothing a moderator can do if somebody deliberately derails a thread or buries somebody else`s post with a whole bunch of posts that are intended to suck another poster into a never ending exchange of insults...and next thing you know, is that a posting that was dealing with facts pro or con- gets buried...as intended.
So why even go there?
We are supposedly all adults who don`t need a nanny.
There is also no point in arguing who started the argument after it went over the top, all that does is pour more gas into the fire and so does a tally of who did what more often.
Both sides of this AGW controversy are equally guilty of deliberately offending their opponent and I`ve done it too, but try my best not to fire the first shot.
As a last resort there is always the "ignore" button but that only works for people who don`t insist to always have the last word.
For some strange reason some people think that having had the last word indicates that they defeated their opponent on an intellectual level and it never occurs to them that they`ve been left standing there by smarter people who have better things to do with their time rather than wasting it with a loudmouth.
Now the internet is a world of it`s own and fads like twitter or facebook thrive on this stupidity and "one-upmanship" in insults
It`s not hard to find examples everywhere:

It`s a shame the same kind of (popular) garbage also prevents any meaningful discussion in a forum which is supposed to be a platform where you can discuss issues such as the environment & global warming in a rational fashion.

 

[polarbear]

Ignorant, and willfully so. Mean of spirit and small of soul. You people only bow down to Mammon.

The evidence is overwhelming that we have changed the climate. And that the change will negatively impact all of us. The science is settled. Actually was settled a long time ago, but the denialists continue to lie about what science has said and even what science is.

And yet while this mantra is consistent, the only other constant is the LACK of any evidence to support the claim.

There has always been "climate change". The Earth wasn't static until 20 years ago when you morons dreamed up this CO2 trace-gas boogeyman that you can not predict, can not reasonably prove and yet continue to claim as real.

I've known children that claim the boogeyman is in their closet, too. Then when you open the closet and there is no boogeyman, suddenly Im told he's under the bed, then when checked, back in the closet....round and round we go.

So you want to prove the depths of your ignorance. The science is a bit more than 20 years old, you senile old fart. Joseph Fourier first noted that something in the atmosphere was absorbing outgoing heat in the 1820's. John Tyndall first measured the absorption of heat by various atmospheric gases in 1859. And Arrhenius of Sweden first quantified the affects in 1896.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect

Before flapping your silly yap and proving what an ignorant fool you truly are, perhaps a little research would be in order.

Okay let`s try and discuss this (again) right here and right now, even though this thread is about what the IPCC said might happen if we add more CO2:

John Tyndall first measured the absorption of heat by various atmospheric gases in 1859. And Arrhenius of Sweden first quantified the affects in 1896.

There are tons of graphs but none of them is as precise and revealing as the one in this video.
How CO2 traps sun's warmth | Thin Ice

Hugh Mortimer and Neil Bowles explain how the absorption of heat by greenhouse gases such as CO2 and water can be measured with a spectrometer.

I know Perkin Elmer IR`s and can assure everyone that what it recorded is dead accurate, but....
pay attention to the details now at 1:35
He`s got the perfect spectral snapshot of the intensity of incoming solar radiation at ground level after the beam of sunlight passed through the atmosphere.
Then at 2:17 he tells you that the peak on the right is "heat generated by the atmosphere" which has been absorbed by the earth and is re-emitted by the atmosphere.
The problem is that the telescope was still aimed at the sun and later captured how much less passed through "a puff of CO2" from his fire extinguisher.

The only way this claim would be valid is if he had not pointed the telescope at the sun but rather at a different sky sector where the setup does not capture the direct light beam coming from the sun.
Then and only then could he claim the peak intensity after 1500 cm^(-1) came from the atmosphere and not from the sun...
But he did not because had he done so the rest of the demonstration would have failed completely.
No matter it still failed.
Pay attention at 2:44, when and where he "puffs CO2 into the beam between the sun and the instrument"...and keep in mind that the IR spec is still in intensity, not in absorption mode....

Oooops what happened here at 3:09?
All these (blue) peaks which are supposed to be heat (back-) radiation that supposedly came from the H2O and the CO2 in the atmosphere shrank and they should have done the opposite, because no matter what how many times he says "absorbed", the IR was still in intensity mode
The AGW theory claims that if you add more CO2 then back radiation intensity increases, but as you can see it decreased,
And so it should, because the Perkin Elmer IR faithfully recorded how much less IR (intensity) was in "the beam between the sun and the instrument" after he "puffs CO2" into that beam which was a straight line from the sun down to the instrument.
At 3:19 in that video you can see the 750 to 650 cm^(-1) part of the spectrum in better detail and by how much the intensity has collapsed because the CO2 absorbed what was coming down this as he says, "beam between the sun and the instrument".

And that video demonstrates precisely the technical (as opposed to empirical) problem I`m having with AGW.
We could argue about the empirical data till hell freezes over to no avail if the physics as demonstrated in this experiment can`t back it up, but in fact shows that more CO2 does not just absorb IR leaving the surface ,but as shown here (substantially) absorbed it also from the IR coming down from the sun and lessening what is reaching the surface at the same time.
It would have been no trouble at all to point the telescope away from the sun and check if the(back-radiation) intensity is going up as you empty out, if you wish, the entire fire extinguisher into a 10 meter column of air ...which is said to be the layer which absorbs the up going IR and radiates 1/2 of the energy back down.
Again I have no issues with CO2/IR absorption, the issue is that CO2 is not a one-way mirror for IR, it absorbs and re-emits in all directions !...up and down, not just in the vertical up direction.
If it were as AGW would have it, then the Ivanpah engineers would gladly make use of a "back-radiation" with a quartz glass cap filled with "greenhouse gas" on the towers instead of loosing all that heat by radiation + convection and generate more steam instead of frying birds.

 

[whitehall]

The UN apparently doesn't give a shit about the real and present danger of Russia's invasion in the Crimea so they issue a bogus report about global warming which has become "climate change" because it's so damn cold and is so filled with distortions and bogus claims that it has become an embarrassment to all but the true believers. The UN aka the bar scene from Star Wars is in the extortion business and the US is the prime sugar daddy.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

"Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse," he said.

Seems to work pretty well here.

 

[westwall]

Put yourself in my shoes. If you had a stalker following you around the board for a year, constantly declaring your military service was fraudulent in thread after thread, how would you feel? I never bring the topic of my service up, only my stalker here does.

Another of my stalkers, gslack, got permabanned, though that was more for stalking Saigon and calling his Finnish heritage fraudulent. The last guy in the feud, he and I have smoked the peace pipe, and we treat each other with much civility. Westwall? He simply won't stop, despite me repeatedly asking nicely for him to please cut it out. Having been left with no other options, I'll now be reporting him whenever he violates the board rules. Which isn't just the stalking. Calling people socks, as he did with oregonicman, is also directly against board rules.

Stalker? Not hardly! I do find it amusing that you can call me names (hell you call almost every sceptic names) but when we give it back to you it's "Mooooommm, he's calling me names!"

Grow up and get a pair...

 

[Abraham3]

Put yourself in my shoes. If you had a stalker following you around the board for a year, constantly declaring your military service was fraudulent in thread after thread, how would you feel? I never bring the topic of my service up, only my stalker here does.

Another of my stalkers, gslack, got permabanned, though that was more for stalking Saigon and calling his Finnish heritage fraudulent. The last guy in the feud, he and I have smoked the peace pipe, and we treat each other with much civility. Westwall? He simply won't stop, despite me repeatedly asking nicely for him to please cut it out. Having been left with no other options, I'll now be reporting him whenever he violates the board rules. Which isn't just the stalking. Calling people socks, as he did with oregonicman, is also directly against board rules.

Stalker? Not hardly! I do find it amusing that you can call me names (hell you call almost every sceptic names) but when we give it back to you it's "Mooooommm, he's calling me names!"

Grow up and get a pair...

You have accused people of being sock puppets. That is a violation of the rules here. How is it that you've suffered no consequences from those actions? Might it have anything to do with the preponderance of deniers among the moderators on this board?

A search for YOUR posts including the word sock yields 120 results. I looked at the first ten and they all contained unique instances of you accusing other posters of being sock puppets. How can this be?

Let's find out.