Greenland glaciers receding SLOWER then in the 1930s..

[westwall]

Yes, these poor people wrap themselves up in all sorts of ridiculous contortions to try and have warmth be the cause but cold is the most likely cause of all of the mass extinctions. The temps at the time of the extinctions has allways been much higher than the current day and the thought that a 1.5 degree increase being catostrophic is simply absurd. Cold on the other hand, especially in a land used to warmth, that is a killer.

But don't let a little thing called logic bother you.

What makes you think, with your head up your ass, how a little thing like logic is going to bother you?

Logic has never bothered me, you on the other run screaming from the room whenever logic rears its ugly little head.....or is that your ugly head?

 

[wirebender]

Computer models are sometimes used, to present outcomes, indicated by a lot of statistical data, you hermaphrodite. Maybe by "carbonic acid poisoning" you are referring to this, Wienerbitch:

And there, bob old buddy, is where science turns into faith; where strict adherence to the scientific method decends into some sort of cult. The output of a computer model is only as good as the software, and the software is only as good as the programmer's understanding of the system he or she intends to model, and the computer power available to run the software.

At present bobo, we don't begin to understand the systems involved enough to write software anything like comprehensive enough to model the systems involved. At present, the software you put your faith in is based on little more than flawed physics, assumptions, and the programmer's own bias. That is why present day modelling is of less value than random guesses.

All of this claptrap you post is the result of computer modelling, not actual observation or observable, repeatable experimentation which is what real science is all about. You guys take on faith that computer output is of some value when time after time, the computer models prove themselves worthless.

 

[IanC]

Do suggest which law of physics might be violated, on some thread, Queen Wee-ner-beeyatch, since it's your stupid idea, on multiple threads, some law of physics might be violated, by warming, from an accelerating onslaught, of pernicious GHGs.

Again, no answer and again, no answer was expected because bob, it has become abundantly obvious that you literally don't know jack. You are a cut and paste drone who doesn't understand the first part of what you put here.

As to which laws are violated by the greenhouse effect described by climate science, there is the first and second laws of thermodynamics, the law of conservation of energy, and the Stefan-Boltzman law to name the four I stated that came to me off the top of my head.

Now I don't expect you to know what those laws say or how they apply to climate change and I am afraid that you won't find anything to cut and paste from a "credible" source because climate pseudoscientists stay far away from ANY discussion of physical laws.

And of course, you can't describe the mechanism by which so called greenhouse gasses might cause warming because in all probablity, you don't even know what the word mechanism means and therefore don't even know what I am asking for.

I am going to copntinue asking you questions bob and I am going to continue to revel in, and point out your complete inability to answer even the most basic ones.

So again, by what mechanism do you believe so called greenhouse gasses cause warming.

And since you pretended to be able to do math, here is a very simple one that cuts right to the heart of the agw scam. Here is one of the primary equations upon which manmade climate change is based. Take this away, and the whole hypothesis crumbles. Show me, if you can, where backraditon might be expressed in this equation.

So show me how little you know by calling names, and who knows what other sort of ranting you may spew instead of simply answering the very basic and simple questions put to you.

power across a temperature differential

using associative mathematical rules state that this can be rewritten as P= K(T^4)-K(Tc^4) therefore Power equals radiation of the warmer body minus radiation of the cooler body.

cue for wirebender to say that this is the 'corrupt version', even though it is mathematically correct. we are to take it on faith that he is right, and even though one method produces exactly the same answer as the other, the 'corrupt version' is somehow wrong.

 

[wirebender]

using associative mathematical rules state that this can be rewritten as P= K(T^4)-K(Tc^4) therefore Power equals radiation of the warmer body minus radiation of the cooler body.

Physics much? If you have any background in physics at all ian, then you should know that equations describe things that are happeing in the physical world. You can't just go about applying algebraic properties to equations in physics because in doing so, you are describing a different physical reality. If you are going to apply an algebraic property to an equation in physics you must first define a meaning for the use of the property.

cue for wirebender to say that this is the 'corrupt version', even though it is mathematically correct. we are to take it on faith that he is right, and even though one method produces exactly the same answer as the other, the 'corrupt version' is somehow wrong.

In physics ian, you are not simply looking for an answer. Equations in physics describe physical reality. Alter the equation and you alter the reality. You end up with the same answer but you alter what is actually happening. In physics, if you are going to apply an algebraic property to an equation, you have to define what the use of that property means and your definition must be specific. There is no possibility of backradiation in the actual S-B equation. Corrupt the SB equation via the use of an undefined, unspecified use of an algebraic property and viola, you have backradiation even though the 2nd law says it simply can't happen. When confronted with that, then the warmist says that the 2nd law doesn't actually mean what it says even though the 2nd law is stated in absolute terms.

Yeah yeah yeah....I have heard it all before and am sure I will hear it again but the bottom line is that the laws of physcs, as they are stated and accepted support me ian, not you. The scientific dictionaries support me, not you. And the work being done by N&Z, Jelbring, and Graeff, et.al. suggest that those whose work I have believed was correct for a very long time is, in fact, correct and no greenhouse effect as described by climate science, either the real wack jobs or luke warmers like yourself exist.

The laws of physics have meaning ian whether you accept that meaning or not. They are stated in absolute terms for a reason whether you like that or not. They are called laws for a reason whether you like that or not. And they simply won't cooperate when they are altered for matters of convenience and agenda whether you like that or not.

 

[IanC]

using associative mathematical rules state that this can be rewritten as P= K(T^4)-K(Tc^4) therefore Power equals radiation of the warmer body minus radiation of the cooler body.

Physics much? If you have any background in physics at all ian, then you should know that equations describe things that are happeing in the physical world. You can't just go about applying algebraic properties to equations in physics because in doing so, you are describing a different physical reality. If you are going to apply an algebraic property to an equation in physics you must first define a meaning for the use of the property.

cue for wirebender to say that this is the 'corrupt version', even though it is mathematically correct. we are to take it on faith that he is right, and even though one method produces exactly the same answer as the other, the 'corrupt version' is somehow wrong.

In physics ian, you are not simply looking for an answer. Equations in physics describe physical reality. Alter the equation and you alter the reality. You end up with the same answer but you alter what is actually happening. In physics, if you are going to apply an algebraic property to an equation, you have to define what the use of that property means and your definition must be specific. There is no possibility of backradiation in the actual S-B equation. Corrupt the SB equation via the use of an undefined, unspecified use of an algebraic property and viola, you have backradiation even though the 2nd law says it simply can't happen. When confronted with that, then the warmist says that the 2nd law doesn't actually mean what it says even though the 2nd law is stated in absolute terms.

Yeah yeah yeah....I have heard it all before and am sure I will hear it again but the bottom line is that the laws of physcs, as they are stated and accepted support me ian, not you. The scientific dictionaries support me, not you. And the work being done by N&Z, Jelbring, and Graeff, et.al. suggest that those whose work I have believed was correct for a very long time is, in fact, correct and no greenhouse effect as described by climate science, either the real wack jobs or luke warmers like yourself exist.

The laws of physics have meaning ian whether you accept that meaning or not. They are stated in absolute terms for a reason whether you like that or not. They are called laws for a reason whether you like that or not. And they simply won't cooperate when they are altered for matters of convenience and agenda whether you like that or not.

'my' version of physics says that every body above zero degrees kelvin radiates whether or not it is close to a warmer body. your version implies that there is some beancounting diety that watches every interaction in the universe to measure temperatures and decides which particles get to radiate or not. Im guessing that most knowledgeable people will decide to leave out Maxwell's Daemon and go with every particle radiates according to its temperature.

 

[IanC]

the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.

 

[wirebender]

the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.

Talk about not getting the story straight. I have never suggested that cool objects don't radiate, I have only said, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports me when I say it, that cooler objects can not further warm warmer objects. I guess I have told yo that 10 times and you just keep offering up the dishonest description of what I have said.

 

[wirebender]

'my' version of physics says that every body above zero degrees kelvin radiates whether or not it is close to a warmer body.

So does mine ian. For the life of me I can't understand why you keep telling that bald faced lie. And "my" version is supported by the statement of the 2nd law of thermodynamcis while "your" version is not. Who is probably right?

your version implies that there is some beancounting diety that watches every interaction in the universe to measure temperatures and decides which particles get to radiate or not.

Again, completely untrue even though I have explained my postion to you over and over. What is this compunction you have to lie about me and what I have said simply because you don't agree with me.

 

[bobgnote]

the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.

Talk about not getting the story straight. I have never suggested that cool objects don't radiate, I have only said, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports me when I say it, that cooler objects can not further warm warmer objects. I guess I have told yo that 10 times and you just keep offering up the dishonest description of what I have said.

Wienerbitch, since you are so awesome at physics, sort all heat and light radiation, in all directions, evident, during dissipation of all solar energy, by relatively warm and relatively cool subjects, with coefficients for spherical rotation phenomena, to account for radiation, which actually makes its way, back into space, and to account for all radiation, which is absorbed.

You have to sort all radiation absorption and re-emission tendencies, possible, from the get-go, or do a better job of throwing Ian over, which you haven't done, in three posts.

THEN you are a smart Wienerbitch, not before, since you are mucking in a can of worms, and you have proven, redundantly, you have no intention of defining any practical or theoretical problems, to expedite solutions. That's Wienerbitch!

 

[wirebender]

Wienerbitch, since you are so awesome at physics, sort all heat and light radiation, in all directions, evident, during dissipation of all solar energy, by relatively warm and relatively cool subjects, with coefficients for spherical rotation phenomena, to account for radiation, which actually makes its way, back into space, and to account for all radiation, which is absorbed.

All that "sorting" isn't necessary bobo. The laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzman law, and the law of conservation of energy tells you what is going to happen. All one need know is the absorption spectra of the various so called greenhouse gasses.

You know so little bob that you don't even know how much you don't know.

Now, how about you step on up to the plate and tell us how you believe CO2 causes warming; and do it without violating a law of physics.

 

[ScienceRocks]

the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.

Talk about not getting the story straight. I have never suggested that cool objects don't radiate, I have only said, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports me when I say it, that cooler objects can not further warm warmer objects. I guess I have told yo that 10 times and you just keep offering up the dishonest description of what I have said.

You're right about the second law of Thermodynamics. Only a warm object can add heat to a cold object...

 

[ScienceRocks]

Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1]
Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.

 

[wirebender]

Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1]
Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.

ian, among other luke warmers are operating under the belief that the second law of thermodynamics doesn't actually mean what it says and is rather a sort of statistical guideline. If that were true, the statement would not be written in absolute terms. If the second law were talking about net flows, then it would state net flows. Alsas it doesn't.

 

[bobgnote]

the really strange part is that I have read a lot of the stuff wirebender talks about and he doesnt even get the story straight. the 'slaying the skydragon' guy doesnt say that there is no 'back radiation', he says there is 'harmonic reflection' or some such jargon, and that the end result is just the same as if the back radiation was absorbed. just that it isnt. he is not arguing that it changes the numbers, he just wants to describe the situation differently. unlike wirebender who says the radiation from the cooler body never exists.

Talk about not getting the story straight. I have never suggested that cool objects don't radiate, I have only said, and the 2nd law of thermodynamics supports me when I say it, that cooler objects can not further warm warmer objects. I guess I have told yo that 10 times and you just keep offering up the dishonest description of what I have said.

You're right about the second law of Thermodynamics. Only a warm object can add heat to a cold object...

So what are they talking about, Matthew? Is it 100% convected heat? Noooo . . .

Did they get to ALL the points about energy diffusion, refraction, absorption, radiation, emission, and convection, from all angles, to all angles, from all points and masses, to all points and masses, in any media? Noooo . . .

Ian is trying to get asshole Wienerbitch to sort himself out, past trying to convince the world he is an expert at hermaphordite act-ups, so we should all let him take us off, since he's both mysterious and SMAAART! Like a fart. Wienerbitch happens to be completely full of shit.

You should check the Wienerbitch-weather-wire, and smarten up. Where have you been, anyway, out chasing Negroes?

 

[Greenbeard]

You can't just go about applying algebraic properties to equations in physics because in doing so, you are describing a different physical reality.

You are, in fact, allowed to perform mathematical operations on mathematical equations in physics.

 

[IanC]

Clausius statement

German scientist Rudolf Clausius is credited with the first formulation of the second law, now known as the Clausius statement:[4]
No process is possible whose sole result is the transfer of heat from a body of lower temperature to a body of higher temperature.[note 1]
Spontaneously, heat cannot flow from cold regions to hot regions without external work being performed on the system, which is evident from ordinary experience of refrigeration, for example. In a refrigerator, heat flows from cold to hot, but only when forced by an external agent, a compressor.

CO2 and the atmosphere dont 'warm' the surface. they change the equilibrium at the surface as the sun's input goes through the system and exits into space.

 

[wirebender]

So what are they talking about, Matthew? Is it 100% convected heat? Noooo . . .

It is clear that you don't have the slightest clue as to what ian and I are talking about bob. It is so far over your head as to be unobservable.

Did they get to ALL the points about energy diffusion, refraction, absorption, radiation, emission, and convection, from all angles, to all angles, from all points and masses, to all points and masses, in any media? Noooo . . .

And again bob, you need not talk about all of the possible means of heat transport. The various laws of physics tell you what is going to happen. For example, it doesn't matter whether you are talking about absorption, raidation, emission, or any other means of transporting heat, energy will not flow from cold to warm. The second law says that it is not possible for energy to flow from cold to warm. They are laws of nature bob, not laws of systems and they don't alter depending upon what sort of system you are talking about.

Ian is trying to get asshole Wienerbitch to sort himself out, past trying to convince the world he is an expert at hermaphordite act-ups, so we should all let him take us off, since he's both mysterious and SMAAART! Like a fart. Wienerbitch happens to be completely full of shit.

ian is wrong bob and the work of N&Z, Jelbring, and Graeff are proving him, and all warmers and luke warmers wrong and doing so via the laws of physics, observation, and repeatable experimentation.

 

[wirebender]

You can't just go about applying algebraic properties to equations in physics because in doing so, you are describing a different physical reality.

You are, in fact, allowed to perform mathematical operations on mathematical equations in physics.

Of course you are but you must first define, and specify what the use of the property means. I have looked and in the case of the S-B equations no such meaning has ever been specified. Physics isn't just about getting an answer, it is about describing reality and therefore when you are going to alter an equation that represents a known reality, you must define the alteration. That is, describe and justify the reality that the alteration of the equation suggests.

ian and I have been having this discussion regarding the use of the Stefan-Boltzman equations as used by climate science, which, by the way Nikolov and Zeller have proven to be wrong and the actual laboratory experimentation by Graeff has proven this error.

The actual Stefan-Boltzman equation is as follows:

This equation describes an energy change between a radiator and a background in which the radiator is of a higher temperature than the background. The SB law is only valid when the temperature of the emitter is higher than that of the background.

The altered S-B equation that is taught in climate physics but not classical physics and which has never had the use of the distributive property of algebra defined is as follows:

This equation allows T to be set to zero which is contrary to the S-B law which requires that the temperature of T (the radiator) be greater than that of the background. It effectvely applies the SB law twice to the equation wherein radiation = the difference between the temperature of the ratiator and that of the backtround (then you make the background the emitter and the emitter the background) and subtract the temperature difference after you have made the cold background the warmer emitter and have made the warmer emitter the colder background.

The bottom line is the same using either equation, but one describes a physical reality while the other does not. Aside from all that, applying the distributive property to the S-B equation is just bad math. Why would you rationally complicate an equation by applying the distributive property to an equation which was already in its simplest form? The answer is to create the illusion of backradiation when backradiation is necessary to make your flawed hypothesis appear correct.

This misuse of the SB equations is a very fundamental part of the error cascade that has become climate science. The flawed equation is actually being taught as if it were correct and is now simply assumed throughout climate science. The problem is that it is wrong and therefore every climate model which uses it (and they all do) is wrong as evidenced by the fact that study after study has found that climate models are worse at predicting the climate than random guessing.

So yes, you can apply algebraic properties to equations in physics, but you must define, and justify the use of the property as it will alter the physical reality that the equation is describing. In this case, it has never been either defined or justified and its use makes no sense whatsoever from a mathematical point of view because it complicates an equation that was already elegant. It was done with malicious intent and has now become a fundamental, and fatal error encoded into climate science. Take away that equation and all of the claims of climate science come crashing down.

 

[wirebender]

CO2 and the atmosphere dont 'warm' the surface. they change the equilibrium at the surface as the sun's input goes through the system and exits into space.

The claim of climate science (aside from your own description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming) is that CO2 radiates IR from the atmosphere back to the surface where it is reabsorbed and causes warming.

FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Page 115 - Frequently asked question 1.3

"what is the greenhouse effect"

"The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet)part of the spectrum.
Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space.
Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

You like to go on about what you call "my" theories on radiation when your own ideas about how CO2 causes warming are off the reservation as well ian. Climate science officilaly states that backradiation from the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, not the (also impossible) "slowing down" IR in its exit from the atmosphere.

Now you didn't come up with the idea that CO2 slows down IR from exiting the atmosphere any more than I came up with the physical laws, science, and mathematics that I use to support my position. Those that I reference, however, are not only supported, but are predicted by the laws of physics. (which, by the way is the reason that I believe they are correct) Those you use, on the other hand, are neither supported nor predicted by the laws of physics, and as you have shown repeatedly, you must alter the statements of the various laws in order for your position to even begin to make sense. This is the pseudoscience that you have adopted because it supported your already held belief that CO2 somehow must have the capacity to cause warming.

You picked the wrong horse ian. When will you admit it.

 

[IanC]

CO2 and the atmosphere dont 'warm' the surface. they change the equilibrium at the surface as the sun's input goes through the system and exits into space.

The claim of climate science (aside from your own description of the mechanism by which CO2 causes warming) is that CO2 radiates IR from the atmosphere back to the surface where it is reabsorbed and causes warming.

FAQ 1.3 - AR4 WGI Chapter 1: Historical Overview of Climate Change Science

Page 115 - Frequently asked question 1.3

"what is the greenhouse effect"

"The Sun powers Earth’s climate, radiating energy at very short wavelengths, predominately in the visible or near-visible (e.g., ultraviolet)part of the spectrum.
Roughly one-third of the solar energy that reaches the top of Earth’s atmosphere is reflected directly back to space. The remaining two-thirds is absorbed by the surface and, to a lesser extent, by the atmosphere. To balance the absorbed incoming energy, the Earth must, on average, radiate the same amount of energy back to space.
Because the Earth is much colder than the Sun, it radiates at much longer wavelengths, primarily in the infrared part of the spectrum (see Figure 1). Much of this thermal radiation emitted by the land and ocean is absorbed by the atmosphere, including clouds, and reradiated back to Earth. This is called the greenhouse effect."

You like to go on about what you call "my" theories on radiation when your own ideas about how CO2 causes warming are off the reservation as well ian. Climate science officilaly states that backradiation from the atmosphere back to the surface of the earth is the mechanism of the greenhouse effect, not the (also impossible) "slowing down" IR in its exit from the atmosphere.

Now you didn't come up with the idea that CO2 slows down IR from exiting the atmosphere any more than I came up with the physical laws, science, and mathematics that I use to support my position. Those that I reference, however, are not only supported, but are predicted by the laws of physics. (which, by the way is the reason that I believe they are correct) Those you use, on the other hand, are neither supported nor predicted by the laws of physics, and as you have shown repeatedly, you must alter the statements of the various laws in order for your position to even begin to make sense. This is the pseudoscience that you have adopted because it supported your already held belief that CO2 somehow must have the capacity to cause warming.

You picked the wrong horse ian. When will you admit it.

the reason why I always pipe up when you make incorrect statements is because the skeptical side must not make the same mistakes as the warmers. as soon as a skeptic makes an untrue claim that is enough for everything else that he says to be dismissed out of hand.

I work from basic principles and let others do the grunt work of calculations. you look at the complexities and try to find conondrums that could be phrased in a way to appear be at odds with basic laws.

CO2 absorbs and scatters bands of IR which are part of the emission spectra of the earth's surface. this impedes the loss of energy to space. besides you and a few other crackpots everybody agrees with this principle and by denying it you make everything else you state come under suspicion.

then you mangle the SLoT. the SLoT has nothing to do with individual particles and their absorbance or emission of photons. the second law only deals with large numer systems.

here are the blackbody curves for 3 temperatures. it does not matter what the temps are because all the curves have the same shape and only the x and y axis change. this graph explains the SLoT in a nutshell. when there are two body of differing temperatures the cooler on always has less radiation than the warmer one. the warmer one always has excess radiation with which to warm the cooler one. the common area under the curve is the amount of radiation is going in both directions and has a cancelled out effect. the radiation doesnt cancel out, it is still there but there is no effect because it is going in both directions. this is the visual image of -

the fact that we can calculate the radiation for T and Tc means that there is nothing wrong with-

are there complexities involved? of course! the earth's surface is a good blackbody, the atmosphere less so, CO2 alone even less. that does not negate the basic principles of CO2 absorbing and scattering IR, which leads to less IR being lost to space.

this now leads into another area in which we have butted heads over.

the sun doesnt care about our atmosphere, it just keeps on pouring in energy. if less energy is escaping then that energy is used to heat the surface until the temperature is high enough so that the radiation from the surface is high enough (less the impeded energy, so-called backradiation) to again match the input from the sun. the atmosphere is not heating the surface, the sun is heating the surface!!!!!. the atmosphere is only changing the equilibrium points in the system between where the energy comes in and the energy goes out.

I really dont know how I could it explain it in simpler terms. and I am only explaining one aspect of what is going on. if skeptics deny that these basic processes are going on then why should anyone listen to the rest of the skeptical points?