How far have we already gone?

[wirebender]

you just admitted you know where it is.

I never said that I didn't know where it is. In fact, I have said more than once that I went back to check that you were, in fact, part of the conversation and had nothing intelligent to say then and have given no indication that you have anything intelligent to say now.

Feel free to answer the questions put to you if you like or continue your completely ineffective and pathetic attempts at psychology. I am afraid that I can't be manipulated but it is interesting to watch you try if you like and fabricate any number of reasons that I don't comply to your wishes. If it makes you feel good to call me a coward, help yourself. You can't hurt me with such comments because I don't care for you enough to be moved by what you think or say.

 

[Old Rocks]

A presentation, with math, from 1981, by a real atmospheric physicist.

We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

 

[IanC]

A presentation, with math, from 1981, by a real atmospheric physicist.

We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

so the warmers have decided to go back 30+ years? reset to a guess made in the far past. does that mean all the billions spent in the last 30 years on climate models was wasted? the first general effort done on computers barely more powerful than one of today's smart phones is more accurate than the recent work on supercomputers with massive technological support?

so you are implying that we are going backwards in our knowledge? or are you just hunting around in the attic for something that looks better than the pathetic recent attempts?

 

[IanC]

you just admitted you know where it is.

I never said that I didn't know where it is. In fact, I have said more than once that I went back to check that you were, in fact, part of the conversation and had nothing intelligent to say then and have given no indication that you have anything intelligent to say now.

Feel free to answer the questions put to you if you like or continue your completely ineffective and pathetic attempts at psychology. I am afraid that I can't be manipulated but it is interesting to watch you try if you like and fabricate any number of reasons that I don't comply to your wishes. If it makes you feel good to call me a coward, help yourself. You can't hurt me with such comments because I don't care for you enough to be moved by what you think or say.

Im not trying to hurt you. Im not even trying to insult you. Im just stating the obvious in saying that you are cowardly in not bumping your 'explanation' to the top so people can read it. apparently you stated it once and ever since then you have challenged people to prove you wrong but you refuse to show it. stop saying it exists if you are not willing to produce it.

wirebender thinks that if the rope in tug-of-war isnt moving it is because all the people disappeared into thin air.

 

[wirebender]

A presentation, with math, from 1981, by a real atmospheric physicist.

Interesting. 1981 and there is, I suppose, one of the earliest versions of the flawed SB equation upon which the credibility of climate science rests and which Nikolov and Zeller have recently proven is completely wrong and useless as employed by climate pseudoscience. Note the double use of the SB constant.

d(cT)ldt = aT14 - aT4

As you can see, the predictions made by that paper not only failed, but failed miserably. Why? Because it was not founded on correct science.

 

[starcraftzzz]

hahahaha. pretty cowardly of you then. I assume that you went back and found out that your position is simply muddled garbage that did not explain the where, when and how of photons magically disappearing. you are a pathetic joke.

Psychology isn't your thing either ian. That wasn't even a good try.

And I don't subscribe to magic. As I have told you before, if you wan't to know where the photons go, you need look no further than the subtraction of EM fields. Sorry your faith interferes with your ability to think critically ian. It is sad.

You don’t subscribe to reality or intelligence either

 

[wirebender]

Im not trying to hurt you. Im not even trying to insult you. Im just stating the obvious in saying that you are cowardly in not bumping your 'explanation' to the top so people can read it. apparently you stated it once and ever since then you have challenged people to prove you wrong but you refuse to show it. stop saying it exists if you are not willing to produce it.

Tell you what ian, you give a satisfactory answer to the questions that have been put to you regarding the subtraction of EM fields and I will point you in the direction of one of the conversations you want to see. Good luck with that.

 

[wirebender]

You don’t subscribe to reality or intelligence either

How sad and miserable it must be to be the sock puppet of an idiot like rocks.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A presentation, with math, from 1981, by a real atmospheric physicist.

We first describe the greenhouse mechanism and use a simple model to compare potential radiative perturbations of climate. We construct the trend of observed global temperature for the past century and compare this with global climate model computations, providing a check on the ability of the model to simulate known climate change. Finally, we compute the CO2 warming expected in the coming century and discuss its potential implications.

http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..\docs\Hansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

With math?

ZOMG!

That clinches it for the Warmers!

So far, they've used tree ring, hockey sticks and roulette wheels to make their "point" I don't think we'll be able to counter their settled consensus science if they use math.

Signed,

About to Surrender to the Decline Hiders
Manhattan, NY

 

[bobgnote]

Here's the latest complete study of acidification, since the CO2 moves from air, to water, to acid:
Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

The hockey 'stick' is about the acceleration of warming AND acidification, leading to general warming AND AGW upturn data, which hockey 'puck' idiots won't use, to play their own game, which will move, from tard-hockey, to re-green, or die!

Look at all the spam up, for hooking and cross-checking. Homework time, me tardies, flathead, wienerbender, T-tard, who ya got?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The angry rising oceans are turning acidic!

They will corrode our coastlines!

 

[IanC]

wow! so you really are just a crackpot. no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though.

That statement cuts to the core of your problem ian. You obviously remain blithely unaware that Einstein himself was not comfortable at all with the ramifications of photons. What you believe with all your heart that you know is little more than a piss poor patchwork of assumptions held together with a few declarations. Much like the claims of climate science.

Do you have any idea what Einstein himself had to say about the idea of photons? He said:

"All my attempts to adapt the theoretical foundation of physics to this new type of knowledge (Quantum Theory) failed completely. It was as if the ground had been pulled out from under one, with no firm foundation to be seen anywhere, upon which one could have built." -Albert Einstein 1949

"All these fifty years of conscious brooding have brought me no nearer to the answer to the question 'What are light quanta?' Nowadays every Tom, Dick and Harry thinks he knows it, but he is mistaken" - A. Einstein, 1951

Among the many unresolved problems with the of light as photons the following are near the top of the list:

• The particles of light quanta should have mass = E/c2, yet by his own theories, no matter can obtain the speed of light

• Light quanta couldn't account for interference of light

• Particulate light quanta could not be split, and had no way to account for partial reflection

• A helically travelling photon would have to exceed the speed of light on its helical path

Physics as a science, over time, attempted to reconcile those problems by simply declaring, without the least bit of evidence that photons had no mass and that wave particle duality was simply the way things are. Again, very much the approach climate science has taken with its AGW claims.

So in the end, rather than address the fact that what you think you know doesn't jibe with reality, namely even a small change in wavelength would preclude one CO2 molecule's emission from being absorbed by another CO2 molecule, you call me a crackpot because I don't blindly accept a declaration made by a branch of science over time based on nothing that even begins to approach actual evidence.

no such thing as photons described by Einstein and every other physicist since. I guess we'll all just have to wait for your scientist to overturn the whole field of physics. I wont hold my breath though

That idiot statement sounds exactly like rocks, konradv, et. al. with their claims that because some scientists have said it, that it must be true. You, like they, also assume that "every" scientist including Einstein said it as if it must be true. That is as big a lie as rocks and konrad and the gang claiming that 97% of scientists are onboard with the hypothesis of AGW. You are obviously unaware that Einstein himself was never comfortable with the idea of photons because of the obvious conflicts that photons had with observable reality. The fact that you believe he said photons exist as a declarative statement backed up by his theory is evidence of the distortion the truth has experienced at the hands of physicists over the years.

http://www.worldsci.org/pdf/abstracts/abstracts_5711.pdf

now you are just resorting to the 'we dont know everything so we dont know anything gambit'. in fact we know a tremendous amount about photons and it is an integral part of many of our technologies. we dont have to know how gravity works to be able to predict its effects, especially in commonplace conditions such as on earth.

science often moves forward by studying the paradoxes or slight inconsistencies at the edge of our knowledge base. I am all for continuing the quest for knowledge but the esoteric details are not necessary to describe the mundane effects of physics on most earth systems. Newton was supplanted by Einstein but that didnt much of a difference to most of our real world functions.

why dont you describe in your own words how EM fields make photons disappear without interacting with matter? I have described different scenarios and how they are mediated by photons but all you ever do is say that I am wrong. time for you to step up to the plate. for instance, it is my opinion that every particle in two opposing magnetic or electric fields affects every particle opposite it and that the sum of the forces is seen in the net effect. we never see the multitudes of photons involved but that doesnt mean that they arent there. why dont you explain the physical mechanism of how the photons 'disappear' rather than just apply their forces leaving only the residual net effect that can be measured? it certainly seems much more straight forward to me that every photon just does its job rather than magically disappearing (to some other dimension, some other universe, we dont know because you wont tell us).[/QUOTE]

that was my latest answer to your question wirebender. electric or magnetic fields cancel out to leave residual net effects. if you measure between them you will find some spots where there will be zero effect but move the measuring spot somewhere else and there will be a net force. because every particle interacts with every other particle there is no need for your personalized notion of Maxwell's Daemon. you think some entity is watching over every interaction in the universe waiting to intercede, my way of thinking lets every particle react according to physical laws.

the other side of the coin which you also lump together with EM fields is radiative flows of photons, eg the light released from the sun. the light waves can interfere with other light waves at specific points if measured by detectors made of matter. otherwise they continue on their path until they do encounter a particle of matter that can interact with the particular type of photon.

there is no magical disappearance of photons anywhere!

and you refuse to present any mechanism to explain why you think they do.

probably wise on your part. "better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt of it"

 

[bobgnote]

The angry rising oceans are turning acidic! They will corrode our coastlines!

The oceans will lose creatures, at an awesome rate. Then they will change the coastlines, when the sea-level rises. Even a fuck-tard like you could come to that conclusion. Take the puck out of your butt, pick up the hockey stick, and swat.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The angry rising oceans are turning acidic! They will corrode our coastlines!

The oceans will lose creatures, at an awesome rate. Then they will change the coastlines, when the sea-level rises. Even a fuck-tard like you could come to that conclusion. Take the puck out of your butt, pick up the hockey stick, and swat.

What is it with you Warmers and your hockey sticks?

 

[bobgnote]

What is it with you Warmers and your hockey sticks?

What is with you fuck-tards and your puckey, and you want to avoid posting live links, to scientific reports and news, but you want to cross-check and hook, without picking up on the hockey stick?

You fuck-tards don't know how to play a pretty good game. As for research, the only question I have for you is how stupid are you? Surely, you must have a limit.

 

[westwall]

Here's the latest complete study of acidification, since the CO2 moves from air, to water, to acid:
Ocean acidity increasing at unprecedented rate

The hockey 'stick' is about the acceleration of warming AND acidification, leading to general warming AND AGW upturn data, which hockey 'puck' idiots won't use, to play their own game, which will move, from tard-hockey, to re-green, or die!

Look at all the spam up, for hooking and cross-checking. Homework time, me tardies, flathead, wienerbender, T-tard, who ya got?

I love the header!


"Environment FUKUSA Europe Australia Latina Africa"

And that's exactly what the enviro Nazis are trying to do.

 

[westwall]

The angry rising oceans are turning acidic! They will corrode our coastlines!

The oceans will lose creatures, at an awesome rate. Then they will change the coastlines, when the sea-level rises. Even a fuck-tard like you could come to that conclusion. Take the puck out of your butt, pick up the hockey stick, and swat.

So Mr. know it all. why did NONE of this happen during the MWP, the RWP or the Holocene Thermal Maximum? Is this warming trend somehow different from those that came before?

If it is, you absolutely MUST show us why it's different and show your work.

 

[westwall]

What is it with you Warmers and your hockey sticks?

What is with you fuck-tards and your puckey, and you want to avoid posting live links, to scientific reports and news, but you want to cross-check and hook, without picking up on the hockey stick?

You fuck-tards don't know how to play a pretty good game. As for research, the only question I have for you is how stupid are you? Surely, you must have a limit.

Show us some decent research and we'll listen to you. What you have produced so far is wonderful for a beginner in middle school, but for a scientist I would expect something ACCURATE!

 

[Old Rocks]

What is it with you Warmers and your hockey sticks?

What is with you fuck-tards and your puckey, and you want to avoid posting live links, to scientific reports and news, but you want to cross-check and hook, without picking up on the hockey stick?

You fuck-tards don't know how to play a pretty good game. As for research, the only question I have for you is how stupid are you? Surely, you must have a limit.

Show us some decent research and we'll listen to you. What you have produced so far is wonderful for a beginner in middle school, but for a scientist I would expect something ACCURATE!

You have yet to demonstrate that.

 

[bobgnote]

The oceans will lose creatures, at an awesome rate. Then they will change the coastlines, when the sea-level rises. Even a fuck-tard like you could come to that conclusion. Take the puck out of your butt, pick up the hockey stick, and swat.

So Mr. know it all. why did NONE of this happen during the MWP, the RWP or the Holocene Thermal Maximum? Is this warming trend somehow different from those that came before?

If it is, you absolutely MUST show us why it's different and show your work.

Why in the world would I need to post more links, since you don't post links?

As for summary of my posts, so you don't load up the rink with puck and refuse the stick and go skating off like you are Sonja Heinie or whoever, so I am supposed to cross-check nothing, and you are a hooker, with no hockey stick, kindly read what I wrote, once. CO2 is at 400 ppm, when 350 ppm is safe, 275 ppm was the start of the industrial age, and carbonic acidification and warming are accelerating.

That acceleration is the 'hockey stick' you fucktards keep ranting against. Up goes the graph! Up goes carbonic acid concentrations. Down go life-forms and the food chain.

The data for all those ancient events you refuse to link is useless, to us, since you are trying to pretend it means humans did not steward the planet, since, to wreck the place. Who cares if the warming wasn't as hot, in the Holocene, or Roman, or Middle Ages? You don't link, to any information you subscribe to, and I insist modern information is better, and it indicates an urgent problem matrix, including deadly acidification.

If you want to compare data, hey, die-offs happened, back in the day. Maybe we will live, to gather data, for your fuck-tard descendants, to wave around! Human stewarship AND CO2 emissions went up, concentrations went up, and human reaction isn't evident.

But stupid assholes like you keep farting and shitting up all the media channels, in what hope? Preventing re-greening? I say the food chains are in jeopardy, asshole! Got chow? Not forever! Screw you, for dropping names and not linking and reviewing.