Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?
Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...
Tell me the rationale GSlack style for that change of effective rate of cooling...
BTW: I read you comments to Ian ridiculing the way that Radiation Physics actually works and claiming that it borders on belief on perpetual motion. This is not true.. It's possible to slow the heat loss of a body to a flow approaching zero.. That's just good materials design. That's NOT perpetual motion.. And I don't see anything ridiculous about retaining heat. If you then attempted to do that AND put the heat to work at the same time --- call the patent office in the morning..
I'm breathlessly awaiting the physics of atmos gases slowing the earths cooling rate. Remember -- it's accepted that radiative flow is the primary mechanism here -- so if you use the words convection or conduction -- please cite the justification for ignoring such evidence as in Trenberth work or classic views of the relative contributions of the conductive, convective and radiative components of heating the lower atmos..
NO radiation physics doesn't border on belief in perpetual motion, his interpretation of it does.. See the difference?
ANd the slowing of heat loss is due to the constant transfer of that energy as it is transferred through the gas.. Your own link in your next post gives an example just before it turns into a "climate science" bit of nonsense..
Here's a very interesting gem that I previously filed.. Seems like the Federation of American Scientists ought to get this simple radiative heating thing correct --- RIGHT???? When I rediscovered this... I was thinking that it sounded pretty much like what I've been writing (fruitlessly) here for a couple days now..
https://www.fas.org/spp/military/docops/afwa/atmos-U1.htm
Radiative equilibrium temperature
If we say that the Earth and Sun are black bodies and therefore absorb and emit radiation equally, a state of radiative equilibrium is achieved. The average at which this occurs is called the radiative equilibrium temperature. Because of the Earth�s distance from the Sun (93 million miles), its radiative equilibrium temperature is about -4degF! This is much lower than the observed average temperature on Earth of 59DegF. What could cause this difference?
One factor that we haven�t discussed yet is the Earth�s atmosphere and its ability to absorb and emit radiation. Unlike the Earth and Sun, the atmosphere does not behave like a black body. It is considered a selective absorber because it selectively absorbs and emits radiation. In other words, it is a good absorber at certain wavelengths but may not be a good absorber of all wavelengths. There is a law in physics that speaks specifically about this phenomenon. Let�s discuss it now.
Kirchoff�s law
Kirchoff�s law says that good absorbers of a certain wavelength are good emitters at that wavelength. Some gases in the atmosphere are selective absorbers. The ozone is a good example of this. We�ve all heard of ozone depletion due to added chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) in the atmosphere. The reason why the ozone is so important is that it protects the Earth from harmful ultraviolet radiation because it selectively absorbs this wavelength.
Carbon dioxide (CO2) and water vapor are also both selective absorbers and emitters. These gases are abundant in the lower atmosphere of the Earth. As the Earth radiates its energy at far-infrared wavelengths, CO2 and water vapor absorb a large portion of this radiation. This absorption increases the kinetic energy (energy of motion) of these gases. These gases (CO2 and water vapor) collide with oxygen and nitrogen molecules which increase the average kinetic energy of the air. The net result of this absorption is that the lower atmosphere warms.
As CO2 and water vapor selectively absorb infrared radiation, they also selectively emit infrared radiation in all directions. Some of this energy is radiated back toward the Earth�s surface where it is absorbed and heats the ground. At this point, the process of the Earth radiating infrared wavelengths continues.
<< RUh ROh.. Sounds like back-radiation don't it? >>
This cycle is popularly known as the greenhouse effect. The addition of cloud cover enhances this effect as the associated tiny cloud droplets are also selective absorbers of infrared wavelengths. This is why calm, cloudy nights are usually warmer than calm, clear nights whereas, calm, cloudy days are cooler than calm, sunny days. If these selective absorbers were not present in the atmosphere, Earth�s mean radiative equilibrium temperature would be closer to the �4�F stated earlier!
Now before you whine about the format of that FAS study brief --- it's part of an active FAS project with the cooperation of military to educate personnel working on space systems.. Mostly Air Force.. The link for the program is at ----
Space Policy Project
Would be totally embarrassing if FAS was passing off bogus educational material wouldn't it????
Your link,interesting.. Now can you tell me why it's from this site... Air Force Weather Agency Doctrine
Yes a climatological reference.. As we said it ONLY appears or applies to climate science, hence the problem..
But hey fine, you say it's factual, fine then show it in a text book and we can end this... Still waiting on that... And by text book we mean standard physics text book, not a climate science online blog or whatever...
Please, we both know by now it's not a fact by any measure.. It's a theory that doesn't hold water in observation..
CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
7.1 RADIATION
Radiation is energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves. All objects
emit radiation.
.....
This absorption of energy by the Earth must be balanced by emission of
terrestrial radiation out to space. The Earth is not a blackbody at
visible wavelengths since the absorption efficiency of solar radiation
by the Earth is only e = 1-A = 0.72. However, the Earth radiates almost
exclusively in the IR where the absorption efficiency is in fact near
unity. For example, clouds and snow reflect visible radiation but absorb
IR radiation. We approximate here the emission flux from the Earth as
that of a blackbody of temperature TE, so that the energy balance
equation for the Earth is
(7.10)
The concepts presented in the previous sections allow us to build a
simple model of the greenhouse effect. In this model, we view the
atmosphere as an isothermal layer placed some distance above the surface
of the Earth ( Figure 7-12 ). The layer is transparent to solar
radiation, and absorbs a fraction f of terrestrial radiation because of
the presence of greenhouse gases. The temperature of the Earth's surface
is To and the temperature of the atmospheric layer is T1.
Figure 7-12 Simple greenhouse model. Radiation fluxes per unit area of
Earth's surface are shown.
Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...
Tell me the rationale GSlack style for that change of effective rate of cooling...
BTW: I read you comments to Ian ridiculing the way that Radiation Physics actually works and claiming that it borders on belief on perpetual motion. This is not true.. It's possible to slow the heat loss of a body to a flow approaching zero.. That's just good materials design. That's NOT perpetual motion.. And I don't see anything ridiculous about retaining heat. If you then attempted to do that AND put the heat to work at the same time --- call the patent office in the morning..
I'm breathlessly awaiting the physics of atmos gases slowing the earths cooling rate. Remember -- it's accepted that radiative flow is the primary mechanism here -- so if you use the words convection or conduction -- please cite the justification for ignoring such evidence as in Trenberth work or classic views of the relative contributions of the conductive, convective and radiative components of heating the lower atmos..
NO radiation physics doesn't border on belief in perpetual motion, his interpretation of it does.. See the difference?
ANd the slowing of heat loss is due to the constant transfer of that energy as it is transferred through the gas.. Your own link in your next post gives an example just before it turns into a "climate science" bit of nonsense..
RE: the bolded above.. This does not agree with the view that CONDUCTIVE heating is a miniscule contribution to earth surface heat loss.. Perhaps you have a reference saying the conduction and convection are the PRIMARY source of surface heat loss??? Doubt it..
I even mentioned that in the my quote above.. Do you know the diff between conduction and radiation??
Bxzzzzt --- Try again..
Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...
How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..
Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics David G. Andrews pub 2000 Cambridge))
From somewhere in the 1st Chapter... Close to the front.
See the down arrow from the atmos in the illust. above?? That's the back-radiation.. The pages
describe the intimate calculations for EACH of those terms. Models the earth as BBody.. Models a BIDIRECTIONAL flow of radiative heating due to the atmos.. Everything I've told you for days now...
Continuation directly below the 1st snippet above..
Want to see it in an Atmos. Physics Guide from HARVARD???
CHAPTER 7. THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT
7.1 RADIATION
Radiation is energy transmitted by electromagnetic waves. All objects
emit radiation.
.....
This absorption of energy by the Earth must be balanced by emission of
terrestrial radiation out to space. The Earth is not a blackbody at
visible wavelengths since the absorption efficiency of solar radiation
by the Earth is only e = 1-A = 0.72. However, the Earth radiates almost
exclusively in the IR where the absorption efficiency is in fact near
unity. For example, clouds and snow reflect visible radiation but absorb
IR radiation. We approximate here the emission flux from the Earth as
that of a blackbody of temperature TE, so that the energy balance
equation for the Earth is
(7.10)
The concepts presented in the previous sections allow us to build a
simple model of the greenhouse effect. In this model, we view the
atmosphere as an isothermal layer placed some distance above the surface
of the Earth ( Figure 7-12 ). The layer is transparent to solar
radiation, and absorbs a fraction f of terrestrial radiation because of
the presence of greenhouse gases. The temperature of the Earth's surface
is To and the temperature of the atmospheric layer is T1.
Figure 7-12 Simple greenhouse model. Radiation fluxes per unit area of
Earth's surface are shown.
NOT ONLY DO BOTH THESE BOOKS LAY OUT THE BI-DIRECTIONAL radiation from the atmos to the ground, (and the atmos to space) ---- they actually BOTH CALCULATE the equations for all components and end up with a reasonable number for the Earth's surface temp...
I don't fault you if you can't follow the math.. But it's there. And on that -- you'll have to trust me..
Done playing here.. YOU GOT appropriate pages from EIGHT different physics at scienceofdoom.. I'm not retrieving them for you.. Can't help it if you ignore them..
Good luck with cred on this issue when you have no alternate physics for explaining why the Earth's surface
isn't closer to -4degF.
PROBLEMS
7. 1 Climate response to changes in ozone
Simulations with a general circulation model (GCM) have been used to investigate the climate sensitivity to large changes in atmospheric ozone. Explain qualitatively the results below.
1. A simulation in which all O3 above 30 km altitude is removed shows a large tropospheric warming (+1-3oC) and a very large stratospheric cooling (up to -80oC).
2. A simulation where all O3 in the upper troposphere is removed shows a 1oC cooling of the Earth's surface, while a simulation where the same amount of O3 is removed but in the lower troposphere shows no significant temperature change.
[Source: Hansen, J., et al., Radiative forcing and climate response, J. Geophys. Res., 102, 6831-6864, 1997.]
7. 2 Interpretation of the terrestrial radiation spectrum
The Figure below shows terrestrial emission spectra measured from a satellite over northern Africa, the Mediterranean Sea, and and Antarctica. The spectra are reported as a function of wavenumber, which is the inverse of wavelength.
1. Estimate from the spectra the surface temperature of each region.
2. Explain the dips at 600-700 cm-1 (14-16 mm) and 1000-1050 cm-1 (9.5-10 mm) in the emission spectra for the Sahara and Mediterranean Sea. Why do these dips become bumps in the emission spectrum for Antarctica?
7. 3 Jupiter and Mars
1. Jupiter is 7.8x10 8 km from the Sun. Its albedo is 0.73.
1.1 Calculate the effective temperature of Jupiter assuming that the Sun is the only energy source.
1.2 Observations indicate an effective temperature for Jupiter of 134 K. This temperature is maintained in part by heat from gravitational accretion and chemical reactions within the planet. How does the magnitude of Jupiter's internal heat source compare to the source from solar radiation?
2. Mars is 2.3x10 8 km away from the Sun; its albedo is 0.15. Its only source of heat is solar radiation.
2.1. Calculate the effective temperature of Mars.
2.2. The temperature observed at the surface of Mars is 220 K. What do you conclude about the Martian atmosphere?
7. 4 The "faint Sun" problem
Sedimentary deposits in rocks show that liquid water was present on Earth as early as 3.8 billion years ago, when solar radiation was 25% less than today according to current models of the evolution of the Sun. Consider the simple greenhouse model described in this chapter where the atmosphere is represented as a thin layer transparent to solar radiation and absorbing a fraction f of terrestrial radiation. Assume throughout this problem a constant planetary albedo A = 0.28 for the Earth.
1. If the greenhouse effect 3.8 billion years ago were the same as today (f = 0.77), what would be the surface temperature of the Earth? Would liquid water be present?
2. Current thinking is that a stronger greenhouse effect offset the weaker Sun.
Let us try to simulate this stronger greenhouse effect by keeping our 1-layer model for the atmosphere but assuming that the atmospheric layer absorbs 100% of terrestrial radiation. Calculate the resulting surface temperature. What do you conclude?
3. We can modify our model to produce a warmer surface temperature by representing the atmosphere as two superimposed layers, both transparent to solar radiation and both absorbing 100% of terrestrial radiation. Provide a physical justification for this 2-layer model. Calculate the resulting surface temperature.
4. It has been proposed that the strong greenhouse effect in the early Earth could have resulted from accumulation in the atmosphere of CO2 emitted by volcanoes. Imagine an Earth initially covered by ice. Explain why volcanic CO2 would accumulate in the atmosphere under such conditions, eventually thawing the Earth.
[To know more: Caldeira, K., and J.F. Kasting, Susceptibility of the early Earth to irreversible glaciation caused by carbon dioxide clouds, Nature, 359, 226-228, 1992.]
7. 5 Planetary skin
Consider a two-layer model for the Earth's atmosphere including:
a "main" atmospheric layer of temperature Tmain that is transparent to solar radiation and absorbs a fraction f = 0.77 of terrestrial radiation;
a "thin" atmospheric layer of temperature Tthin above this main layer that is transparent to solar radiation and absorbs a small fraction f' << 1 of terrestrial radiation. This layer is often called the "planetary skin".
Calculate the temperature Tthin. This temperature represents the coldest temperature achievable in the Earth's atmosphere in the absence of absorption of solar radiation by gas molecules. Explain briefly why.
7. 6 Absorption in the atmospheric window
The water vapor dimer absorbs radiation in the 8-12 mm atmospheric window. The resulting optical depth for an elemental atmospheric column of thickness dz is dd = krdz, where r is the mass density of air and k = 1x10 -11 P2H2O m 2 per kg of air is an absorption coefficient for the water vapor dimer; PH2O is the water vapor pressure in Pascals.
1. Explain why k varies as the square of the water vapor pressure.
2. Assuming a scale height of 4 km for the water vapor mixing ratio, a surface air density r o of 1.2 kg m -3 , and p o = 1x10 3 Pa for the water vapor pressure in surface air, calculate the total optical depth from absorption by the water vapor dimer. How efficient is the dimer at absorbing radiation in the 8-12 mm window?
As CO2 and water vapor selectively absorb infrared radiation, they also selectively emit infrared radiation in all directions. Some of this energy is radiated back toward the Earth�s surface where it is absorbed and heats the ground. At this point, the process of the Earth radiating infrared wavelengths continues.
<< RUh ROh.. Sounds like back-radiation don't it? >>
Would be totally embarrassing if FAS was passing off bogus educational material wouldn't it????
Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...
Last try for what? To build a proper strawman? Where the hell did you get the idea that I believe that gasses are slowing down heat loss? I said:
"Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?"
and from that you get the idea that I am claiming that gasses are slowing down heat loss? I even stated that the comment was directly related to the idea gas laws. I don't guess you are aware that repeatable experimental proof has been achieved in a laboratory that further supports the atmospheric thermal effect as stated by N&Z?
The temperature is warmer at the base of a column of air because of pressure, not some trace gas's magical ability to block the escape of heat, or backradiate heat, or whatever miraculous ability you are giving it on any particular day.
That educational series was AUTHORED by FAS as a program study with the military.. The Federation of American Scientists take that shit seriously..
How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..
Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics David G. Andrews pub 2000 Cambridge))
Course Description
Quantum Physics I explores the experimental basis of quantum mechanics, including:
How about taking this back radiation to books on Atmos Physics..
Like ((Intro to Atmos Physics David G. Andrews pub 2000 Cambridge))
Last try here. You say the gases are slowing heat loss...
Last try for what? To build a proper strawman? Where the hell did you get the idea that I believe that gasses are slowing down heat loss? I said:
"Guess he hasn't considered the ideal gas laws. Miles deep column of air....wonder why it would be warmer closer to the surface?"
and from that you get the idea that I am claiming that gasses are slowing down heat loss? I even stated that the comment was directly related to the idea gas laws. I don't guess you are aware that repeatable experimental proof has been achieved in a laboratory that further supports the atmospheric thermal effect as stated by N&Z?
The temperature is warmer at the base of a column of air because of pressure, not some trace gas's magical ability to block the escape of heat, or backradiate heat, or whatever miraculous ability you are giving it on any particular day.
LOL the book wasn't a text book at all. It was a book published by the university press, and NOT a physics text book. The thing is full of theory posed as fact. The thing speaks of GH theory as fact for christ's sake... It's a PR fluff piece posing as science.
Interesting point here...
It seems MIT views quantum theory as a theory and states so categorically.. If that is a theory, then so is the concepts derived from it including GH theory..
Physics | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials
Please scroll through the courses material listed there and look at it.. Quantum Field Theory I and II.. THEORY.. Not fact...
Here's an interesting tidbit...
Syllabus | Quantum Physics I | Physics | MIT OpenCourseWare
Course Description
Quantum Physics I explores the experimental basis of quantum mechanics, including:
Yes experimental.. As in not a proven fact...
gslack always seems to be accusing me of back peddling or changing my story, when he is not gratuitously insulting me. it is unfortunate that he cannot understand that I am just adding different ways of looking at the problem, pointing out different aspects and trying to show how the whole thing comes together no matter which side you examine. gslack doesnt have the brainpower to understand physics but he is sure that all the main physicists from both the warmer and skeptic camps, are wrong. if a world class physicist from MIT who is an avowed skeptic, Dr Lindzen, cannot make gslack even consider that the basic mechanism of CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant, who can? certainly not internet posters. gslacks' loss I suppose.
SSDD is a different case. he is under the sway of a different paradigm. he wants to analyze surface temps by gas pressure laws (too simple but that is the gist of it). I concur that his side has a legitimate point. unfortunately he is missing the point. the earth has had a few billion years to come to an equilibrium. his focus of interest doesnt explain the changes like the MWP and LIA any better than CO2 theory. on of his complaints is that the earth's surface is treated like it is always illuminated by twilight. OK, what does his side come up with for a number that describes average solar input? they wont say. his side is a general theory that does not change with small inputs like changing the composition of the atmospheric gases so I suppose they dont think CO2 does any thing at all. I have repeatedly asked SSDD to start a thread about all this but he hasnt so far, perhaps he doesnt understand it well enough to be confident that he can defend it.
Interesting point here...
It seems MIT views quantum theory as a theory and states so categorically.. If that is a theory, then so is the concepts derived from it including GH theory..
Physics | MIT OpenCourseWare | Free Online Course Materials
Please scroll through the courses material listed there and look at it.. Quantum Field Theory I and II.. THEORY.. Not fact...
Here's an interesting tidbit...
Syllabus | Quantum Physics I | Physics | MIT OpenCourseWare
Course Description
Quantum Physics I explores the experimental basis of quantum mechanics, including:
Yes experimental.. As in not a proven fact...
That's one of the real crimes perpetrated by post modern science...the attitude that theories no longer need proof if they can be proven mathematically (even if the math requires some torture first).
And did one of them say earlier that he believed that he was measuring backradiation with an IR thermometer? I haven't had much time lately but I thought I caught a bit of conversation suggesting that...excuse me if I am wrong.
gslack always seems to be accusing me of back peddling or changing my story, when he is not gratuitously insulting me. it is unfortunate that he cannot understand that I am just adding different ways of looking at the problem, pointing out different aspects and trying to show how the whole thing comes together no matter which side you examine. gslack doesnt have the brainpower to understand physics but he is sure that all the main physicists from both the warmer and skeptic camps, are wrong. if a world class physicist from MIT who is an avowed skeptic, Dr Lindzen, cannot make gslack even consider that the basic mechanism of CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant, who can? certainly not internet posters. gslacks' loss I suppose.
SSDD is a different case. he is under the sway of a different paradigm. he wants to analyze surface temps by gas pressure laws (too simple but that is the gist of it). I concur that his side has a legitimate point. unfortunately he is missing the point. the earth has had a few billion years to come to an equilibrium. his focus of interest doesnt explain the changes like the MWP and LIA any better than CO2 theory. on of his complaints is that the earth's surface is treated like it is always illuminated by twilight. OK, what does his side come up with for a number that describes average solar input? they wont say. his side is a general theory that does not change with small inputs like changing the composition of the atmospheric gases so I suppose they dont think CO2 does any thing at all. I have repeatedly asked SSDD to start a thread about all this but he hasnt so far, perhaps he doesnt understand it well enough to be confident that he can defend it.
Yes, Yes, I am a big meany.. I insult you and of course your asinine attempts to insult my intelligence are just witty banter on your part..
I insult you Ian because you are a spineless asshat, who refuses to answer any direct questions but stomps his foot and demands people answer his, even if they already have. Or how about all of the times you play stupid rather than respond to a post fairly? Those are always fun.. We have all seen your BS far too many times for you to try and play the innocent victim shithead..
You're a coward Ian. Be intellectually, or otherwise. When the clones where regurgitating the sequestered CO2 nonsense and treating CO2 as an element, what did you say? NOTHING.. Not a word.. And why not? Because you liked the fact they were arguing everyone else but you. A fine example of how you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, a true cowards motto, it will serve you well. ANd that wasn't the only time I have seen you do that.. You let people ramble nonstop BS pseudo-science so long as they are arguing with certain people, no matter how idiotic they may be, or how wrong their claims, you say nothing. Yet let someone you don't like say anything you deem unscientific and you're on them like white on rice.. A true save-ass opportunistic punk..
Feel insulted now? Good.. Please make another plead to the forum post, we love those..ROFL.
gslack always seems to be accusing me of back peddling or changing my story, when he is not gratuitously insulting me. it is unfortunate that he cannot understand that I am just adding different ways of looking at the problem, pointing out different aspects and trying to show how the whole thing comes together no matter which side you examine. gslack doesnt have the brainpower to understand physics but he is sure that all the main physicists from both the warmer and skeptic camps, are wrong. if a world class physicist from MIT who is an avowed skeptic, Dr Lindzen, cannot make gslack even consider that the basic mechanism of CO2 theory is trivially true but insignificant, who can? certainly not internet posters. gslacks' loss I suppose.
SSDD is a different case. he is under the sway of a different paradigm. he wants to analyze surface temps by gas pressure laws (too simple but that is the gist of it). I concur that his side has a legitimate point. unfortunately he is missing the point. the earth has had a few billion years to come to an equilibrium. his focus of interest doesnt explain the changes like the MWP and LIA any better than CO2 theory. on of his complaints is that the earth's surface is treated like it is always illuminated by twilight. OK, what does his side come up with for a number that describes average solar input? they wont say. his side is a general theory that does not change with small inputs like changing the composition of the atmospheric gases so I suppose they dont think CO2 does any thing at all. I have repeatedly asked SSDD to start a thread about all this but he hasnt so far, perhaps he doesnt understand it well enough to be confident that he can defend it.
Yes, Yes, I am a big meany.. I insult you and of course your asinine attempts to insult my intelligence are just witty banter on your part..
I insult you Ian because you are a spineless asshat, who refuses to answer any direct questions but stomps his foot and demands people answer his, even if they already have. Or how about all of the times you play stupid rather than respond to a post fairly? Those are always fun.. We have all seen your BS far too many times for you to try and play the innocent victim shithead..
You're a coward Ian. Be intellectually, or otherwise. When the clones where regurgitating the sequestered CO2 nonsense and treating CO2 as an element, what did you say? NOTHING.. Not a word.. And why not? Because you liked the fact they were arguing everyone else but you. A fine example of how you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, a true cowards motto, it will serve you well. ANd that wasn't the only time I have seen you do that.. You let people ramble nonstop BS pseudo-science so long as they are arguing with certain people, no matter how idiotic they may be, or how wrong their claims, you say nothing. Yet let someone you don't like say anything you deem unscientific and you're on them like white on rice.. A true save-ass opportunistic punk..
Feel insulted now? Good.. Please make another plead to the forum post, we love those..ROFL.
I can't help it if Mother Nature pulled a cruel trick on you by giving poor gslack an inferior brain.
I answered your question, you answer mine. how do you explain the discrepancy between solar input and surface radiation? if you dont what to repeat it just bump the comment or even just give us the comment number. otherwise you are just using wirebender's old excuse.
You're a coward Ian. Be intellectually, or otherwise. When the clones where regurgitating the sequestered CO2 nonsense and treating CO2 as an element, what did you say? NOTHING.. Not a word.. And why not? Because you liked the fact they were arguing everyone else but you. A fine example of how you would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven, a true cowards motto, it will serve you well. ANd that wasn't the only time I have seen you do that.. You let people ramble nonstop BS pseudo-science so long as they are arguing with certain people, no matter how idiotic they may be, or how wrong their claims, you say nothing. Yet let someone you don't like say anything you deem unscientific and you're on them like white on rice.. A true save-ass opportunistic punk..
Feel insulted now? Good.. Please make another plead to the forum post, we love those..ROFL.
BTW, as far as my brain power, I don't know, I think I must be doing alright, I have caught you in BS so many times it's becoming old hat.. I remember when you didn't know what Fermat's last theorem was.. ROFL. Too funny.. Mr. Big Brain math expert caught being full of shit by the guy he claims is lacking brain power.. Dude what's that say about you??
