how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[SSDD]

I see a couple of trends here. You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.

Me to. You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Both QM and AGW are hypotheses. A hypothesis A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. In order for a hypothesis to move up to the status of theory, it must be extensively tested by experiment and be able to make accurate predictions.

It's funny how defensive you guys are over QM. There are people who spend every day searching for a single contradiction in the theory of relativity which will be enough to justify discarding it. QM fails at the most basic level (the hydrogen atom) and is chock full of contradictions and yet, people cling to it much as they cling to AGW even though the hypothesis is failing majestically.

No experiment has ever been done that demonstrates that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming...all of its predictions have failed, the models of the hypothesis are invariably wrong and yet you believe and question anyone who doesn't. Perhaps you should question yourself.

you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.

You really aren't paying attention. I reject them because as hypotheses, they have failed. A single failed prediction or contradiction is cause to go back to the drawing board. Both have failed more than once.

QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable. I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.

Some small portions of QM have been experimentally verified. As a general hypothesis, it is so full of contradictions, failures, and ad hoc fixes, that it is not viable. Don't suppose that because some small portion of a hypothesis has been proven that the hypothesis in general is ready to be called a theory.

Here is a set of lecture notes from MIT (certainly credible where physics is concerned) discussing and describing some of the myriad of problems with QM. Maybe some reading on your part is in order.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2006/lecture-notes/lecture2.pdf

QM is another attempt to explain things that we don't understand....not a fully tested hypothesis ready to be called a theory.

 

[orogenicman]

You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Both QM and AGW are hypotheses.

I think I'll frame that one and put it on the internet wall of shame. Congratulations.

By the way, I used to work for an engineering firm that had an MIT graduate on staff. He was the least impressive engineer I've ever met. He was eventually fired. MIT graduates are overrated, IMHO. Oh, and by the way, there is nothing new in your pdf link. We've heard all this before.

 

[westwall]

I post a peer reviewed paper by the National Academy of Sciences that you refuse to respond to, and I'm busted? You really ought to put the bottle down, son. You aren't handling it well.

As I have stated previously it has been responded to. i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

You're not too swift are you. No, the accusation is that OLD ROCKS is posting under multiple aliases. Do try and keep up silly person....

 

[orogenicman]

As I have stated previously it has been responded to. i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

You're not too swift are you. No, the accusation is that OLD ROCKS is posting under multiple aliases. Do try and keep up silly person....

OMG! You are in serious brain fart mode there, dude. You've truly gone fishing.

 

[PMZ]

As I have stated previously it has been responded to. i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

You're not too swift are you. No, the accusation is that OLD ROCKS is posting under multiple aliases. Do try and keep up silly person....

One thing that virtually always distinguishes conservative blather from reason is that it begs for a black and white world, instead of the one that we have.

Example: the statement made up for publication here that defines AGW and QM as hypothesis instead of theories.

Take for instance, GHGs. Their behavior is a law. They are defined to be molecules that behave in a certain way. There is zero doubt that they behave as they've been defined. It's easily measured in a lab.

Or the fact that burning fossil fuels in the atmosphere leads to a higher concentration of CO2 in that atmosphere. It's certain.

The link between AGW, a certainty, and hostile extreme weather changes is a theory. It was hypothesized but is supported by observations. And theory. It's the expected weather behavior in more highly energized atmosphere.

The world, and science, can only be defined by specifics, not generalities. That’s why math is the keystone to science.

And why what deniers wish was true is of no value to science.

 

[westwall]

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

You're not too swift are you. No, the accusation is that OLD ROCKS is posting under multiple aliases. Do try and keep up silly person....

OMG! You are in serious brain fart mode there, dude. You've truly gone fishing.

Ahhhhh yes, one of the greatest albums ever.... I think this cut works quite well for you!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqK2PkFgtw]Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd - The Wall (better sound n image) - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

You're not too swift are you. No, the accusation is that OLD ROCKS is posting under multiple aliases. Do try and keep up silly person....

One thing that virtually always distinguishes conservative blather from reason is that it begs for a black and white world, instead of the one that we have.

Example: the statement made up for publication here that defines AGW and QM as hypothesis instead of theories.

Take for instance, GHGs. Their behavior is a law. They are defined to be molecules that behave in a certain way. There is zero doubt that they behave as they've been defined. It's easily measured in a lab.

Or the fact that burning fossil fuels in the atmosphere leads to a higher concentration of CO2 in that atmosphere. It's certain.

The link between AGW, a certainty, and hostile extreme weather changes is a theory. It was hypothesized but is supported by observations. And theory. It's the expected weather behavior in more highly energized atmosphere.

The world, and science, can only be defined by specifics, not generalities. That’s why math is the keystone to science.

And why what deniers wish was true is of no value to science.

To date this is the ONLY thing you have posted that is correct and factual.

So, riddle me this Batman...why do the AGW fraudsters avoid any measurable metric LIKE THE PLAGUE?


And on that note I bid you a'revoir. We're off to San Diego for a week.

 

[PMZ]

Nobody has demonstrated that anything that I've posted is incorrect or not factual. I am not aware that there are AGW '' fraudsters ''. Is there another kind of metric than measurable? Climatology is probably one of the most data intensive fields of science.

 

[orogenicman]

You're not too swift are you. No, the accusation is that OLD ROCKS is posting under multiple aliases. Do try and keep up silly person....

OMG! You are in serious brain fart mode there, dude. You've truly gone fishing.

Ahhhhh yes, one of the greatest albums ever.... I think this cut works quite well for you!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqK2PkFgtw]Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd - The Wall (better sound n image) - YouTube[/ame]

I may be comfortably numb, but I am who I am, not who you think I am. Catch anything yet? Maybe you should try different tackle.

 

[gslack]

You reject QM? Gollee. Why does that not surprise me?

Are you aware that QM can't even explain the electron cloud in a hydrogen atom without an ad hoc fix? A hydrogen atom for pete's sake. The most basic atom of them all and QM is unable to explain it without a completely made up fix. And that's just the start. Numerous ad hoc fixes are incorporated to just make it through the periodic table. QM is an attempt to explain things that we are actually quite a ways from understanding and QM certainly hasn't overturned, or even prompted the modification of any of the laws of physics.

You want to believe in QM as if it were written by the finger of God, help yourself, but QM has a long way to go before it even manages to cause a physical law to be modified, much less changed.

I see a couple of trends here. You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories. The thought that strikes me is that you reject them because they are widely accepted theories... because you wish to appear iconoclastic. In both cases, you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.

QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable. I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.

LOL, QM is fact now? Really? When did that happen?

How is it, something so small we cannot see can be physically verified? DO you have the ability to view energy transfer at the sub-atomic level? No? Can you verrify physically that all calculations regarding position and momentum of a sub-atomic particle at any point in time are correct?

No you can't.. All you can do is view the effects of such occurences and make a guess... And that's what QM is really, an attempt by men to explain things we donot yet fully understand...Here's the Copenhagan interpretation...

What is Quantum Physics

The Copenhagen Interpretation

So sometimes a particle acts like a particle and other times it acts like a wave. So which is it? According to Niels Bohr, who worked in Copenhagen when he presented what is now known as the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory, the particle is what you measure it to be. When it looks like a particle, it is a particle. When it looks like a wave, it is a wave. Furthermore, it is meaningless to ascribe any properties or even existence to anything that has not been measured21. Bohr is basically saying that nothing is real unless it is observed.
While there are many other interpretations of quantum physics, all based on the Copenhagen interpretation, the Copenhagen interpretation is by far the most widely used because it provides a "generic" interpretation that does not try to say any more then can be proven. Even so, the Copenhagen interpretation does have a flaw that we will discuss later. Still, since after 70 years no one has been able to come up with an interpretation that works better then the Copenhagen interpretation, that is the one we will use. We will discuss one of the alternatives later.

Notice the part where it tells you it's a guess? LOL, of course not because you're an idiot playing scientist...

You are a tiresome little troll.. Stop the "scientist" BS already. You are nomore a scientist now than you were as poopie doo socko...

 

[gslack]

Nobody has demonstrated that anything that I've posted is incorrect or not factual. I am not aware that there are AGW '' fraudsters ''. Is there another kind of metric than measurable? Climatology is probably one of the most data intensive fields of science.

Socko, your falsehoods and incorrect statements addorn my signature so get a grip...

 

[gslack]

I post a peer reviewed paper by the National Academy of Sciences that you refuse to respond to, and I'm busted? You really ought to put the bottle down, son. You aren't handling it well.

As I have stated previously it has been responded to. i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

He's oldoscks in drag, just as you are another in drag..

 

[PMZ]

OMG! You are in serious brain fart mode there, dude. You've truly gone fishing.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=frEhDC81_gY

Ahhhhh yes, one of the greatest albums ever.... I think this cut works quite well for you!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9DqK2PkFgtw]Comfortably Numb - Pink Floyd - The Wall (better sound n image) - YouTube[/ame]

I may be comfortably numb, but I am who I am, not who you think I am. Catch anything yet? Maybe you should try different tackle.

I think that we can declare the denier movement dead. It's obvious that they have nothing that seriously questions the science of climatology or any of the findings related to AGW. They are truly grasping at straws now.

Not that they will stop. Ever. But the quality of their descent has fallen to abysmal lately. As the science of climatology has risen to enough certainty to drive global actions towards sustainable energy.

 

[PMZ]

Nobody has demonstrated that anything that I've posted is incorrect or not factual. I am not aware that there are AGW '' fraudsters ''. Is there another kind of metric than measurable? Climatology is probably one of the most data intensive fields of science.

Socko, your falsehoods and incorrect statements addorn my signature so get a grip...

You get a grip. I stand by every word. What you illustrate with every post by your signature is your cluelessness. Go earn a GSE and come back with at least a little bit of knowledge.

 

[PMZ]

As I have stated previously it has been responded to. i'm more interested in watching you flail away trying to make us forget you're olfraud

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

He's oldoscks in drag, just as you are another in drag..

The limit of Slacksack's ability to comment. Conspiracy theory. Less than useless.

 

[gslack]

Nobody has demonstrated that anything that I've posted is incorrect or not factual. I am not aware that there are AGW '' fraudsters ''. Is there another kind of metric than measurable? Climatology is probably one of the most data intensive fields of science.

Socko, your falsehoods and incorrect statements addorn my signature so get a grip...

You get a grip. I stand by every word. What you illustrate with every post by your signature is your cluelessness. Go earn a GSE and come back with at least a little bit of knowledge.

LOL, why didn't you stand by it when Ian tried to claim it was a false quote?

ROFL, BS, you're a moron whomakes up whatever he feels and calls it fact.. Mr. CO2 Cycle..

Dude your ignorance is without peer on this board..

 

[Abraham3]

I see a couple of trends here. You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.

Me to. You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis. Both QM and AGW are hypotheses. A hypothesis A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. In order for a hypothesis to move up to the status of theory, it must be extensively tested by experiment and be able to make accurate predictions.

It's funny how defensive you guys are over QM. There are people who spend every day searching for a single contradiction in the theory of relativity which will be enough to justify discarding it. QM fails at the most basic level (the hydrogen atom) and is chock full of contradictions and yet, people cling to it much as they cling to AGW even though the hypothesis is failing majestically.

No experiment has ever been done that demonstrates that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming...all of its predictions have failed, the models of the hypothesis are invariably wrong and yet you believe and question anyone who doesn't. Perhaps you should question yourself.

you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.

You really aren't paying attention. I reject them because as hypotheses, they have failed. A single failed prediction or contradiction is cause to go back to the drawing board. Both have failed more than once.

QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable. I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.

Some small portions of QM have been experimentally verified. As a general hypothesis, it is so full of contradictions, failures, and ad hoc fixes, that it is not viable. Don't suppose that because some small portion of a hypothesis has been proven that the hypothesis in general is ready to be called a theory.

Here is a set of lecture notes from MIT (certainly credible where physics is concerned) discussing and describing some of the myriad of problems with QM. Maybe some reading on your part is in order.

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2006/lecture-notes/lecture2.pdf

QM is another attempt to explain things that we don't understand....not a fully tested hypothesis ready to be called a theory.

**********************************************************************

I see a couple of trends here. You reject QM and AGW - both widely accepted theories.

Me to. You don't know the difference between a theory and a hypothesis.

Don't be stupid. Of course I do. Both QM and AGW have survived sufficient testing that very large majorities of experts in their respective fields accept them as theories. Your opinion counts for very, very little in this regard. They are theories.

Both QM and AGW are hypotheses.

Whether or not you accept them, you are aware that the vast majority of scientists do. Thus this statement is false and you know it to be so.

A hypothesis A statement that explains or makes generalizations about a set of facts or principles, usually forming a basis for possible experiments to confirm its viability. In order for a hypothesis to move up to the status of theory, it must be extensively tested by experiment and be able to make accurate predictions.

And both theories have done so. When 97% of the world's climate scientists believe that Nikolov's and Zeller's ATE has met the goals that AGW has met, you will be able to say that it has moved from hypothesis to theory.

It's funny how defensive you guys are over QM.

Defensive? I find it funny how poor you are at characterizing our behavior. Rejecting AGW and QM is foolish and we have made that point clear. We have not grown defensive about QM. It hardly needs us to defend it - it does an excellent job on its own. The published literature on the topic clearly shows your rejection is unwarranted. This, of course, reinforces my hypothesis that your rejection is made in order to appear iconoclastic and has nothing to do with the theory's technical merits.

There are people who spend every day searching for a single contradiction in the theory of relativity which will be enough to justify discarding it. QM fails at the most basic level (the hydrogen atom) and is chock full of contradictions and yet, people cling to it much as they cling to AGW even though the hypothesis is failing majestically.

Newtonian mechanics fails at both the Planck and relativistic scales. QM actually works at Newtonian scales as they become equivalent in extremis. Have you rejected Newtonian mechanics? Every physicist on the planet is aware of the domain conflict between QM, Newtonian mechanics and Relativity. If you think this is a show-stopper, you are about 70 years behind the times. Each theory has a range of scale at
which it is valid. These ranges are known. Researchers continue to search for a unified theory. Until they do, when they need a theory to predict behavior and interactions at the Planck scale, they will use QM and their results will be completely satisfactory.

I am tickled a bit by your claim of QM's failing with a hydrogen atom's electron cloud. How many electrons would that be? And in what way do you believe QM is unable to solve for the electron's position or momentum? Do you think Heisenberg refutes QM? Can you solve a three-body problem with Newtonian mechanics?

No experiment has ever been done that demonstrates that adding X amount of CO2 to the atmosphere will result in Y amount of warming.

There are thousands of experiments that can be and have been perfomed to that end. Let me guess, you reject out of hand any such experiment that doesn't use the entirety of the Earth. That climate sensitivity is under debate does not refute the Greenhouse
Effect or AGW. No one has suggested that sensitivity is non-positive... unless you'd like to give that a shot.

..all of its predictions have failed

They have? Show us a model that can recreate the planet's climate of the last 150 years without assuming AGW. The predictions of AGW-assuming models are orders of magnitude more accurate than the predictions of models that do NOT assume AGW.

I find it odd that you try to apply the term "failed" where it is obviously not applicable. The accuracy of a model's predictions is a measure with multipart parameters. They are not pass/fail, go/nogo.

the models of the hypothesis are invariably wrong and yet you believe and question anyone who doesn't. Perhaps you should question yourself.

Your opinion of these models is not shared by the people who use them.

you do not reject them because of any significant flaw, but because - you claim - they can not cover some portion of their intended or applicable domain.

You really aren't paying attention. I reject them because as hypotheses, they have failed. A single failed prediction or contradiction is cause to go back to the drawing board. Both have failed more than once.

QM has been experimentally verified so many times that rejecting it is simply not justifiable. I begin to see why others have developed the opinions of you that they have.

Some small portions of QM have been experimentally verified. As a
general hypothesis, it is so full of contradictions, failures, and ad
hoc fixes, that it is not viable. Don't suppose that because some small
portion of a hypothesis has been proven that the hypothesis in general
is ready to be called a theory.

Here is a set of lecture notes from MIT (certainly credible where
physics is concerned) discussing and describing some of the myriad of
problems with QM. Maybe some reading on your part is in order.
http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8...s/lecture2.pdf
<http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/physics/8-04-quantum-physics-i-spring-2006/l
ecture-notes/lecture2.pdf>

QM is another attempt to explain things that we don't understand....not
a fully tested hypothesis ready to be called a theory.

From your link:

Problems with/failures of QM
* No model for some macroscopic quantum behavior (high-critical temperature superconductivity), this is likely to be solved within QM.

* QM is incompatible with general relativity. This is likely to be solved outside QM, within some bigger theory. (string theory?)
* Interpretation ambiguities of mathematical structure of QM: -Role of measurement -Determinism vs. probability. . . "The old one does not roll dice." -Transition from microscopic quantum mechanical to macroscopic quantum behavior...(Schrodinger's cat, "dead and alive") -Entanglement and hidden-variables. . . (Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen (EPR) paradox, Bell's
inequalities) -Bohr's (& Born's) Copenhagen Interpretation vs."many-worlds-theory"

None of these are falsifications of QM. And I see no mention of the electron cloud of a hydrogen atom. Try again if you like, but you're wasting everyone's time and this is off-topic to boot.

 

[SSDD]

Socko, your falsehoods and incorrect statements addorn my signature so get a grip...

You get a grip. I stand by every word. What you illustrate with every post by your signature is your cluelessness. Go earn a GSE and come back with at least a little bit of knowledge.

LOL, why didn't you stand by it when Ian tried to claim it was a false quote?

ROFL, BS, you're a moron whomakes up whatever he feels and calls it fact.. Mr. CO2 Cycle..

Dude your ignorance is without peer on this board..

Did you see where he recently claimed that AGW both increases and decreases OLR? What a hoot.

 

[Camp]

It was a whole lot easier and less complicated when we just called all this stuff air pollution. Didn't matter if it caused global warming or climate change. Dirty air was dirty air and everyone understood that.

 

[Abraham3]

Let me get this straight. You believe Orogenicman is posting under multiple aliases? If so, name them.

By the way, while your fans might enjoy it, the fact that you are as skilled as you are at avoiding actual debate cannot fail to inform all of your readership of your technical shortcomings.

He's oldoscks in drag, just as you are another in drag..

The limit of Slacksack's ability to comment. Conspiracy theory. Less than useless.

Small problem there: OldSocks and Orogenicman live about 2,000 miles apart.

And who else am I?