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

[gslack]

ifistssocks, you already killed the scientist nonsense. No one's buying anymore.

So that would be no you don't. Because it really doesn't take scientist to know it, just a grade school chem course

It's a no to what question socko? You didn't ask me anything, and frankly the only question you seemed to ask at all was to flac. And even that was you trying to save face after the last two embarrassing things you did. Claiming reflection is absorption and then denying the field of optical computing,pretty ignorant, now you google up something new to try and distract from your earlier screwups.

LOL, you fake internet scientists never learn from the mistakes you made with your previous personas, that's why these new ones get outed so easily. All we gotta do is let you talk and you will say something to ruin it for yourself..

BTW, what does the Valence bond theory have to do with this discussion? Or was that another one of your lame attempts to fake knowledge again? LOL, you're ridiculous man. You don't even know what you're rambling about, you just go and grab something that sounds scientific off a web page and go with it. Another PMZ...

 

[itfitzme]

ifistssocks, you already killed the scientist nonsense. No one's buying anymore.

So that would be no you don't. *Because it really doesn't take scientist to know it, just a grade school chem course

It's a no to what question socko? You didn't ask me anything, and frankly the only question you seemed to ask at all was to flac. And even that was you trying to save face after the last two embarrassing things you did. Claiming reflection is absorption and then denying the field of optical computing,pretty ignorant, now you google up something new to try and distract from your earlier screwups.

LOL, you fake internet scientists never learn from the mistakes you made with your previous personas, that's why these new ones get outed so easily. All we gotta do is let you talk and you will say something to ruin it for yourself..

BTW, what does the Valence bond theory have to do with this discussion? *Or was that another one of your lame attempts to fake knowledge again? LOL, you're ridiculous man. You don't even know what you're rambling about, you just go and grab something that sounds scientific off a web page and go with it. Another PMZ...

You're free to answer the same question.

And there is another good question for you, what do valence bands have to do with absorption?

Excellent.

You should also do a multivariate linear regression on atmospheric gases and other environmental measures thay are hypothesized to affect global temperatures. *You can find CO2 measures online at the Mau Loa website. Look up Hadcrut for temp data. *Sun spot data is somewhere. *What else can you think of?

If you would like to explore further, you can find ice core data under Volstock.

 

[itfitzme]

ifistssocks, you already killed the scientist nonsense. No one's buying anymore.

So that would be no you don't. *Because it really doesn't take scientist to know it, just a grade school chem course

It's a no to what question socko? You didn't ask me anything, and frankly the only question you seemed to ask at all was to flac. And even that was you trying to save face after the last two embarrassing things you did. Claiming reflection is absorption and then denying the field of optical computing,pretty ignorant, now you google up something new to try and distract from your earlier screwups.



BTW, what does the Valence bond theory have to do with this discussion? *Or was that another one of your lame attempts to fake knowledge again? LOL, you're ridiculous man. You don't even know what you're rambling about, you just go and grab something that sounds scientific off a web page and go with it. Another PMZ...

So you don't know;

how light is absorbed or emitted by atoms and molecules.*

the difference between macroscopic*measures and microscopic processes. *

what x-ray crystolography is.

how light is transmitted through transparent materials.

what valence bands have to do with light.

You are not presenting yourself as credibly knowledgable about basic science.

 

[mamooth]

DNFTEC. That is, do not feed the energy creature.

ifitzme, your opponent only wants a pissing match. You win by laughing it off the Enterprise, so to speak. You lose by supplying it with more of the negative emotional energy on which it feeds. Just ignore it, like everyone else does. It's focusing on you now because you're the only one who will give it the attention it craves.

 

[itfitzme]

DNFTEC. That is, do not feed the energy creature.

ifitzme, your opponent only wants a pissing match. You win by laughing it off the Enterprise, so to speak. You lose by supplying it with more of the negative emotional energy on which it feeds. Just ignore it, like everyone else does. It's focusing on you now because you're the only one who will give it the attention it craves.

I remember the episode well. It's one of my favorites.

There is another sci fi show with a force field that gets stronger the
morenthe captivr struggles.

Oh, and Harry Potter with the vines that tighten when they struggled.

 

[gslack]

So that would be no you don't. *Because it really doesn't take scientist to know it, just a grade school chem course

It's a no to what question socko? You didn't ask me anything, and frankly the only question you seemed to ask at all was to flac. And even that was you trying to save face after the last two embarrassing things you did. Claiming reflection is absorption and then denying the field of optical computing,pretty ignorant, now you google up something new to try and distract from your earlier screwups.

LOL, you fake internet scientists never learn from the mistakes you made with your previous personas, that's why these new ones get outed so easily. All we gotta do is let you talk and you will say something to ruin it for yourself..

BTW, what does the Valence bond theory have to do with this discussion? *Or was that another one of your lame attempts to fake knowledge again? LOL, you're ridiculous man. You don't even know what you're rambling about, you just go and grab something that sounds scientific off a web page and go with it. Another PMZ...

You're free to answer the same question.

And there is another good question for you, what do valence bands have to do with absorption?

Excellent.

You should also do a multivariate linear regression on atmospheric gases and other environmental measures thay are hypothesized to affect global temperatures. *You can find CO2 measures online at the Mau Loa website. Look up Hadcrut for temp data. *Sun spot data is somewhere. *What else can you think of?

If you would like to explore further, you can find ice core data under Volstock.

I got a better one for you and I already asked it.. What does Valence Bond THEORY have to do with this thread? Or even better still, why are you asking me questions that do not help your previous case of claiming absorption is reflection?

LOL, you got caught lacking and being ignorant so you try to divert and hide it with more irrelevancies that do not further the discussion or answer for your previous mistakes..

 

[gslack]

So that would be no you don't. *Because it really doesn't take scientist to know it, just a grade school chem course

It's a no to what question socko? You didn't ask me anything, and frankly the only question you seemed to ask at all was to flac. And even that was you trying to save face after the last two embarrassing things you did. Claiming reflection is absorption and then denying the field of optical computing,pretty ignorant, now you google up something new to try and distract from your earlier screwups.



BTW, what does the Valence bond theory have to do with this discussion? *Or was that another one of your lame attempts to fake knowledge again? LOL, you're ridiculous man. You don't even know what you're rambling about, you just go and grab something that sounds scientific off a web page and go with it. Another PMZ...

So you don't know;

how light is absorbed or emitted by atoms and molecules.*

the difference between macroscopic*measures and microscopic processes. *

what x-ray crystolography is.

how light is transmitted through transparent materials.

what valence bands have to do with light.

You are not presenting yourself as credibly knowledgable about basic science.

LOL

Spamming the board to hide your ineptitude won't help you this time anymore than it did in last attempts socko..

Please google up as much rhetoric as you need. Everyone loves desperation.

 

[gslack]

DNFTEC. That is, do not feed the energy creature.

ifitzme, your opponent only wants a pissing match. You win by laughing it off the Enterprise, so to speak. You lose by supplying it with more of the negative emotional energy on which it feeds. Just ignore it, like everyone else does. It's focusing on you now because you're the only one who will give it the attention it craves.

Yes, yes, call back this iteration as well. Your little brother is a moron dude.

 

[itfitzme]

It's a no to what question socko? You didn't ask me anything, and frankly the only question you seemed to ask at all was to flac. And even that was you trying to save face after the last two embarrassing things you did. Claiming reflection is absorption and then denying the field of optical computing,pretty ignorant, now you google up something new to try and distract from your earlier screwups.

LOL, you fake internet scientists never learn from the mistakes you made with your previous personas, that's why these new ones get outed so easily. All we gotta do is let you talk and you will say something to ruin it for yourself..

BTW, what does the Valence bond theory have to do with this discussion? *Or was that another one of your lame attempts to fake knowledge again? LOL, you're ridiculous man. You don't even know what you're rambling about, you just go and grab something that sounds scientific off a web page and go with it. Another PMZ...

You're free to answer the same question.

And there is another good question for you, what do valence bands have to do with absorption?

Excellent.

You should also do a multivariate linear regression on atmospheric gases and other environmental measures thay are hypothesized to affect global temperatures. *You can find CO2 measures online at the Mau Loa website. Look up Hadcrut for temp data. *Sun spot data is somewhere. *What else can you think of?

If you would like to explore further, you can find ice core data under Volstock.

I got a better one for you and I already asked it.. What does Valence Bond THEORY have to do with this thread? Or even better still, why are you asking me questions that do not help your previous case of claiming absorption is reflection?

LOL, you got caught lacking and being ignorant so you try to divert and hide it with more irrelevancies that do not further the discussion or answer for your previous mistakes..

Well, if you understood the basic science, you woudn't be asking the question.

Frankly, I really don't feel like repeating it.

 

[gslack]

You're free to answer the same question.

And there is another good question for you, what do valence bands have to do with absorption?

Excellent.

You should also do a multivariate linear regression on atmospheric gases and other environmental measures thay are hypothesized to affect global temperatures. *You can find CO2 measures online at the Mau Loa website. Look up Hadcrut for temp data. *Sun spot data is somewhere. *What else can you think of?

If you would like to explore further, you can find ice core data under Volstock.

I got a better one for you and I already asked it.. What does Valence Bond THEORY have to do with this thread? Or even better still, why are you asking me questions that do not help your previous case of claiming absorption is reflection?

LOL, you got caught lacking and being ignorant so you try to divert and hide it with more irrelevancies that do not further the discussion or answer for your previous mistakes..

Well, if you understood the basic science, you woudn't be asking the question.

Frankly, I really don't feel like repeating it.

LOL, you never answered it the first time silly socko,there is no restating involved..

 

[IanC]

At risk of derailing the food fight, I wonder if we might refocus on the OP for a bit. IanC has presented the questions that I think all honest scientists and we amateur science buffs have been asking throughout the whole debate and controversies of anthropogenic global warmng. And the one single question we should all be asking separate from ideology, political prejudices, and dogma is what is normal and natural and what is not.

Some of us have the capacity to observe the issue objectively. Some of us apparently do not.

This week I have been reading on how indigenous people in the arctic circle have been studying conditions there for a very long time and adapting their hunting and fishing according to changing conditions that have been an inevitable fact of life for them long before the industrial revolution. There are studies of changing conditions on the MacKenzie River that are of concern to some; routine to others. It is curious how Alaska has experienced warmer conditions over the last 30 years or so while parts of Canada have been significantly cooler.

These things and many others present the same old questions to the curious and yet unconvinced:

1. Do human generated greenhouse gasses introduced into the atmosphere have a significant affect on the climate?

2. If they do not, and global warming is occurring through uncontrollable forces, would not our efforts be better spent studying how to adapt productively to inevitable climate change?

3. If they do, are we certain whether that is a good or bad thing? Would a few degrees warming, even if it does result in some flooding of coastal areas, make it possible to better utilize large tracts of land that are currently mostly unusable? Many scientists agree that in the past, warmer has provided a better life for many species on Earth, including ours, than have periods of below normal cold.

The arctic ice coverage is retreating more slowly this year than it has for awhile. The 'warmers' say that isn't important because the ice 'isn't as thick as it is supposed to be.' But is that true? We have had capability to study the whole of actic ice behavior for such a short time. How do we know what is 'normal' and what is not?

All this is what I would like to discuss. I wonder if that is possible on a message board?

ya know, I think I prefer a good question to a good answer. growing up on Vancouver Island waterfront pointed out a lot of changes to me. changes in salmon stock, size of herring runs, even whether jellyfish were abundant or not. people obviously can make a difference, often for the worst. popularity of spearguns wiped out the big lingcod, seemingly overnight. papermills left local bays dead from dioxins in their effluent. but stop polluting and the bays return to life, stop overfishing and the fish come back. on of the interesting things about studying salmon was the discovery of the PDO. even ENSO is just a new 'discovery' with serious implications for understanding climate.

foxy- here is an article on the PDO from one of my favourite polymaths.

Decadal Oscillations Of The Pacific Kind | Watts Up With That?

 

[SSDD]

If the AGW hoax would ever stop sucking all the air from the room and all the money from the coffers, maybe the natural sciences could get back on track and some headway could be made towards further understanding natural cycles. So long as the AGW hoax reigns, natural cycles are all but non existent and certainly unimportant to the big picture. It really is way past time to derail the crazy train.

 

[Foxfyre]

If the AGW hoax would ever stop sucking all the air from the room and all the money from the coffers, maybe the natural sciences could get back on track and some headway could be made towards further understanding natural cycles. So long as the AGW hoax reigns, natural cycles are all but non existent and certainly unimportant to the big picture. It really is way past time to derail the crazy train.

Yes, yes, and yes!!! You're singing my song.

 

[Foxfyre]

At risk of derailing the food fight, I wonder if we might refocus on the OP for a bit. IanC has presented the questions that I think all honest scientists and we amateur science buffs have been asking throughout the whole debate and controversies of anthropogenic global warmng. And the one single question we should all be asking separate from ideology, political prejudices, and dogma is what is normal and natural and what is not.

Some of us have the capacity to observe the issue objectively. Some of us apparently do not.

This week I have been reading on how indigenous people in the arctic circle have been studying conditions there for a very long time and adapting their hunting and fishing according to changing conditions that have been an inevitable fact of life for them long before the industrial revolution. There are studies of changing conditions on the MacKenzie River that are of concern to some; routine to others. It is curious how Alaska has experienced warmer conditions over the last 30 years or so while parts of Canada have been significantly cooler.

These things and many others present the same old questions to the curious and yet unconvinced:

1. Do human generated greenhouse gasses introduced into the atmosphere have a significant affect on the climate?

2. If they do not, and global warming is occurring through uncontrollable forces, would not our efforts be better spent studying how to adapt productively to inevitable climate change?

3. If they do, are we certain whether that is a good or bad thing? Would a few degrees warming, even if it does result in some flooding of coastal areas, make it possible to better utilize large tracts of land that are currently mostly unusable? Many scientists agree that in the past, warmer has provided a better life for many species on Earth, including ours, than have periods of below normal cold.

The arctic ice coverage is retreating more slowly this year than it has for awhile. The 'warmers' say that isn't important because the ice 'isn't as thick as it is supposed to be.' But is that true? We have had capability to study the whole of actic ice behavior for such a short time. How do we know what is 'normal' and what is not?

All this is what I would like to discuss. I wonder if that is possible on a message board?

ya know, I think I prefer a good question to a good answer. growing up on Vancouver Island waterfront pointed out a lot of changes to me. changes in salmon stock, size of herring runs, even whether jellyfish were abundant or not. people obviously can make a difference, often for the worst. popularity of spearguns wiped out the big lingcod, seemingly overnight. papermills left local bays dead from dioxins in their effluent. but stop polluting and the bays return to life, stop overfishing and the fish come back. on of the interesting things about studying salmon was the discovery of the PDO. even ENSO is just a new 'discovery' with serious implications for understanding climate.

foxy- here is an article on the PDO from one of my favourite polymaths.

Decadal Oscillations Of The Pacific Kind | Watts Up With That?

Absolutely. Being something of a passionate extremist when it comes to senseless, careless, or foolish destruction of the environment--nobody protests that more than I do--I applaud all scientists who study it, raise the alarm when appropriate, and those who take action to correct it when it happens. And certainly humans, in their unique human activities, have often been guilty of it. But unlike other creature, humans also have the capability to recognize it, understand it, and correct it. Sometimes we do a good job of that. Sometimes not so much.

But in all things, solid information, honest science, and common sense is the only way to go. Being fallible humans, we will still make mistakes, but as you pointed out, we can correct those. But when honest science is removed from the equation to fit some political or profit motive, we humans can do real violence to the Earth, and economic and physical violence to each other.

I don't remember if it was this or anothe environmental thread, but in the last several weeks I posted a video and information on a project to deal with desertification in Africa. The scientist directing the project decided it was due to overpopulation of elephants. Some 4000 elephants were then destroyed. And the desertification accelerated. Turned out it was an under population of elephants that was causing the desertification due to overhunting or whatever. The activity of the elephants was actually what kept the foliage and grasses, etc. growing and healthy.

The lesson to be learned: certainly we humans should stop our own activities that are causing unnecessary harm, but when we start meddling with nature itself, we should be very very certain of what we are doing.

The warmers should take notes.

 

[itfitzme]

Absolutely. *Being something of a passionate extremist when it comes to senseless, careless, or foolish destruction of the environment--nobody protests that more than I do--I applaud all scientists who study it, raise the alarm when appropriate, and those who take action to correct it when it happens. * And certainly humans, in their unique human activities, have often been guilty of it. *But unlike other creature, humans also have the capability to recognize it, understand it, and correct it. * Sometimes we do a good job of that. *Sometimes not so much.

But in all things, solid information, honest science, and common sense is the only way to go. *Being fallible humans, we will still make mistakes, but as you pointed out, we can correct those. *But when honest science is removed from the equation to fit some political or profit motive, we humans can do real violence to the Earth, and economic and physical violence to each other.

I don't remember if it was this or anothe environmental thread, but in the last several weeks I posted a video and information on a project to deal with desertification in Africa. *The scientist directing the project decided it was due to overpopulation of elephants. *Some 4000 elephants were then destroyed. *And the desertification accelerated. *Turned out it was an under population of elephants that was causing the desertification due to overhunting or whatever. *The activity of the elephants was actually what kept the foliage and grasses, etc. growing and healthy.

The lesson to be learned: *certainly we humans should stop our own activities that are causing unnecessary harm, but when we start meddling with nature itself, we should be very very certain of what we are doing.

The warmers should take notes.

Well there you go then. *Proof that all science amd environmental considerations should be completely abandoned. *After all, efforts to reduce carbon emissions is meddling with nature. *And an excellent example, a video that you kinda remember posting, some time in a two week time frame and somewhere on some thread. *

Yep, warmies should take note of that. The IPCC will stick that right in their model. *They can just add 10% to the final variance. That'll do it. *Cuz that's science.

 

[itfitzme]

I got a better one for you and I already asked it.. What does Valence Bond THEORY have to do with this thread? Or even better still, why are you asking me questions that do not help your previous case of claiming absorption is reflection?

LOL, you got caught lacking and being ignorant so you try to divert and hide it with more irrelevancies that do not further the discussion or answer for your previous mistakes..

Well, if you understood the basic science, you woudn't be asking the question.

Frankly, I really don't feel like repeating it.

LOL, you never answered it the first time silly socko,there is no restating involved..

Here is another. The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos

 

[Foxfyre]

Muttering to myself. . . ."I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . ." "I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . ."

No Foxfyre, you may not neg rep Itfitzme. Resist. Resist. Resist.

And questioning to everybody: How can anybody read a post and draw such completely a wrong/different conclusion from what is posted? Unless it is deliberate? And wouldn't that fit the definition of a troll?

 

[gslack]

Well, if you understood the basic science, you woudn't be asking the question.

Frankly, I really don't feel like repeating it.

LOL, you never answered it the first time silly socko,there is no restating involved..

Here is another. The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos

Yes please a video to hide your screw up. Don't bother acknowledging any previous errors on your part, just post more until you bury it...

ROFL, you fake scientist socks are too funny.

 

[westwall]

Muttering to myself. . . ."I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . ." "I will not feed the trolls, argue with idiots, or engage in exercises of futility. . . ."

No Foxfyre, you may not neg rep Itfitzme. Resist. Resist. Resist.

And questioning to everybody: How can anybody read a post and draw such completely a wrong/different conclusion from what is posted? Unless it is deliberate? And wouldn't that fit the definition of a troll?

Why yes Foxy, that is the definition of a troll....

 

[mamooth]

Yes, yes, call back this iteration as well. Your little brother is a moron dude.

OUT! We need no urging to hate humans. But for the present, only a fool fights in a burning house. OUT!