A Measurement of CO2 Climate Forcing, and an estimation of it's increase.
in [Physics]
|
Prev: 9-11 Truth - Inside Job
Next: Brain Locus as Radio Re: Precision definition of life versus nonlife Chapt 21 #255 Atom Totality #27 Brain Locus theory
From: Last Post on 2 Aug 2010 08:42 On Aug 1, 8:29 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >   The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect >    http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm à The AIP management has been divorced from the majority of its membership. Do not expect valid science under its imprimitur > >   Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases >    http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html à Woods hole has long since sacrified integrity for money. The above title proves it. à Worm:â It is time you grew up and learned some real science. 1- There is NO "Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect" 2- There is NO "increasing temperatures" 3- So called "greenhouse gases" have ZERO thermal effects. 4- Anthropogenic portion of all greenhouse gases is microscopically small = 0.278% GH GAS | TOTAL |NATURE|MAN MADE âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ H2O Vapour | 95.000% | 94.999% |0.001% âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ â¨CO2 | 03.618% | 3.502% |0.117% âââââââââââââ¨âââââââââââââââââââ Methane | 0.260% | 0.294% |0.066% â¨âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ Nitrous oxide | 0.950% | 0.903 |0.047% âââââââââââ¨âââââââââââââââââââââ Misc, CFC etc| 0.072% | 0.025% |0.047% âââââââââââââââââââââââââââââââ â â | In real science the burden of proof is always | on the proposer, never on the skeptics. So far | neither IPCC nor anyone else has provided one | iota of valid data for global warming nor have | they provided data that climate change is being | effected by commerce and industry, and not by | natural causes.
From: Last Post on 2 Aug 2010 09:51 On Aug 2, 3:04 am, Benj <bjac...(a)iwaynet.net> wrote: > > The propaganda then knows no limits. I wonder why the membership isn't > smart enough to figure out the way they've been scammed by their > trusted leaders? Ø Not enough of the AIP membership has had the guts to buck the politicians. Remember, a majority of the working members are dependent on global warming funding. When, a few years ago, a rump held a seminar, disputing AGW the president issued a release declaring the report was inconsistent with the opinion of the AIP membership. > The whole of science is getting a black eye by these > guys and the physics sheep don't have a clue. Since AIP wishes to now > engage in politics instead of science, I wonder why they've never > polled their membership on "AGW"? Think they are afraid of the > opinions they'd get?
From: leonard78sp on 2 Aug 2010 10:24 On Aug 2, 9:36 am, Tom Pissypants <werot...(a)freent.dd> wrote: > > WHOOPEEEEE!!! No more stupid abuse from Androcles!! Another denialist > retreats to his cave to sulk in silence... Ø Tom Pissypants gleefully flaunts his naziism. There are three types of people that you can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the logic of what you say. You have to tell them what is right in very simple terms. If they do not agree, you will never be able to change their mind. 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes against their religious belief, they will cling to that belief even if it means their death. 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a million years. There is no way to convince anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists, terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and predators to change their evil ways, They knew what they were doing was wrong, but knowledge didn't stop them. It only made them more careful in how they went about performing their evil deeds.
From: Dawlish on 2 Aug 2010 10:31 On Aug 2, 3:24 pm, "leonard7...(a)gmail.com" <leonard7...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Aug 2, 9:36 am, Tom Pissypants <werot...(a)freent.dd> wrote: > > > > > WHOOPEEEEE!!! No more stupid abuse from Androcles!! Another denialist > > retreats to his cave to sulk in silence... > > Ø Tom Pissypants gleefully flaunts his naziism. > > > There are three types of people that you > can_not_talk_into_behaving_well. The > stupid, the religious fanatic, and the evil. > > 1- The stupid aren't smart enough to follow the > logic of what you say. You have to tell them > what is right in very simple terms. If they do > not agree, you will never be able to change > their mind. > > 2- The religious fanatic: If what you say goes > against their religious belief, they will cling to > that belief even if it means their death. > > 3- There is no way to reform evil- not in a > million years. There is no way to convince > > anthropogenic_global_warming_alarmists, > > terrorists, serial killers, paedophiles, and > > predators to change their evil ways, They > knew what they were doing was wrong, but > knowledge didn't stop them. It only made > them more careful in how they went about > performing their evil deeds. Do you try hard to be stupid, or does it come naturally? Sit back down in the stupid seats and stop posting would be the best advice. Then no- one would be able to discover just how deeply stupid you really are. As if anyone would ever feel that your views were worth anything. Do you realise just how worthless your posting on here is?
From: Claudius Denk on 2 Aug 2010 10:38
On Aug 2, 5:18 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 8/2/10 12:47 AM, Claudius Denk wrote: > > On Aug 1, 5:29 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 8/1/10 6:59 PM, Claudius Denk wrote: > >>> On Aug 1, 4:08 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI) > >>>> http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/aggi/ > > >>> Can you show us where the term "greenhouse gas" is defined? > > >> Here's some background for you from the American Institute of Physics > > >> The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect > >> http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm > > >> Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures& Greenhouse Gases > >> http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html > > > Did you know that there is no peer-reviewed and/or experimental > > evidenc that CO2 has any effect at all on atmospheric temperatures? This is why you are unable to cut and paste a definition of greenhouse gas. No such definition exists. The term "greenhouse gas" is a propaganda term. Not a scientific term. You AGW whackos are trying to get us to scientifically buy in on a notion that you are too dullwitted to recognize is not a scientific notion. End of story. |