AGWists are sore losers
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Relativity: Einstein's lost frame
Next: DISCOVERY OF BRIGHT GALAXIES IN THE DISTANT UNIVERSE AND A VARIABLE GRAVITATIONAL 'CONSTANT'
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 16:59 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:54:49 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >I have. All of them. >> >> I don't believe you. > >It hardly matters since you refuse to discuss any of this anyways. I refuse to play your game and I discuss what I know better. >For you this forum is nothing but an opportunity for more propaganda. No, mostly I read. Sometimes, when I see something I know that is wrongly put (as Kent's comment about orbital energy, for example), I say so. >For me it's an opportunity to expose you as a propagandist. Feel free. You have completely failed to do anything of the sort, so far. Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 17:00 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:54:49 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: ><snip> >I knew you couldn't answer any questions. Hmm. How's your calculus question doing? Still unable to answer it, yet? Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 17:04 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:16:49 GMT, I wrote: >On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:52:22 GMT, I wrote: > >><snip> >>I will take the derivative as the first step: >> >> dx = cos(theta) d(r) - r sin(theta) d(theta) >> dy = sin(theta) d(r) + r cos(theta) d(theta) >> >>I don't want to go too fast for you, though. So tell me if you agree >>with the above, or not. And if you do understand it, I'll let you >>take the next step and fill out the following for me: >> >> d^2x = >> d^2y = >> >>If you can muster enough to do that, and I agree with your results, we >>can then proceed to show one of the basic fundamentals in physics, the >>arrival of the idea of angular momentum and its conservation in >>central-force problems. >><snip> > >Well, claudiusdenk, let's have it. Or, if Kent feels up to it, I'd be >happy enough just to see him jump in here and provide this important >step. It's really quite basic stuff, so if my own expectations >weren't so low for you two, I'd actually not expect this step to be >difficult and we'd be able to quickly proceed to the derivations >required to show the existence and reasoning behind the idea of >angular momentum, without the use of vector algebra and concepts. > >This is really pretty trivial calculus, by the way. Faced with this >question, I'd dash out the correct response without batting an eye or >even worrying why someone would ask. That you have still failed to do >so only tells me abundantly you don't have a clue and are struggling >to muster a response. > >Please show me I'm wrong. I will provide the correct answer to this step in four hours, if you and Kent both fail to provide it by then. That should give you a timeline to go study up and avoid a manifest demonstration of your math inadequacies. Jon
From: claudiusdenk on 3 Aug 2007 17:46 On Aug 3, 2:00 pm, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 13:54:49 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > ><snip> > >I knew you couldn't answer any questions. > > Hmm. How's your calculus question doing? Still unable to answer it, > yet? > > Jon Oh, I get it. You knew you couldn't answer any of my questions about climatology and AGW so you put up a subject that you can answer. What do you think you are proving except that you are an evasive twit?
From: Bill Ward on 3 Aug 2007 18:09
On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 20:32:40 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: > On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:57:24 -0700, Bill Ward > <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > >>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:36:02 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >> >>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:43:57 -0700, Bill Ward >>> <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>> >>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 19:13:04 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:35:19 -0700, Bill Ward >>>>> <bward(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 16:58:03 +0000, Jonathan Kirwan wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuckier(a)snail-mail.net> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On Jul 27, 11:57 pm, kdth...(a)yahoo.com wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> So throw down on some none lies and irrelevancy on this SIMPLE >>>>>>>>> TOPIC of the changing temperatures and CO2 levels according to >>>>>>>>> the ice cores which show the lag of about 900 yrs for CO2 to >>>>>>>>> temperature. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Sure, that's easy enough for you to say. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Nowhere in his comment does he show any knowledge about the error >>>>>>> bars in the ice core time measurements. I believe they quite often >>>>>>> exceed 900 years. Not that it matters, as there wasn't 6 billion >>>>>>> people on the planet at the time dumping huge quantities of CO2 >>>>>>> into the atmosphere and no one is arguing that CO2 must always >>>>>>> __lead__ a temperature rise, back then. CO2 levels can (as can CH4 >>>>>>> levels) be driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. >>>>>> >>>>>>OK, I'll bite. How can Milankovitch cycles drive CO2 and CH4 levels >>>>>>without involving temperature? >>>>> >>>>> Who said it didn't involve temperature? >>>> >>>>Then are you implying that rising temperatures from the Milankovitch >>>>cycle caused the CO2 and CH4 to increase? >>> >>> Yes, that consideration should be in the mix. >>> >>>>It's not clear what you mean. >>> >>> Sorry about that. >> >>S'OK, nobody's perfect. What other effects of the Milankovitch cycle on >>CO2 and CH4 do you see in your "mix"? > > My purpose was just as I said, that Kent's comment about a 900 years lag > (whether taken from a factual source, or otherwise) isn't determinative. > For (1), the error bars in the time measurements are rather wide in some > places in the datasets and can easily wipe out something that appears to > be a mere 900 yr lag. (In other words, it's possible that it is a lead > and not a lag, at all, and that the errors in time measurement account for > that difference.) For (2), a lag taken to be the actual case in some > circumstances may very well be an effect or response and not a driving > force and, due to atmospheric CO2's effect on warming itself, is a > positive feedback factor enhancing another natural cause (such as > Milankovitch cucles.) > > For the current state of science on these things, one must be fairly > comprehensive and study quite a few reports. I don't hold myself out as > an expert in this area. Just an interested consumer of some of it. OK, fair enough, I'm about the same. The reason for my question was your comment, "CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example." I took that to imply the M cycle could directly affect something other than temperature, such as CO2 and CH4. Apparently that's not what you meant. On the original point, according to what I've seen, the CO2 vs temperature lag was determined by correlation of the two datasets (T and CO2) from each of a number of icecores from differing locations. The lag is fairly consistent across cores. Error bars were calculated normally (3 sigma?), and seem to rule out any lead of CO2 ahead of T. Hence the assumption that CO2 cannot drive temperature. The positive feedback you refer to is, I believe, derived entirely from climate models and unconfirmed assumptions about the behavior of water vapor in the troposphere. Given your interest in math, you may find climate models interesting: http://www.giss.nasa.gov/tools/modelE/ |