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 15:12 On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:23:50 -0700, claudiusdenk(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >On Aug 3, 10:42 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:37:00 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >On Aug 3, 10:12 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 10:03:55 -0700, claudiusd...(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: >> >> >On Aug 3, 9:58 am, Jonathan Kirwan <jkir...(a)easystreet.com> wrote: >> >> >> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 09:28:24 -0700, z <gzuck...(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. >> >> >> >Uh . . . shouldn't they be. You know, to be consistent? >> >> >> Humans today introduce new elements. Consistency here is that the >> >> natural systems have their own responses to these __new__ intrusions. >> >> >I'm not understanding. Could you be less vague and more explicit and >> >specific? Are you arguing against uniformitarianism? You know, are >> >you saying the laws of nature (principles of cause and effect) in the >> >past were different than they are at present? > >No response. > >> >Surely you couldn't be >> >making such a specious argument. So please clarify. If CO2 didn't >> >lead temp in the past then why should we believe it does now? > >No response. > >> >> >Please be explicit in your response. And, please, refrain from the >> >whacko tactic of proof by assertion. If you can't support an >> >assertion then don't assert it. >> >> >> > CO2 levels can (as can CH4 levels) be >> >> >> driven by Milankovitch cycles, for example. And none of that takes >> >> >> away from the idea that CO2 driven by human activities can also be the >> >> >> __lead__ in a rise in temperature, >> >> >> >None of it indicates why we should believe it does either. >> >> >> Since I already know you cannot either cannot read science with >> >> understanding >> >> >How can I be expected to read and understand something that you have >> >not (yet) presented. I've yet to see any evidence that CO2 can/will >> >have a thermal effect on atmospheric temperatures. There is no >> >shortage of people that will claim that it does. But there is >> >absolutely nobody that can say how or how much. >> >> I'm not going to be engaged on arguing this with you. > >Why not? I explained why. See below. >> You can't even >> deal with the theory and mathematics in Rasool & Scheider's 1971 paper >> on the subject, and that's just a highly simplified 1D approach to the >> question. > >I'm well aware of this paper. What aspect of it would you like to >discuss? Have you read it and can you work your way through the arguments with understanding? You don't say. >> That you have "yet to see any evidence" doesn't amount to a >> hill of beans one way or another. It's just noise. > >One can only wonder why you suddenly don't want to discuss any of >this. I think I explained why, clearly. I'm not interested in engaging folks who cannot handle the theory or the math, for one. For another, there is already the very best resources available on this subject from the IPCC and I've no intention of pretending to do better than they at this subject. There is no need for me to deal with anything unless you take a specific point from their discussions you find incorrect where I also feel I can shed some light. >> >> or else are taking an intentionally deceitful position, >> >> I can see why you might say that. However, to anyone else there is >> >> plenty of reasoning available >> >> >Keep in mind we don't have access to your imagination. >> >> >> that is very strong and better than any >> >> other reasoning presented so far. >> >> >So we're supposed to take your word on this? >> >> I'd MUCH rather folks go read the peer-reviewed papers for themselves. > >I have. All of them. I don't believe you. Jon >Don't be shy.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 15:13 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 Milkankovitch cycles drive CO2 and CH4 levels >without involving temperature? Who said it didn't involve temperature? Jon
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 15:16 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. Jon
From: Bill Ward on 3 Aug 2007 15:43 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? It's not clear what you mean.
From: Jonathan Kirwan on 3 Aug 2007 15:36
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. Jon |