The world has never seen such freezing heat
in [Design]
|
Prev: Class D audio driver with external mosfets
Next: NE162 mixer: input/output impedance in balanced mode?
From: Whata Fool on 27 Nov 2008 22:27 Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Whata Fool wrote: > >> bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> > >> >The oxygen and nitrogen molecules exchange energy with carbon dioxide >> >molecules whenever they collide, so the carbon dioxide radiates for >> >them. >> >> Ignoring water vapor again? Is that a mental problem, or >> an order from control? > >LMFAO ! > >I though it was an acknowledged fact that water vapour is the big factor in climate. > >Graham I should not have been flippant, the last couple of replies seem to suggest that the atmosphere would get hotter without any GHGs, and you know what that means to GreenHouse Theory and Anthropogenic Global Warming.
From: Malcolm Moore on 27 Nov 2008 23:25 On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 02:56:06 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Malcolm Moore wrote: > >> On Thu, 27 Nov 2008 15:26:27 +0000, Eeyore >> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> > >> > >> >bill.sloman(a)ieee.org wrote: >> > >> >> On 27 nov, 01:04, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> >> >> wrote: >> >> > bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: >> >> > > For some bizarre reason you put your trust in a bunch of web-sites >> >> > > funded by Exxon-Mobil and other groups with a financial interest in >> >> > > being able to continue to extract and sell the maximum amount of >> >> > > fossil fuel, despite the dangers that this poses to our environment. >> >> > >> >> > Oh really ? >> >> > >> >> > http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php >> >> >> >> This does seem to be another industry front group - New Zealand >> >> doesn't seem to have the sort of public information laws that would >> >> let us find out who is paying, but the members do show up at >> >> fuel industry funded jamborees acoss the world, >> > >> >Who are we, and why? >> > >> >The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition was formed in April 2006 by a group of New Zealanders, mostly resident here >> >but some overseas, who are concerned at the misleading information being disseminated about climate change and >> >so-called anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. >> >> snip direct paste from >> <http://nzclimatescience.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogsection&id=12&Itemid=45> >> >> > >> >YOU WERE SAYING ? >> > >> >Graham >> >> The page you have quoted gives no information about the funding of >> that organisation. >> >> YOU WERE SAYING ? >> >> It's unsure where their funding for direct running costs comes from. >> That said, the costs of running a website are very small. The members >> are either retired or are employed elsewhere and possibly fund it >> themselves. >> >> However, some costs of their members attending international >> conferences has been paid for by The Heartland Institute, which does >> receive direct funding from Exon-Mobil. >> >> "Leyland says CFACT did not pay him to attend the Bali talks, but >> acknowledges some expenses were met by the Chicago-based Heartland >> Institute" >> <http://www.thelistener.co.nz/issue/3541/columnists/10716/some_like_it_hot.html> >> >> The page you quote is interesting in what it doesn't say about their >> members. For example, Vincent Gray spent a large part of his working >> life employed as chemist at the NZ Coal Research Institute. > Pleased to see you now have no argument regarding the funding claims. >SO ? > >I spent some time working in radar. Does that make me ineligible for any other branch of electronics, or will I always be >a 'radar shill' ? > >That, quite frankly is what your pitiful 'argument' boils down to. If you were advocating that any harmful effects of radar were a nonsense, I'd expect your previous employment to be made known. I also hope you wouldn't attempt to give your advocacy more credence by claiming to be a physiologist. That is effectively what the NZCSC is doing when it claims the first eight names on it's list are all "Climate Scientists". -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: z on 27 Nov 2008 23:32 On Nov 25, 3:47 am, Whata Fool <wh...(a)fool.ami> wrote: > Air would be warmer than present if there were no GHGs, > that means, without question or need for further study, that > GHGs cool the atmosphere. there ya go.
From: z on 27 Nov 2008 23:34 On Nov 25, 6:14 am, bill.slo...(a)ieee.org wrote: > By and large, climatologists are regular academics with tenure. AGW > doesn't pay their salaries, and the usual response to this claim is > remind the questioner that every scientist dreams of being able to > over-turm the current orthodoxy - it is the royal road to fame, to > appointments at the best universities and to prestigious (and well > paid) consulting gigs. oh no! everybody knows the way to make a living in physics is to dedicate your career to proving that gravity exists.
From: z on 27 Nov 2008 23:36
On Nov 25, 11:50 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > Now explain in your own words how traces of CO2 can affect Earth's surface > temperatures in the presence of a large excess of water. Include the > effects of latent heat convection, the near adiabatic lapse rate through > the troposphere, and the observation that the effective radiating altitude > and cloud tops are near each other. > first you explain how retaining part of the energy leaving the earth will NOT raise the temperature. for myself, i have a belief in conservation of energy ntil definitely proved otherwise. |