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: z on 29 Nov 2008 05:14 On Nov 29, 12:49 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:35:59 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > On 28 nov, 14:20, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >> z wrote: > >> > and the fact that water vapor partial pressure rises with temperature, > >> > thereby making it an amplifier of other effects, such as CO2. > > >> An unproven hypothesis. i.e random noise. > > > There's nothing unproven about the "hypothesis" that the partial pressure > > of water vapour in contact with liquid water rises with temperature. It's > > up there with Newton's law of gravity as one of the fundamental theories > > of science. > > > And more water vapour does mean more pressure broadening in the carbon > > dioxide absorbtion spectrum. > > > Carbonic acid (H2CO3) may not be stable in the vapour phase at room > > temperature, but it is stable enough that any collision between a water > > molecule and a carbon dioxide molecule lasts qute a bit longer than you'd > > calculate from a billiard-ball model. > > > Eeyore's response isn't random noise either, though it's information > > content isn't any more useful - we already knew that Eeyore knows squat > > about physics, and he's long since made it clear than he doesn't realise > > how little he knows by posting loads of these over-confident and > > thoroughly absurd assertions. > > He may also be aware that increased water vapor lowers the condensation > altitude, raising the radiation temperature, and increasing the emitted IR > energy by the 4th power radiation law. IOW, it's a negative feedback, not > positive.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - oh, we're back to the unfortunate theory that greenhouse effect, as embodied by water vapor for instance, cools the planet, are we? but if water vapor is a negative feedback, then CO2 must be warming the planet, by the definition of negative feedback. of course. between the one guy who doesn't understand the definition of linear equations but deigns to sit in judgment on the entire concept of a "model" and the other guy who thinks the greenhouse effect cools the planet, i think it's pretty clear we're not going to actually do anything until penguins evolve sweat glands. and that's rather sad. idiocracy is here.
From: Malcolm Moore on 29 Nov 2008 06:08 On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 13:19:03 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >Malcolm Moore wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: >> > >> >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". > >You're a screaming LOONIE ! Given your tendency to write in upper case, the epithet "screaming" is more applicable to yourself. As for thinking I'm "loonie", you introduced the radar analogy so it can't be that. Therefore I guess you think I'm loonie because I thought you might behave ethically by declaring previous employment, and not using undeserved titles. Your habit of making unattributed snips should have warned me that was unlikely. -- Regards Malcolm Remove sharp objects to get a valid e-mail address
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2008 11:04 Malcolm Moore wrote: > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >Malcolm Moore wrote: > >> Eeyore wrote: > >> > > >> >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". > > > >You're a screaming LOONIE ! > > Given your tendency to write in upper case, the epithet "screaming" is > more applicable to yourself. > > As for thinking I'm "loonie", you introduced the radar analogy so it > can't be that. Therefore I guess you think I'm loonie because I > thought you might behave ethically by declaring previous employment, > and not using undeserved titles. Your habit of making unattributed > snips should have warned me that was unlikely. A very lame attempt at obfuscation. Expalin why certain groups of people should be 'disallowed' from discussing AGW or not taken seriously and only 'believers' allowed to contribute, in a rational scientific manner please. Graham
From: Eeyore on 29 Nov 2008 11:06 "John M." wrote: > On Nov 29, 7:10 am, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:51:20 -0800, bill.sloman wrote: > > > On 28 nov, 17:09, Bill Ward <bw...(a)REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote: > > > > >> Maybe you should stop worrying about the educational level of others, > > >> and, if you really did get an advanced degree, see if it's too late to > > >> get a refund. > > > > > You seem to be suffering from delusions of adequacy. Report to the > > > quality control department at your own educational establishment - they > > > need to work out where they went wrong so that they can do better in > > > future. > > > > >> Try teaching rather than preaching. You'll learn more. > > > > > Persistent delusions of adequacy. > > > > Well, it works for me. > > Everybody's delusions work for them. Glad you finally discovered that > important fact. Welcome to the real world. Have you never heard of snipping ? Posting hundreds of lines of repeated text is as idiotic as you are. Graham
From: John M. on 29 Nov 2008 12:51
On Nov 29, 5:06 pm, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelati...(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > Have you never heard of snipping ? > > Posting hundreds of lines of repeated text is as idiotic as you are. Bilbo uses the snipping of text as a pretext for special pleading. Chop even a full stop and he will claim you have obscured the very piece of information that clinches his argument. Furthermore, he will go on to obfuscate further by re-posting the snipped text either whole or in part as though it really were relevant (it never is). The only way one can halt this outrageous behaviour is not to snip, even though ultimately it fulfills Bilbo's objective - the sheer weight of material hides his errors from most people's view. |