Science and Technology news... :: View topic - The 'Global Warming in a Bottle' Experiment, Done Correctly.

Whata Fool · Guest

chemist <tom-bolger@ntlworld.com> wrote:

[quote]On Oct 31, 9:00Â pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk
wrote:
On Oct 31, 9:47 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 12:00:14 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Oct 31, 7:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 08:36:36 -0700, Bolaleman wrote:
On Oct 31, 6:07 am, chemist <tom-bol...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
On Oct 31, 1:45 am, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a "Young Scientists
Special."
Â It aired on 4/26/08 Â (Season 6, Episode 8). Â One of the items they
put to the test was greenhouse gas theory. Â They made 4 large
rectangular chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another, and used the
remaining two for controls.

They simulated the Earth by shining a light through the clear mylar
on one side onto a black painted surface at the other side. the
greenhouse gas chambers were warmer and melted more ice than the
control groups. They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

Tom Bolger should look at this demonstration to see how to do this
correctly. Â He>s failed too many times and he needs help.

I found my copy on the LImewireâ„¢ network. Â This episode is
probably also available on DVD. Please see:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1225053/

Give us more detail such as
were the containers open.
METHANE DOES NOT WARM FASTER THAN AIR.
Chemist, here is the reason:
When heat is lost to the air, some is absorbed by nitrogen, some is
absorbed by oxygen, and a tiny amount is absorbed by argon, carbon
dioxide, water vapor, and trace gases. You can write:

Heat absorbed by one mole of air = heat absorbed by O2 + heat absorbed
by N2 + ...
= Â Â xO2Cp(O2) T + xN2Cp(N2) Â T + ...

where xO2 and xN2 are moles of oxygen and moles of nitrogen per mole
of air, and Cp(O2) and Cp(N2) are the constant pressure molar heat
capacites for pure oxygen and nitrogen gases.

Assuming that air is 21% oxygen, and 79% nitrogen by volume. If you
can assume that the air behaves ideally, Avogadro>s law says that the
volume fraction for each gas is also its mole fraction. However, gases
like CO2, H2O and methane (CH4) do not behave like an ideal gas.

As O2 and N2 are di-atomic gases, but CO2, H2O and methane are three-
and four- atomic gases, they have more degrees of freedom, i.e.
infrared energy can be converted more easily into intra-molecular
atomic vibrations which is equal kinetic energy or heat energy. As a
result, these gases (including water as vapor) are heated up more
easily than oxygen and nitrogen by Infrared (IR) radiation. This
conversion of radiation energy to kinetic energy by the way is the
principal of IR spectroscopy. The higher energetic ultraviolet
radiation (UV) is causing excitations of outer electrons (used for
instance in the UV spectroscopy). This â€œabsorbedâ€ energy can be
converted partially in kinetic swinging energy (resulting in heat
production) and partially is emitted again as radiation energy.

Fine, but IR has nothing to do with it. Â The experiment heated the gases
by conduction and convection from the black background.

So the atmosphere is not heated at all by conduction and convection?
sarcasm

Â Even back in the 1850>s, Tyndall pointed out the need to keep
the radiation source and detectors completely thermally isolated from
the sample gas. Â It>s still true.

Golly jeepers. The Laws of Physics didn>t change in 150 years. Oh, except
that CO2 stopped being a GHG for some strange reason <more sarcasm

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases.

Did nobody tell this clod that molecular rotation and vibration, along
with translation, are thermal properties of gases. <no sarcasm

They are being shown to gullible children as propaganda.

You mean like in bible classes <further sarcasm

John seems to be losing it. Â Maybe it>s related to the climate
cooling down.

Strange that one who speaks nonsense like "...climate cooling down."
imagines another person is the one losing it.

The Weather worldwide is getting Cooler.
[/quote]

It is warm here, in the 70s, I hope it stays that way even if
Illgore and Dansen groan and moan.

I think maybe I scared Mother Nature into making it warm, I just
got my 50 dollar 12,000 BTU/hour A/C turned backwards running, and the
heat it puts out is amazing, more than four of my 1KW baseboard heaters,
all for less than 6 cents per hour instead of 25 cents.

It won>t be that efficient when it is in the 30s and 40s F outside,
and won>t work at all when it is below freezing, but 90 percent of the
time it is above freezing here.

If everybody did this, it could reduce natural gas and coal
powered electric by 50 percent, and it might help those that have
no choice but to use oil heat keep from going broke if the have
electric power for the backward A/C.

marcodbeast · Guest

Bill Ward wrote:

[quote]On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:49:53 -0700, John M. wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:14 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

On Oct 31, 2:26 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Those demonstrations do not show anything but the density and thermal
properties of the gases. They are being shown to gullible children as
propaganda.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

well, then you can certainly give us a description of the physical
mechanism whereby the chambers containing methane (lighter than air) and
carbon dioxide (heavier than air) both warmed faster than air, due to
their "density and thermal properties".

You will no doubt have noticed Bilbo has been unable to do this, for the
entire time the 'school experiment' debate has has been going.

IIRC, Tom reported the methane heated slower and reached a lower final T
than air until he sealed and insulated the containers.

I haven>t yet seen a sufficiently detailed description of the Mythbusters
version of the experiment to determine why (or if) the results are as
reported. I>d appreciate a link to a video of it, if anybody has one.

[/quote]
You don>t need one to respond to this:

"well, then you can certainly give us a description of the physical
[quote]mechanism whereby the chambers containing methane (lighter than air)
and carbon dioxide (heavier than air) both warmed faster than air, due
to their "density and thermal properties"."[/quote]

Whata Fool · Guest

"John M." <john_howard_morgan@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

[quote]On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly understand
it. The burden of explaining a theory in a clear, accurate and
understandable manner lies with the proponents, not the skeptics. Be
very suspicious of those who try to convince you that you are so
stupid you can>t understand their explanation. That>s just their way
of discouraging you from asking questions they can>t answer without
exposing their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you. the "negative
feedback from water", for example. i fear you are treading off in a
direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about xtian
Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes, ayatollahs and related
shamans have pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible, so that a
self-identified, "priest class" don>t have to work, and can have their
wicked way with children. He appears to support *their* existence, even
so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his mind-reading skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh about
walking on water, end-times, making the dead come alive, rapturous
ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like the true sceptic you claim to be?
[/quote]

You are a disrespectful insolent ignorant person to be voicing
nothingness beliefs contrary to what most people need to feel good
about, especially in times of despair.

But apparently you enjoy inflicting the demeaning despair of
nothingness on those in need of having spirits lifted.

And I get the impression you might think government or man
himself is the answer to all strife and suffering of self and loved
ones, possibly it is beyond you to have loved ones or be loved.

Maybe our boreous rex can write you a horoscope to guide you
to no place and more nothingness.

Whata Fool · Guest

Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

[quote]On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:

On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly
understand it. The burden of explaining a theory in a clear,
accurate and understandable manner lies with the proponents, not
the skeptics. Be very suspicious of those who try to convince you
that you are so stupid you can>t understand their explanation.
That>s just their way of discouraging you from asking questions
they can>t answer without exposing their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you. the
"negative feedback from water", for example. i fear you are treading
off in a direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about xtian
Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes, ayatollahs and related
shamans have pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible, so that a
self-identified, "priest class" don>t have to work, and can have their
wicked way with children. He appears to support *their* existence,
even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his mind-reading skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh about walking
on water, end-times, making the dead come alive, rapturous ascents into
heaven, etc. etc., like the true sceptic you claim to be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong newsgroups for that
discussion.
[/quote]

No it isn>t, this is the newsgroup where all the obscene, mean,
insolent egotist socialist atheists come to crow before they fall on
their knees and ask for forgiveness.

Bill Ward · Guest

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:40:13 -0800, John M. wrote:

[quote]On Nov 2, 4:36 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly
understand it. The burden of explaining a theory in a clear,
accurate and understandable manner lies with the proponents, not
the skeptics. Be very suspicious of those who try to convince
you that you are so stupid you can>t understand their
explanation. That>s just their way of discouraging you from
asking questions they can>t answer without exposing their
ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you. the
"negative feedback from water", for example. i fear you are
treading off in a direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about xtian
Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes, ayatollahs and
related shamans have pulled the wool over the eyes of the gullible,
so that a self-identified, "priest class" don>t have to work, and
can have their wicked way with children. He appears to support
*their* existence, even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his mind-reading
skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh about
walking on water, end-times, making the dead come alive, rapturous
ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like the true sceptic you claim to be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong newsgroups for that
discussion.

No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost denialism)
that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to bizarre propositions
like " a person once walked on water" " dead people can spontaneously
spring to life".
[/quote]
As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m thinking more
accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave judgment on his mind reading
skills up to them.

I will grant that his determination to go off-topic is outstanding,
though:

[quote]How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24 hrs and then
has his heart punctured by a spear, can that person spontaneously spring
to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here and that
you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was? I>m sceptical about
this myself, so don>t feel bad if you have to agree with me on this.[/quote]

Whata Fool · Guest

Bill Ward <bward@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:

[quote]John wrote;
No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost denialism)
that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to bizarre propositions
like " a person once walked on water" " dead people can spontaneously
spring to life".

As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m thinking more
accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave judgment on his mind reading
skills up to them.
[/quote]

Apparently there are morons that think the belief that dead people
can spring back to life is part of religion.

Bill Ward · Guest

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 11:13:12 -0800, John M. wrote:

[quote]On Nov 2, 2:00 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
[/quote]
<snip dead text>

[quote]CO2 absorbs IR. That fact does not mean CO2 is causing global warming.

Ummm? Does not a higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere lead to
greater probability of an IR photon in the crucial waveband being
captured, then? Because if it does, then all else being equal (and I know
it isn>t, but...) the egress of energy the planet continually receives
from the sun, and which it somehow has to shuck off, is going to get
slowed up by it.
[/quote]
The "egress of energy" from the planet, is, on the average, equal to the
energy coming in from the sun. The effective radiation temperature, then,
must be approximately 255K, as confirmed by satellite measurement. That
means the active region of interest is in the upper troposphere, near the
cloud tops.

The issue in question is whether variations in the 380ppmv of CO2 can
have any significant effect on the _surface_ temperature. Since water and
its phase changes apparently regulate the energy transport from the
surface to the cloud tops, feedback in that system might easily compensate
for CO2 changes.

For example, the increased albedo of clouds obviously reduces the solar
energy reaching the surface. That>s a negative feedback.

More surface heating means more WV, which means cloud tops will be lower,
warmer, and radiating more heat by the T^4 term. That>s another feedback.

There is considerable evidence that cloud formation is increased when
cosmic rays, controlled by the sun>s magnetic field, provide more
nucleation. That>s not a feedback, but an external modulation of the
effective set point, which, along with orbital cycles, might explain the
temperature changes we do see.

Waving your hands and proclaiming,"CO2 absorbs IR!", just isn>t very
convincing from a physics point of view.

When you can actually discuss any of these concepts yourself, rather than
just citing links you can>t explain. maybe I>ll take you more seriously.
Until then, you>re just yapping and snapping around my ankles, hoping to
get a nip in if I turn my back.

Go yuck it up with Roger - he>s more in tune with your style.

Bill Ward · Guest

On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:30:45 -0800, John M. wrote:

[quote]On Nov 2, 10:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:40:13 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:36 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly
understand it. The burden of explaining a theory in a clear,
accurate and understandable manner lies with the proponents,
not the skeptics. Be very suspicious of those who try to
convince you that you are so stupid you can>t understand
their explanation. That>s just their way of discouraging you
from asking questions they can>t answer without exposing
their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you. the
"negative feedback from water", for example. i fear you are
treading off in a direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about
xtian Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes, ayatollahs
and related shamans have pulled the wool over the eyes of the
gullible, so that a self-identified, "priest class" don>t have
to work, and can have their wicked way with children. He appears
to support *their* existence, even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his mind-reading
skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh about
walking on water, end-times, making the dead come alive, rapturous
ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like the true sceptic you claim to
be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong newsgroups for
that discussion.

No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost
denialism) that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to bizarre
propositions like " a person once walked on water" " dead people can
spontaneously spring to life".

As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m thinking more
accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave judgment on his mind
reading skills up to them.

No mind reading skills needed. You were offered a yes or no, but you opted
for obfuscation.

I will grant that his determination to go off-topic is outstanding,
though:

Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against AGW in
alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed scepticism of the nay
sayers. Are they really questioning fundamentals of the science,
[/quote]
Well, I>m questioning some of the fundamental assumptions of the
AGW hypothesis. John, apparently, is trying to reduce it to a
matter of faith, which is ironic, because I, and others, see many of the
characteristics of a cult religion in the behavior of the AGWers.

I>m not really so much interested in what someone believes as much as why
they believe it. John must have had a bad experience with religion at
some time, as he seems so evangelical in his atheism. But that>s still
off topic.

[quote]or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100% topical
on these groups.
[/quote]
John seems to be very easily frightened. Perhaps his faith in AGW has
been shaken.

[quote]The sceptical credentials of a Jesus-freak has to be a joke of some
kind, so consider yourself laughed off this group once and for all,
Bilbo, as you appear to be one. Enjoy the "Rapture", and think of me
enjoying wine, women and song in the company of Beelzebub as you float
heavenwards, along with those thermals you always wax lyrical
about.<irony

Or perhaps you>d like to recant your heresy and take the simple yes/no
test you ignored before? I could ask Satan to intervene on your behalf
so you can stay on the ground when those "end times" come.<more irony

How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24 hrs and
then has his heart punctured by a spear, can that person
spontaneously spring to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here and that
you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was? I>m sceptical about
this myself, so don>t feel bad if you have to agree with me on this.[/quote]

John M. · Guest

On Nov 3, 12:12 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
[quote]On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 13:30:45 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 10:34 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 10:40:13 -0800, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 4:36 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sun, 02 Nov 2008 01:28:46 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 2, 1:35 am, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com> wrote:
On Sat, 01 Nov 2008 06:01:55 -0700, John M. wrote:
On Nov 1, 5:24 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:
On Oct 31, 4:38 pm, Bill Ward <bw...@REMOVETHISix.netcom.com
wrote:

Don>t believe anything until you are satisfied you clearly
understand it. The burden of explaining a theory in a clear,
accurate and understandable manner lies with the proponents,
not the skeptics. Be very suspicious of those who try to
convince you that you are so stupid you can>t understand
their explanation. That>s just their way of discouraging you
from asking questions they can>t answer without exposing
their ignorance.

well, i understand AGW theorists, i don>t understand you. the
"negative feedback from water", for example. i fear you are
treading off in a direction you do not wish to go in.

It seems Bilbo is not talking about science above, but about
xtian Jesus-tosh, etc., and how generations of popes, ayatollahs
and related shamans have pulled the wool over the eyes of the
gullible, so that a self-identified, "priest class" don>t have
to work, and can have their wicked way with children. He appears
to support *their* existence, even so.

John>s vivid imagination completely overwhelms his mind-reading
skills.

Are you telling us that you, too, reject all religious tosh about
walking on water, end-times, making the dead come alive, rapturous
ascents into heaven, etc. etc., like the true sceptic you claim to
be?

I>m simply telling you you>re posting in the wrong newsgroups for
that discussion.

No you>re not. You>re telling us that your scepticism (almost
denialism) that you bring to bear on AGW, does not extend to bizarre
propositions like " a person once walked on water" " dead people can
spontaneously spring to life".

As usual, John tries to convince readers he knows what I>m thinking more
accurately than I do. So, again, I>ll leave judgment on his mind
reading skills up to them.

No mind reading skills needed. You were offered a yes or no, but you opted
for obfuscation.

I will grant that his determination to go off-topic is outstanding,
though:

Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against AGW in
alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed scepticism of the nay
sayers. Are they really questioning fundamentals of the science,

Well, I>m questioning some of the fundamental assumptions of the
AGW hypothesis. John, apparently, is trying to reduce it to a
matter of faith,
[/quote]
Bilbo dissembling again. He>s good at that, even though hopeless as a
sceptic.

[quote]which is ironic, because I, and others, see many of the
characteristics of a cult religion in the behavior of the AGWers.
[/quote]
Cult religion? Nice redundancy in terms there

[quote]I>m not really so much interested in what someone believes as much as why
they believe it. John must have had a bad experience with religion at
some time, as he seems so evangelical in his atheism.
[/quote]
Just because I>m sceptical about uncritical belief in a deity doesn>t
mean I adopt its equally uncritical antithesis. Atheism is just that,
so I>m not an atheist, even though I reject all the "revealed" tosh
from the bible, torah, koran, etc., etc.

[quote]But that>s still off topic.
[/quote]
Ohh... Everybody here understands why you won>t answer simple yes/no
questions. They also now know what the answers are. Attempted lying by
omission is still attempted lying, by the way.

[quote]or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100% topical
on these groups.

John seems to be very easily frightened. Perhaps his faith in AGW has
been shaken.
[/quote]
The only faith I have in anything at all, is in those aspects of human
nature that you display. People can always be relied upon to be
devious when the chips are down.

AGW is no more and no less than a scientific hypothesis. As such, it
is up to all scientists to try and knock it down, and that includes
those who are prepared to accept it meanwhile as a rationale for
future global actions. So far the sceptics have failed spectacularly,
but that doesn>t mean they won>t succeed tomorrow.

[quote]The sceptical credentials of a Jesus-freak has to be a joke of some
kind, so consider yourself laughed off this group once and for all,
Bilbo, as you appear to be one. Enjoy the "Rapture", and think of me
enjoying wine, women and song in the company of Beelzebub as you float
heavenwards, along with those thermals you always wax lyrical
about.<irony

Or perhaps you>d like to recant your heresy and take the simple yes/no
test you ignored before? I could ask Satan to intervene on your behalf
so you can stay on the ground when those "end times" come.<more irony

How about a simple yes or no to the following:

If a person is executed by hanging nailed to a cross for 24 hrs and
then has his heart punctured by a spear, can that person
spontaneously spring to life three days later.

'Yes' or 'No', Bill. Do you believe the "end times" are here and that
you will be "raptured" up to heaven like JHC was? I>m sceptical about
this myself, so don>t feel bad if you have to agree with me on this.
[/quote]
No answer, eh? :-((

z · Guest

On Nov 1, 2:37 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 2:40 pm, kdth...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Nov 1, 7:46 am, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

On Nov 1, 5:09 am, z <gzuck...@snail-mail.net> wrote:

On Oct 31, 7:44 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

Rest assured, AGW scam artists will never delineate the mechanistic
aspects of their absurd notions about CO2 because if they did their
whole premise would become testable--and that>s the last thing they
want.

Oh that>s simply not true.

It simply is true.

The mechanisms are will described,
understood,

By whom? And why are they keeping it secret from the rest of us.

it>s a plot to make you waste your time posting here all the time, and
you>ve fallen for it. haha!!

Damn you, 'z'. You have handed the enemy our secret weapon :-)

Brush up on your law. In your position, withholding any pertinent data
can be construed as criminal intent to defraud. Look what happened to
Niffong in the cases against the college guys accused of raping the
stripper. He withheld pertinent data. Was disbarred and convicted of a
crime.

So should I go to the authorities and tell them of your mental
incompetence, or wait quietly and hope they overlook my withholding of
this information?

Good luck in hell, dweeb.

No such place. Like heaven, it>s a figment of distraught imaginings by
primitive peoples, later crafted into a multitude of mammoth scams by
the 'priest class', who prefer not to work and who often like children
in singularly unpleasant ways.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
does this mean i don>t get my 72 virgins?

Whata Fool · Guest

"John M." <john_howard_morgan@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

[quote]AGW is no more and no less than a scientific hypothesis. As such, it
is up to all scientists to try and knock it down, and that includes
those who are prepared to accept it meanwhile as a rationale for
future global actions. So far the sceptics have failed spectacularly,
but that doesn>t mean they won>t succeed tomorrow.
[/quote]

AGW is nothing more than a gossip fad, something like a chain
letter that a lot of suckers and greedy people always want to get
involved in.

The skeptics do not have to do anything, AGW will die without
any help, the "scientists" are making a lot of money, but that money
will run out eventually.

When Paris gets snowed in and loses power maybe there won>t
be so much complaining about 80 degree temperatures.

Hank Kroll · Guest

On Oct 31, 12:25 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 31, 2:28 pm, Benj <bjac...@iwaynet.net> wrote:

On Oct 30, 8:45 pm, Roger Coppock <rcopp...@adnc.com> wrote:

The TV science series "Mythbusters" did a
"Young Scientists Special." It aired on
4/26/08 (Season 6, Episode 8). One of the
items they put to the test was greenhouse
gas theory. They made 4 large rectangular
chambers added CO2 to one, CH4 to another,
and used the remaining two for controls.

The name "mythbusters" already makes this a suspect as a propaganda
vehicle. Note that all this proves is that one can measure the thermal
characteristics of PURE CO2 and CH4!

They simulated the Earth by shining a light
through the clear mylar on one side onto
a black painted surface at the other side.
the greenhouse gas chambers were warmer
and melted more ice than the control groups.
They confirmed that CO2 and CH4 can cause
greenhouse warming.

BZZZZZTTT! Wrong question. The right question is can CO2 cause ENOUGH
so-called "global-warming" to be significant. Hence to REALLY "bust"
the myth the experiment would have two chambers one with today>s air.
And the other with a mixture of air as measured about 1850 or some
other convenient pre-anthropogenic date. If today>s air is melting
huge chunks of ice and yesterday>s air is not, perhaps THEN you>ll
have "busted" a "myth".

It is a shameful thing to abuse children with fake political
propaganda like this. This is almost as shameful as the Nobel Prize
going to Algore who cleverly reversed cause and effect between ocean
temperature and dissolved CO2.

Uh, the oceans are gaining CO2. The CO2 in the air is coming from
fossil fuel burning, as its isotopic ratios prove.

It is a shameful thing when doofuses of the highest order pretend to
be scientists here.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
There are several million underwater volcanoes belching a million
times more CO2 into the ceans than humans ever will.

Benj · Guest

On Oct 31, 4:25 pm, Lloyd <lpar...@emory.edu> wrote:

[quote]Uh, the oceans are gaining CO2. The CO2 in the air is coming from
fossil fuel burning, as its isotopic ratios prove.
[/quote]
Uh Huh. In defiance of the laws of physics and the relationship of
temperature to dissolved gases. Real "scientific" there Lloyd.

[quote]It is a shameful thing when doofuses of the highest order pretend to
be scientists here.
[/quote]
OK, Mr. Scientist. Does warm water hold more or less CO2 than cold
water? You may refer to that half empty coke bottle up your ass for
help answering. Shameful!

Benj · Guest

On Nov 2, 2:13 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

[quote]Ummm? Does not a higher partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere lead
to greater probability of an IR photon in the crucial waveband being
captured, then? Because if it does, then all else being equal (and I
know it isn>t, but...) the egress of energy the planet continually
receives from the sun, and which it somehow has to shuck off, is going
to get slowed up by it.
[/quote]
Ummm. In politics quantity doesn>t matter. Example: one puts in place
conditions for genocide of millions based upon argument "if one child
is saved it>s worth it". In science quantity matters. Hence the
question is not one of if CO2 IR bands actually absorb some energy,
the question is if CO2 can possibly have ENOUGH of an effect to create
"global warming". Hint: it can>t. Second hint: If CO2 cannot have
enough of an effect to create "global warming" then the term
"anthropogenic" [means man-caused] is nothing but a blatant lie for
political purposes. Third hint: If AGW is a lie then teaching such
crap to school children as "truth" is blatant propaganda and is
shameful.

Benj · Guest

On Nov 2, 4:30 pm, "John M." <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:

[quote]Absolutely nothing off-topic here. The whole argument against AGW in
alt.g-w and other Usenet groups hinges on the avowed scepticism of the
nay sayers. Are they really questioning fundamentals of the science,
or is it denialism of the most frightful kind? Spot-on, 100% topical
on these groups.
[/quote]
Duh. If all the AGW politicos are saying that CO2 is the "cause" of
global warming then sure we are questioning that assertion. And it
SURE ain>t science! The fundamentals of science say that assertion is
bunk. Thus you and your shill pals with the political agenda are the
ones ignoring the "fundamentals of science". We are not skeptical of
science but skeptical of your bogus assertions. Tis YOU who is
denying the fundamentals of science and THAT is denialism of the most
frightful kind!


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> The Big Environment Forum	Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next
Page 5 of 7