Climategate - Round 2. How will the AGW proponents justify this one?

[wirebender]

the fact is that the CO2 we produce is not even enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry

.

Please justify

The various literature sources put the earth's natural CO2 production at between 750 and 800 gigatons per year. That is a spread of 50 gigatons or an 8.9% margin of error. Do you believe that the natural variation of such an enormous and variable process is less than our best estimates? How would you justify such a claim?

The literature also puts man's CO2 production at between 17 and 25 gigatons per year. You yourself estimated a couple of dozen gigatons per year. Even at the high end of 25 gigatons per year, our production is less than half of the margin of error for our best estimates of natural production.

I need not even go into natural variability which is estimated to be as high as 25% depending on factors such as volcanic activity, wildfire, undersea earthquakes, natural temperature variations, etc. If we pick the median of natural CO2 production of 775 gigatons, even a 5% variation would be over almost 39 gigatons. A 10% natural varibility would be 77.5 gigatons. A 15% natural variability would be over 116 gigatons and 25% natural variability would be over 193 gigatons.

In the end, we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the margin of error in our best estimates of natural CO2 production, much less enough to overcome the natural variability in the process.

 

[westwall]

You want me to explain how my claim that I understand it is related to your claim that I don't? What are you, a fuckin imbecile?

No, but clearly you are. I made the statement that all weather "events" as defined by your high priests, have occured in the past absent mans influence. Your response was "so what".
Now, based on Occams Razor, tell the class the relevence of my statement.

You tell us the relevance of your statement. That's why I said "so what". You seem to be assuming that because climate was influenced only by nature in the past, it is therefore some physical law of nature that it is impossible for man to ever influence it in the present or future. Is that not what you are saying?

Wow, you are dumb aren't you. Think about it physics boy, think about it. I'll give you a hint, that's not what I said, nor is it implied in what I said.

 

[westwall]

So in other words, the weakest, most general and vague definition of the word available.

No, the most appropriate definition of the word as it applies to global warming.

That particular definition can apply to anything. You also have yet to make a point.

No, you're not smart enough to get her point.

 

[Foxfyre]

Have you noticed how, when even the media has to acknowledge the truth and starts coming down on the side of reason, some of the leftists get even more frantic, more irrational, and more looney than usual?

That is a huge signal to me that we are shifting a bit closer to the best position to be in as a society. I am beginning to feel hopeful that reason will win out over the best efforts of the warmers to take away our freedoms, choices, options, and opportunities.

 

[wirebender]

Your assertion that the Earth does not emit blackbody radiation because it is not a blackbody absolutely incorrect. ALL material bodies that have a temperature above ZERO emit blackbody radiation in accordance with Planck's law.

I never asserted that the earth did not emit "blackbody" radiation. Read for comprehension. I said that the earth is not a blackbody and can not rationally be modeled as a blackbody as trenberth has done. You can correctly express radiation from a blackbody as /4 because blackbody emissions will appear roughly the same from any direction you care to look and by expressing radiation in terms of /4, you have literally made a flat plane of the blackbody. It is OK to do this because a blackbody is a self illuminated body and the energy figures will be the same whether it is represented as a sphere or as a flat plane.

The earth, however is not a self illuminated body and can not be rationally represented as a flat plane. The earth is an illuminated sphere which is being illuminated across 180 degrees of its surface at any time while the remainder is dark and as such can only rationally be modeled as such. Modelling it as a flat plane receiving 1/4 of the actual energy from the sun across its entire surface 24 hours a day doesn't approach reality and the output of such a model can't be taken seriously.

Trenberth - when? What journal? Are you going to provide me with the reference I need to address your point or not?

I guess I should be surprised that you are completely unaware that AGW alarmisim is literally based on a flat earth model but I'm not. You, like the rest of the congregation have accepted the proclamations of your priests on faith alone and have willingly tortured the laws of physics into supporting what you have been told. You can find trenberth's flat earth model in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bullitin of the American Meterological Society 78 197-208.

The $64 dollar question is now that you know that AGW alarmism is literally founded on a flat earth model, do you still accept it?

It SCATTERS the radiation. The individual photons are still traveling at the speed of light, but they take longer to get to space because they have to take a random walk to get there. For the same reason, photons produced at the center of a star take hundreds of thousands or more years to reach the surface.

For a guy who fancies himself as the smartest guy in the room, you sure miss some very fundamental concepts. What happens to heat when it is scattered? Answer? It dissipates more rapidly. By scattering IR, CO2 acts as a cooling agent, not a warming one. When you model the earth as an illiminated sphere being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees, the temperature the model predicts is actually slightly higher than the observed temperature and the scattering/cooling effect of CO2 brings the model temperature into line with the observed temperature nicely.

backradiation? Define?

My, but you are uninformed. Far right side of the graphic labeled "Backradiation"

 

[wirebender]

What you're clearly unaware of is that when the CO2 molecule emits a photon its does it nearly ISOTROPICALLY. It may go out into space, or it may instead head back to the Earth's surface, getting reabsorbed there.

What you are unaware of is that when two EM fields are in opposition, they must be subtracted. The stronger field determines the direction of propagation and no energy travels against the direction propagated by the field of greater magnitude. Do you believe you can have electricity travelling in two directions along one wire?

The spectrum that the CO2 re-emits will depend on the temperature of the Co2 gas - PLANCK'S LAW. Most of the re-emitted radiation will be in the IR band.

Of course it will be in the IR band because it is emitted as IR. CO2, however, only absorbs IR in a very narrow range and the IR emitted by a CO2 molecule is at a slightly lower frequency than it was when it was absorbed. As a result, another CO2 molecule can not absorb it which puts an effective end to your "walkabout" analogy of IR leaving the earth's atmosphere.

Nasif Nahle's paper is very poorly written. He uses a formula that he claims to be in one one of his references - but the reference is a 822 page book and he fails to give an equation number or page number for the forumla. I'd tell you which formula I'm talking about, but since Dr. Nahle neglected to include equation numbers or even page numbers in his own paper, it won't be easy. It is the formula which is directly after the words

So you have no actual objection to the paper.

It is a crucial formula to his entire "paper", yet he provides no explanation except to refer to an 800+ page book. I'm looking at the book right now online - Radiative Heat Transfer (2nd ed) - it has 22 chapters and goes up to appendix F.

Again, no actual objection or counter to his findings. Essentially what he says is that any absorption by CO2 is completely overwhelmed by absorption by water vapor and as a result, can produce no real effect in the atmosphere; except for its cooling effect.

Sorry - I don't have time to wade through such poorly written crap.

How convenient for you. Now you can continue to believe in your flat earth models with a clear conscience.

??? That's not even true. Anything with a temperature above absolute zero has thermal energy. When a photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule it is transformed into kinetic energy, and if the CO2 is surrounded by other molecules that it bounces off of, that kinetic energy becomes thermal.

1) Even if the re-emitted photon is not absorbed by any molecule in the atmosphere - it has about a 50% probability of hitting the Earth's surface instead of shooting out into space.

It has a zero probability of hitting the earth surface because of the requirement to subtract EM field vectors. A massles photon moves in the direction of the greater EM field. It can not move against the direction of propagation of the earth's EM field.

2) Your assertion that the photon's re-emitted by Co2 cannot be absorbed by Co2 is wrong. The re-emitted photon frequency can be at ANY frequency.

[/quote]

It isn't my assertion. It is the assertion of the Department of Energy. Again, I quote them:

CLIP: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind."

The re emitted photon can't be the same frequency as it was when it was absorbed and because CO2 only absorbs in narrow bands, any change of frequency would make it invisible to other CO2 molecules.

 

[wirebender]

Yes, it can. Photons are bosons. They don't bounce off of each other.

They can't move against an EM field of greater magnitude that is propagated in the opposite direction either. I am surprised that the smartest guy in the room is unaware of the requirement to subtract EM vectors.

The NET heat flow must be from warm to cool if no work is done.

NET heat flow is a fabrication by people to whom the actual second law of thermodynamics is an inconvenience. The second law of thermodynamics states:

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

Now tell me, which part of "not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body" And "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object" do you believe can accurately be interpreted to mean net flow? The second law of thermodynamics isn't talking about net flows. The language is in terms of absolutes. The idea of net energy transfer arises from a corruption of the Stefan-Boltzman law which portrays two way energy transfer with a net direction of flow. The actual Stefan-Boltzman equation describing radiation is written as follows:

P=sigma (T^4 - T_b^4)

The corrupted Stefan-Boltzman equation is written as follows:

P=(sigma T^4)- (sigma T_b^4)

Both reach the same conclusion but the actual SB equations describe a one way energy flow from warm to cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics while the corrupted SB equations describe a flow from a warm emitter to a cool background and then claims that the cool background becomes the emitter and the emitter becomes the background and the background then emits to the emitter. This is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and is, incidentally only taught in climate science physics. Classical physics texts don't teach these corrupted SB equations.

 

[wirebender]

Again I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. Some might call me an optimistic agnostic, but technically I am an atheist as I have no theology.

Of course you do. Considering the fact that you can't offer up one shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the changing climate and the activities of man, it stands to reason that you hold your position as an article of faith. That is a theology.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

the fact is that the CO2 we produce is not even enough to overcome the natural deviation from year to year in the earth's own CO2 making machienry

.

Please justify

The various literature sources put the earth's natural CO2 production at between 750 and 800 gigatons per year. That is a spread of 50 gigatons or an 8.9% margin of error. Do you believe that the natural variation of such an enormous and variable process is less than our best estimates? How would you justify such a claim?

That's not a natural deviation, that's an observational uncertainty.

The literature also puts man's CO2 production at between 17 and 25 gigatons per year. You yourself estimated a couple of dozen gigatons per year. Even at the high end of 25 gigatons per year, our production is less than half of the margin of error for our best estimates of natural production.

In the above two points, you're talking about GROSS production, not NET production. Do you understand the difference.

I need not even go into natural variability which is estimated to be as high as 25% depending on factors such as volcanic activity, wildfire, undersea earthquakes, natural temperature variations, etc.

Source?

In the end, we don't even produce enough CO2 to overcome the margin of error in our best estimates of natural CO2 production, much less enough to overcome the natural variability in the process.

We don't need to. Its only the NET increase or decrease in atmospheric content per year that we need to correlate with man made CO2 production.


Its incredible to me that you fail to grasp the fundamental differences between net and gross Co2 production. Given that atmospheric Co2 has been increasing at a rate that is proportional to our production of Co2 and a proportionality constant of less than 1, failing to see that the Co2 we're adding is the cause of the increase is like trying to convince someone that a steaming pile of shit isn't the source of the stink in the room.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, but clearly you are. I made the statement that all weather "events" as defined by your high priests, have occured in the past absent mans influence. Your response was "so what".
Now, based on Occams Razor, tell the class the relevence of my statement.

You tell us the relevance of your statement. That's why I said "so what". You seem to be assuming that because climate was influenced only by nature in the past, it is therefore some physical law of nature that it is impossible for man to ever influence it in the present or future. Is that not what you are saying?

Wow, you are dumb aren't you. Think about it physics boy, think about it. I'll give you a hint, that's not what I said, nor is it implied in what I said.

Great. Then PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR POINT.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, the most appropriate definition of the word as it applies to global warming.

That particular definition can apply to anything. You also have yet to make a point.

No, you're not smart enough to get her point.

Wow, the right even blames victims of stupidity.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Your assertion that the Earth does not emit blackbody radiation because it is not a blackbody absolutely incorrect. ALL material bodies that have a temperature above ZERO emit blackbody radiation in accordance with Planck's law.

I never asserted that the earth did not emit "blackbody" radiation. Read for comprehension. I said that the earth is not a blackbody and can not rationally be modeled as a blackbody as trenberth has done. You can correctly express radiation from a blackbody as /4 because blackbody emissions will appear roughly the same from any direction you care to look and by expressing radiation in terms of /4, you have literally made a flat plane of the blackbody. It is OK to do this because a blackbody is a self illuminated body and the energy figures will be the same whether it is represented as a sphere or as a flat plane.

The earth, however is not a self illuminated body and can not be rationally represented as a flat plane. The earth is an illuminated sphere which is being illuminated across 180 degrees of its surface at any time while the remainder is dark and as such can only rationally be modeled as such. Modelling it as a flat plane receiving 1/4 of the actual energy from the sun across its entire surface 24 hours a day doesn't approach reality and the output of such a model can't be taken seriously.

Trenberth - when? What journal? Are you going to provide me with the reference I need to address your point or not?

I guess I should be surprised that you are completely unaware that AGW alarmisim is literally based on a flat earth model but I'm not. You, like the rest of the congregation have accepted the proclamations of your priests on faith alone and have willingly tortured the laws of physics into supporting what you have been told. You can find trenberth's flat earth model in Kiehl J. T. and K. E. Trenberth 1997. Earth’s Annual Global Mean Energy Budget. Bullitin of the American Meterological Society 78 197-208.

The $64 dollar question is now that you know that AGW alarmism is literally founded on a flat earth model, do you still accept it?

A few points.

A) The radius of the Earth is 6371 km. Top of the stratosphere is 50 km. ((6371+50)^2 - 6371^2)/6371^2 = 0.0157.... The curvature terms in divergence and curl operators are thus small compared to the other terms - and its a perfectly reasonable approximation then to take the atmosphere in plane parallel coordinates. Its also reasonable to model the solar flux incident as the average over diurnal cycles, sense the time scale of the model is far greater than the length of that cycle.

B) That being said - WELCOME TO 2011. Its not as if scientists hung their hat on a plane parallel model that was computing using resources available prior to 1997.
GCM models run in 3D today. When I think of the astrophysical models the group I work with were running in 1997 and compare them to today's models, I can't help but laugh.

C) AGW isn't rooted in a single paper, definitely not a single paper in 1997. The theory existed LONG before then, Arrhenius first suggested in in 1897.

It SCATTERS the radiation. The individual photons are still traveling at the speed of light, but they take longer to get to space because they have to take a random walk to get there. For the same reason, photons produced at the center of a star take hundreds of thousands or more years to reach the surface.

For a guy who fancies himself as the smartest guy in the room, you sure miss some very fundamental concepts. What happens to heat when it is scattered? Answer? It dissipates more rapidly.

I don't "fancy myself the smartest guy in the room", in fact I've spent the past 7 years of my life being the dumbest guy in the room. If you feel stupid that's your problem.

We're talking about scattering photons. And no - scattered photons DO NOT "dissipate more rapidly" than free-streaming ones. This is why it takes hundreds of thousands of years for a photon produced at the center of the sun to make it to the edge and escape into space - but only 8 minutes or so for the same photo to traverse many times that distance to get to Earth. You lack even the most basic understand of radiation dynamics.

By scattering IR, CO2 acts as a cooling agent, not a warming one.

No it doesn't. Do you even understand the difference between scattered radiation and free streaming radiation?

When you model the earth as an illiminated sphere being radiated across 180 degrees of its surface and dark across 180 degrees, the temperature the model predicts is actually slightly higher than the observed temperature and the scattering/cooling effect of CO2 brings the model temperature into line with the observed temperature nicely.

You're full of shit. Did you just make that up?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

What you're clearly unaware of is that when the CO2 molecule emits a photon its does it nearly ISOTROPICALLY. It may go out into space, or it may instead head back to the Earth's surface, getting reabsorbed there.

What you are unaware of is that when two EM fields are in opposition, they must be subtracted. The stronger field determines the direction of propagation and no energy travels against the direction propagated by the field of greater magnitude. Do you believe you can have electricity travelling in two directions along one wire?

LESS NET ENERGY TRAVELS OUTWARD INTO SPACE. I have boldened the word "subtracted" in your quote to illustrate that you clearly already know this.

While you are correct that net energy flow can only be in one direction, the momenta of individual photons at a given point in space can have any distribution in direction..

The spectrum that the CO2 re-emits will depend on the temperature of the Co2 gas - PLANCK'S LAW. Most of the re-emitted radiation will be in the IR band.

Of course it will be in the IR band because it is emitted as IR. CO2, however, only absorbs IR in a very narrow range and the IR emitted by a CO2 molecule is at a slightly lower frequency than it was when it was absorbed. As a result, another CO2 molecule can not absorb it which puts an effective end to your "walkabout" analogy of IR leaving the earth's atmosphere.

Other greenhouse gases can absorb it. Even if it isn't absorbed by anything in the atmosphere after its first scatter, there's nearly a 50% chance it will hit the EARTH and not escape into space.

So you have no actual objection to the paper.

Do you read and comprehend English at all? Let me repeat:

Nasif Nahle's paper is very poorly written. He uses a formula that he claims to be in one one of his references - but the reference is a 822 page book and he fails to give an equation number or page number for the forumla. I'd tell you which formula I'm talking about, but since Dr. Nahle neglected to include equation numbers or even page numbers in his own paper, it won't be easy. It is the formula which is directly after the words

Again, no actual objection or counter to his findings. Essentially what he says is that any absorption by CO2 is completely overwhelmed by absorption by water vapor and as a result, can produce no real effect in the atmosphere; except for its cooling effect.

I could I object? The paper is barely legible and cannot be reproduced. He fails to provide even the most basic information needed to confirm or disprove his findings. You and I can't even discuss the paper because he doesn't even have equation numbers.

How convenient for you. Now you can continue to believe in your flat earth models with a clear conscience.

GCM's now solve the spherical non-linear navier stokes.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~vb/talks/spec.pdf

GET WITH THE FUCKIN' TIMES

1) Even if the re-emitted photon is not absorbed by any molecule in the atmosphere - it has about a 50% probability of hitting the Earth's surface instead of shooting out into space.

It has a zero probability of hitting the earth surface because of the requirement to subtract EM field vectors. A massles photon moves in the direction of the greater EM field. It can not move against the direction of propagation of the earth's EM field.

YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE RADIATIVE TRANSFER EQUATION AT ALL.
Photons can move in ANY direction. Do you grasp multi-dimensional differential equations? If you do - I can explain the radiative transfer equation - if you don't, go learn it, or shut up about things you don't understand - or both!

2) Your assertion that the photon's re-emitted by Co2 cannot be absorbed by Co2 is wrong. The re-emitted photon frequency can be at ANY frequency.

It isn't my assertion. It is the assertion of the Department of Energy. Again, I quote them:

CLIP: "What happens after the GHG molecules absorb infrared radiation? The hot molecules release their energy, usually at lower energy (longer wavelength) radiation than the energy previously absorbed. The molecules cannot absorb energy emitted by other molecules of their own kind."

IT GETS ABSORBED BY OTHER GHG'S

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Yes, it can. Photons are bosons. They don't bounce off of each other.

They can't move against an EM field of greater magnitude that is propagated in the opposite direction either. I am surprised that the smartest guy in the room is unaware of the requirement to subtract EM vectors.

Its actually quite clear that you are the smartest guy in the world, as you seem to know more than all of the world's physicists do about radiation dynamics - without any training or serious study whatsoever.

The NET heat flow must be from warm to cool if no work is done.

NET heat flow is a fabrication by people to whom the actual second law of thermodynamics is an inconvenience. The second law of thermodynamics states:

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.
Second Law of Thermodynamics

Radiation does work when it strikes matter.

Now tell me, which part of "not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body" And "Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object" do you believe can accurately be interpreted to mean net flow? The second law of thermodynamics isn't talking about net flows.

Yes it is. All of statistical mechanics deals with net flows.

The language is in terms of absolutes. The idea of net energy transfer arises from a corruption of the Stefan-Boltzman law which portrays two way energy transfer with a net direction of flow. The actual Stefan-Boltzman equation describing radiation is written as follows:

P=sigma (T^4 - T_b^4)

The corrupted Stefan-Boltzman equation is written as follows:

P=(sigma T^4)- (sigma T_b^4)

Both reach the same conclusion but the actual SB equations describe a one way energy flow from warm to cool in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics while the corrupted SB equations describe a flow from a warm emitter to a cool background and then claims that the cool background becomes the emitter and the emitter becomes the background and the background then emits to the emitter. This is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics and is, incidentally only taught in climate science physics. Classical physics texts don't teach these corrupted SB equations.

[/quote]

The two equations you have written are exactly the same, just in a different form.

Either you made a mistake or you're lack of understanding of basic algebra is worse than I thought.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Again I don't have a religion, I'm an atheist. Some might call me an optimistic agnostic, but technically I am an atheist as I have no theology.

Of course you do. Considering the fact that you can't offer up one shred of hard, observed, repeatable evidence that establishes an unequivocal link between the changing climate and the activities of man, it stands to reason that you hold your position as an article of faith. That is a theology.

There's no "one" piece of evidence that establishes an "unequivocal" link with anything.

 

[Foxfyre]

That particular definition can apply to anything. You also have yet to make a point.

No, you're not smart enough to get her point.

Wow, the right even blames victims of stupidity.

No, I don't think so. Not too many on the right are blaming you. But the fact is the definition was accurate, right out of the dictionary, and was the ONLY one appropriate for the subject of global warmng. But I'm sure you can't help building a straw man when you are obviously so unable to defend your position on this subject.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, you're not smart enough to get her point.

Wow, the right even blames victims of stupidity.

No, I don't think so. Not too many on the right are blaming you. But the fact is the definition was accurate, right out of the dictionary, and was the ONLY one appropriate for the subject of global warmng. But I'm sure you can't help building a straw man when you are obviously so unable to defend your position on this subject.

Wow - so you even admit you picked and chose the definition of "religion" that suited you best! Wonderful! And using the same definition - we also have the religion of quantum physics, the religion of gravity, and the religion of evolution.

 

[Foxfyre]

Wow, the right even blames victims of stupidity.

No, I don't think so. Not too many on the right are blaming you. But the fact is the definition was accurate, right out of the dictionary, and was the ONLY one appropriate for the subject of global warmng. But I'm sure you can't help building a straw man when you are obviously so unable to defend your position on this subject.

Wow - so you even admit you picked and chose the definition of "religion" that suited you best! Wonderful! And using the same definition - we also have the religion of quantum physics, the religion of gravity, and the religion of evolution.

No dear. If I type really REALLY s - l - o - w - l - y, is it possible to get into a leftist pea brain that I picked the ONLY definition that describes the global warming and/or AGW religion as practiced by those who operate on absolute faith and very little credible evidence?

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

No, I don't think so. Not too many on the right are blaming you. But the fact is the definition was accurate, right out of the dictionary, and was the ONLY one appropriate for the subject of global warmng. But I'm sure you can't help building a straw man when you are obviously so unable to defend your position on this subject.

Wow - so you even admit you picked and chose the definition of "religion" that suited you best! Wonderful! And using the same definition - we also have the religion of quantum physics, the religion of gravity, and the religion of evolution.

No dear. If I type really REALLY s - l - o - w - l - y, is it possible to get into a leftist pea brain that I picked the ONLY definition that describes the global warming and/or AGW religion as practiced by those who operate on absolute faith and very little credible evidence?

Dude, I get it. You looked up religion,. You found 4 definitions. You picked the only one that could come even remotely close to described AGW - the weakest, most general and vague definition of the word possible - the same one that makes football a religion, knitting a religion, and stamp collecting a religion (for some people) - and now, you're religiously promoting it.

I fucking get it.

When you have something useful to add, get back to us.

 

[westwall]

You tell us the relevance of your statement. That's why I said "so what". You seem to be assuming that because climate was influenced only by nature in the past, it is therefore some physical law of nature that it is impossible for man to ever influence it in the present or future. Is that not what you are saying?

Wow, you are dumb aren't you. Think about it physics boy, think about it. I'll give you a hint, that's not what I said, nor is it implied in what I said.

Great. Then PLEASE EXPLAIN YOUR POINT.

If you were truly a Doctoral candidate what I stated would be quite simple to understand.
Yet more evidence that you are not what you claim.