Hansen says CO2 is NOT the prime driver in this paper

[flacaltenn]

So -- as far as can tell. Trakar answers the question of how CO2 drives climatic temperature by throwing up PROJECTIONS of CO2 for the next 2 centuries and a short history of an ice-bound Carbon cycle back to 800,000 yrs.

Interestingly, those relatively tiny 100 ppm swings on that fantasy graph, which don't tell much about TODAY'S carbon cycle were accompanied by temp swings of 4 to 10 degC, while the MEASURED "man-caused" doubling has shown HOW MUCH? Don't DOUBT the proxies.. AGW rule #1. (Rule #2 has something to do with "adjusting" the proxies to fit the script).

Even the AGW folks admit that CO2 forcing as it's documented cannot be the super -extinction forcing event unless the various FEEDBACKS are included. (That is even discussed in the old 1981 Hansen paper that Trakar trotted out with the fantasy graph). Except that the AGW shamans in 1981 couldn't decide whether the ice would build or melt entirely.

Trakar seems to want to make the blanket assertion that it's all as simple as 2 single numbers. The "mean annual surface temperature" (Whatever TF that is) and the atmos concentration of CO2.

Funny how we have to use ONE SINGLE GLOBAL ANNUAL temperature for the AGW argument, but at the same time whine about the MWP not being a "global" event. Lots of interesting footwork afoot eh?

 

[bobgnote]

Trakar, if you can get any of these neo-con bitches to smarten up at all, you are a magician.

The only thing almost as bad as these smears is Obama-cultists, in love with Obamacare, never mind how Obamagirl isn't having any, this time around.

 

[wirebender]

Spouting cracked-pot conspiracy theories does not support nor validate your rantings.

Your suggestion that the work was not valid as it had not been published in a mainstream journal is more crackpot than anything I have said. It represents a failure of logic on your part while it is easy enough to document numerous failures of the mainstream pal review process.

 

[wirebender]

Trakar, if you can get any of these neo-con bitches to smarten up at all, you are a magician.

The only thing almost as bad as these smears is Obama-cultists, in love with Obamacare, never mind how Obamagirl isn't having any, this time around.

Trakkar, like you can only achieve a dumbing down of anyone who he brings around. Far to many fundamental misunderstandings of the science and to much taken on faith with no actual empirical evidence in support.

 

[wirebender]

yet you refuse to explain where, when or how this happens. does it disappear at the CO2 molecule, at the surface or in between? does it happen instantaneously or does the photon have time to interact with something else between the CO2 molecule and the surface? what is the mechanism that 'expends' the photon? all reasonable questions, always ducked by you. will you answer this time? not bloody likely!

More lies ian. I have explained this all to you before....numerous times. I am not going through it again because no matter how many times I do it, you invariably lie about what I have said the next time the topic comes up. In addition to a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics, you apparently have a character flaw that induces a compunction on your part to misrepresent anything that you don't agree with. Life is to short to waste it endlessly repeating things I have already explained to you at least a half a dozen times.

You can grasp, in entirety what I have said in the past by simply taking the time to understand the subtraction of EM fields. It is your terribly flawed, and quite nutty understanding of what a photon is that is blocking your advancement. Till you get past the absurd notion of what photons are, you are stuck. I have given you nearly a dozen defintions of what photons are from every science dictionary I could lay my hands on and none of them portray photons as anything like what you believe they are and still you hold to your silly notion. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to boil pasta.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Bent is a hoot. Insists that only he understands atmospheric physics, no other physicist has a clue.

 

[bobgnote]

Trakar, if you can get any of these neo-con bitches to smarten up at all, you are a magician.

The only thing almost as bad as these smears is Obama-cultists, in love with Obamacare, never mind how Obamagirl isn't having any, this time around.

Trakkar, like you can only achieve a dumbing down of anyone who he brings around(coh/ss). Far to (sp)many fundamental misunderstandings of the science and to(sp) much taken on faith with no actual empirical evidence in support(coh/ss).

What is your first language, Wienerbitch, hermaphroditic? Write a coherent sentence, finally. I'd like to see at least one more loaded graph or link, from bitch, which is any good.

That montage of La Jolla shows you are a gullible geek, who doesn't do science, at all, anytime. What's your problem? No common sense? If you can't load a graph or a picture, worth shit, and your physics sucks, get out and proud, in traffic, not at a forum, Wienergoddambitch! You are a retard! Get to special class, asshole!

That Vostok graph was good. But the one without labels on plots was shit. So was any link you pasted. Your theory about a tinfoil hat on Earth was shit, as is your ranting, about greenhouse physics. I can't believe you spent much undergraduate time, studying physics.

I learned more about physics by studying female hooters, than you learned, queering around college, prior to learning how to get in kids' faces.

 

[wirebender]

Ol' Bent is a hoot. Insists that only he understands atmospheric physics, no other physicist has a clue.

Actually rocks, my positon is not new and is taken from the work of physicists. Since you are a bleiver and only read the scriputres given you, it is not surprising that you would not know that most physicists are not on board with the agw hypothesis.

 

[IanC]

yet you refuse to explain where, when or how this happens. does it disappear at the CO2 molecule, at the surface or in between? does it happen instantaneously or does the photon have time to interact with something else between the CO2 molecule and the surface? what is the mechanism that 'expends' the photon? all reasonable questions, always ducked by you. will you answer this time? not bloody likely!

More lies ian. I have explained this all to you before....numerous times. I am not going through it again because no matter how many times I do it, you invariably lie about what I have said the next time the topic comes up. In addition to a fundamental misunderstanding of the physics, you apparently have a character flaw that induces a compunction on your part to misrepresent anything that you don't agree with. Life is to short to waste it endlessly repeating things I have already explained to you at least a half a dozen times.

You can grasp, in entirety what I have said in the past by simply taking the time to understand the subtraction of EM fields. It is your terribly flawed, and quite nutty understanding of what a photon is that is blocking your advancement. Till you get past the absurd notion of what photons are, you are stuck. I have given you nearly a dozen defintions of what photons are from every science dictionary I could lay my hands on and none of them portray photons as anything like what you believe they are and still you hold to your silly notion. You can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to boil pasta.

same old bullshit.

putting up a internet definition of a photon is not explaining how photons magically disappear. you have nothing.

go ahead and explain 'subtraction of EMfields' and describe how it relates to a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards the surface.

 

[bobgnote]

Wienerbitch won't let go of the flawed bitch idea heat transfer is somehow exactly and neatly the same as photon emission, when variables are involved, even though no energy is lost, and atmospheric molecules with three or more atoms somehow cannot tend to contribute, to a greenhouse effect, because Wienerbitch never lets go of his/her bitchin' wiener, when figuring out the coefficient, for the heat of the Wienermeat times the mass of the big, hermaphrodite ass is inversely proportional to the angle of the dangle, times a constant, given constant and evident Wienerbitch masturbation. Think of Pig Shitz with his mouth open, bitch. Get'r'done!

Wienerbitch somehow can't grasp what you are trying to prove, Ian, since Wienerbitch won't let go of something, which Wienerbitch should let go of, such as texting in traffic, or masturbating, while trying to play hockey, without a damn stick. Piss off, Wienerbitch.

 

[wirebender]

putting up a internet definition of a photon is not explaining how photons magically disappear. you have nothing.

Photons are bits of energy ian. Nothing more. They can be expended against opposing EM fields.

go ahead and explain 'subtraction of EMfields' and describe how it relates to a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards the surface.

Since EM fields are composed of photons which are nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of energy, the subtraction of EM fields, is by definition the subtraction of photons. How do you suppose one EM field might reduce the magnitude of another, or in fact cancel out the other without reducing the number of photons the field is made of?

We have been through all this and the fact remains that you can't provide anything like a legitimate definition of a photon that matches what you believe they are. Till you grasp the concept of the subtraction of fields, you will continue to be wrong. Simple as that.

And again ian, it isn't magic, it's physics. But to you, it may appear as magic. Any science of a sufficiently advanced state will appear as magic to those ignorant of it. The subtraction of EM fields seems to be as magical to you as a zippo might be to some very isolated tribesman somewhere.

 

[wirebender]

Wienerbitch won't let go of the flawed bitch idea heat transfer is somehow exactly and neatly the same as photon emission, when variables are involved, even though no energy is lost, and atmospheric molecules with three or more atoms somehow cannot tend to contribute, to a greenhouse effect, because Wienerbitch never lets go of his/her bitchin' wiener, when figuring out the coefficient, for the heat of the Wienermeat times the mass of the big, hermaphrodite ass is inversely proportional to the angle of the dangle, times a constant, given constant and evident Wienerbitch masturbation. Think of Pig Shitz with his mouth open, bitch. Get'r'done!

There is no greenouse effect as described by climate science bob. Of course as a faither, you will continue to hold tight to your belief regardless of how many laws of physics must be broken to maintain it.

Wienerbitch somehow can't grasp what you are trying to prove, Ian, since Wienerbitch won't let go of something, which Wienerbitch should let go of, such as texting in traffic, or masturbating, while trying to play hockey, without a damn stick. Piss off, Wienerbitch.

Nothing to grasp bob. Ian is as mistaken in his beliefs regarding photons as you are in your beliefs in climate science altogether.

 

[wirebender]

Hey ian, you have a cheerleader. Seems that you and good ole bob are in agreement. Maybe he is looking for a new internet butt buddy. How proud you must be to have teamates like good ole bob.

my, my, how you have fallen.

 

[IanC]

putting up a internet definition of a photon is not explaining how photons magically disappear. you have nothing.

Photons are bits of energy ian. Nothing more. They can be expended against opposing EM fields.

go ahead and explain 'subtraction of EMfields' and describe how it relates to a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards the surface.

Since EM fields are composed of photons which are nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of energy, the subtraction of EM fields, is by definition the subtraction of photons. How do you suppose one EM field might reduce the magnitude of another, or in fact cancel out the other without reducing the number of photons the field is made of?

We have been through all this and the fact remains that you can't provide anything like a legitimate definition of a photon that matches what you believe they are. Till you grasp the concept of the subtraction of fields, you will continue to be wrong. Simple as that.

And again ian, it isn't magic, it's physics. But to you, it may appear as magic. Any science of a sufficiently advanced state will appear as magic to those ignorant of it. The subtraction of EM fields seems to be as magical to you as a zippo might be to some very isolated tribesman somewhere.

it is you that has to explain your miraculous 'expended photon' theory not me. I know (roughly) how electric and magnetic fields can be added together with the net effect being measurable. you consider the non-reactive radiation 'EM field' of the earth to have the same properties as electric or magnetic flux fields.

if your theory is correct then two flashlights aimed at each other should at least partially cancel out. where does the energy go? do you have a link? I have on numerous occasions shown you links to constructive and destructive wave interference that state no energy is transfered in such cases, and the photons continue on their path unchanged after leaving the area of interference but that is not the effect you are talking about. show us a link that describes something akin to the magical disappearance you claim exists.

 

[bobgnote]

I didn't know Wienerbitch was THAT stupid! Come on back, bitch. You know those flashlights can't cancel each other, and you are a snitty punk, for trying to blow Ian off, in my direction, when you know I am the mean guy who outs neo-con wingpunk Log Cabin Club assholes, such as Wienerbitch, namely YOU.

Ian is trying to say you like to play flashlight, like some sort of magic happens, isn't he. I wonder what the fuck you have to say about fucktard physics, next? You don't like calibrations, we know that. I wonder how the fuck you ever did even ONE experiment, if you actually did get into Special Class State College, in the day.

Doncha wanna play flashlight, with Ian? How about loading another graph, or don't you like going one-for-two, and you couldn't read the good graph? Tell you what, bitch, hit search, Koch Bros., global warming study. You already know what cool pub Trakar thinks.

Let's see, if you can keep up with Charley and Dave.

 

[skookerasbil]

putting up a internet definition of a photon is not explaining how photons magically disappear. you have nothing.

Photons are bits of energy ian. Nothing more. They can be expended against opposing EM fields.

go ahead and explain 'subtraction of EMfields' and describe how it relates to a photon emitted from a CO2 molecule towards the surface.

Since EM fields are composed of photons which are nothing more than the smallest measurable bit of energy, the subtraction of EM fields, is by definition the subtraction of photons. How do you suppose one EM field might reduce the magnitude of another, or in fact cancel out the other without reducing the number of photons the field is made of?

We have been through all this and the fact remains that you can't provide anything like a legitimate definition of a photon that matches what you believe they are. Till you grasp the concept of the subtraction of fields, you will continue to be wrong. Simple as that.

And again ian, it isn't magic, it's physics. But to you, it may appear as magic. Any science of a sufficiently advanced state will appear as magic to those ignorant of it. The subtraction of EM fields seems to be as magical to you as a zippo might be to some very isolated tribesman somewhere.

s0n...........s0n........the anger??!!! Wouldnt be because your perception is that you are losing, would it?


Oh.....and take a gander s0n.........read about how the imaginary green holy land has suddenly bumped into REALITY!!!

Editorial: Green utopians trying again | world, green, global - Opinion - The Orange County Register



Indeed......the environmental nutty-asses are scurrying to reinvent themselves once again. ( big conference this week). Why? Because they are losing@!!!!

 

[flacaltenn]

s0n...........s0n........the anger??!!! Wouldnt be because your perception is that you are losing, would it?


Oh.....and take a gander s0n.........read about how the imaginary green holy land has suddenly bumped into REALITY!!!

Editorial: Green utopians trying again | world, green, global - Opinion - The Orange County Register



Indeed......the environmental nutty-asses are scurrying to reinvent themselves once again. ( big conference this week). Why? Because they are losing@!!!!

Thanx for that glimpse into the demented..

"For each person who might die from global warming, about 210 people die from health problems that result from a lack of clean water and sanitation, from breathing smoke generated by burning dirty fuels, such a dried animal dung, indoors and from breathing polluted air outdoors."

That's NEVER been part of the Annual beg-fest has it? Just a desire to DENY the 3rd world any of the "luxuries" we have lavished on ourselves. Like electricity, transportation, advanced farming.

Just CUT THE CHECK gringos.. Don't tell us we need to sort paper and plastic..

 

[wirebender]

it is you that has to explain your miraculous 'expended photon' theory not me. I know (roughly) how electric and magnetic fields can be added together with the net effect being measurable. you consider the non-reactive radiation 'EM field' of the earth to have the same properties as electric or magnetic flux fields.

You don't understand how energy is expended? You don't grasp how one EM field can diminish or cancell another? Oh, that's right; you don't. You believe that a photon is a "thing" as opposed to just the smallest measurable bit of energy in an EM field. Well hell ian, there is your problem. You don't know, or understand what a photon is just like the remote native doesn't understand what a zippo is. Learn what a photon actuall is and it won't seem like magic or a miracle any more.

photon - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation.

if your theory is correct then two flashlights aimed at each other should at least partially cancel out.

And they are. You believe they don't because you are unable to look deeply enough into the senario. You are looking at the flashlights instead of the filaments. If there is a difference between the temperature of the filaments, then no photon from the cooler filament ever reaches the warmer one.

where does the energy go?/'quote]

Where does it go? Geez ian, is your understanding of physics really that limited and distorted? When two EM fields are in opposition, work is happening. The reduction of magnitude is the result of the energy being expended (work) as they oppose each other.

Try running a current in both directions along a wire. The current won't run in but one direction. That is, the direction propagated by the EM field of the greatest magnitude. The current on the other end of the line will be reduced, however, by the magnitude of the current you tried to run in the other direction.

do you have a link?

Read any text on the consideration that must be taken when setting up a radio tower, or a microwave tower, or a cell tower, or a short wave transmitter, or practically any EM transmitter that may be subject to interference or cancellation by another transmitter transmitting on the same wavelength.

I have on numerous occasions shown you links to constructive and destructive wave interference that state no energy is transfered in such cases, and the photons continue on their path unchanged after leaving the area of interference but that is not the effect you are talking about. show us a link that describes something akin to the magical disappearance you claim exists.

So your claim is that one radio signal, or one shortwave signal, or one microwave transmission can't reduce the magnitude or entirely cancell out another? It is a simple yes or no question ian. State for the record that one EM field can't measurably diminish or cancell out another. Sorry your education failed you so miserably.

 

[wirebender]

That's NEVER been part of the Annual beg-fest has it? Just a desire to DENY the 3rd world any of the "luxuries" we have lavished on ourselves. Like electricity, transportation, advanced farming.

Greens don't have the slightest clue how many deaths can be laid at thier feet as a result of their never ending efforts to block hydroelectric dams and such in 3rd world countries, demonize genetically engineered foods, ban substances like DDT, etc.

Blocking dams is probably responsible for more deaths than the millions that have resulted from the banning of DDT. They don't seem to realize that the difference between thier life style and that miserably short and brutish lifestyle lived by 3rd world wretches is that electrical outlet in thier wall. Take that a way and we are all diseased, starving hunter gatherers in 2 months.

 

[bobgnote]

Shit, Wienerbitch, you aren't even worth quoting. Greens without Ralph Nader are a bit useless. But banning DDT? Are you one of those bitches, who wants to quaff a DDT-milkshake? You clearly suck balls, on dead, corporate hill-billy-goats.

Earth to Wienerbitch: the Koch Bros. funded a study, which found global warming science valid, after going over a lot of studies. Trakar is GOP, and look how well he writes.

You are some sort of queer neo-con, who can't do science, but you are over here at USMB, with suckassbil, the tweaker, posting smilies and shit-rants. Suckassbil won't declare Ian "awesome," now. Aw. I have an experiment, which you and suck can do, for 45 cents.

Give suckassbil 20 cents, to roll up all the windows, of some car he's in, when the sun is high. You keep the 25 cents. I don't care where you get the money. Get suck all riled up, show him his ball, bark at him, whatever. See if the car doesn't heat up, from trapping IR, and you can blame suck getting the windows all steamed, on EM, which is obviously trying to make a tinfoil hat, for the car to wear, using unspecified field fucktard physics.

Since suck doesn't believe in AGW, and suck is a queer mog, a combo of homosexual man and dog, you may not have to assure him AGW isn't gonna boil him, since suck is stupid.

If you don't give the suck any water, that will be what happens in some formerly temperate areas. It's the greenhouse effect, with no green and no water. You can call it the dog-in-a-car-effect, and write papers. If suck can't get out of the car, he can't declare you "awesome," though. Suck is some kind of wiener-doggie. Keep off my lap, suck. Yeah, you post smilies and lick Wienerbitches, arf, arf. Stupid bitch's lap-puppy.

It beats me, bitch with a wiener, whatever your theory of EM is, how it should be applied to atmospheric particles, always in motion, variously excited. Yeah, there's northern lights, but that isn't what you are trying to prove. You are trying to prove NOTHING, but momentary point-efects, while ignoring the practical behavior, of atmospheric molecules, with three or more atoms.

I guess that is why Ian Crapforbrains won't buy your shit, which stinks so bad, even Crapforbrains doesn't like the smell. Eventually, you can shit yourself so badly, you will need to grow a tree, in your asshole, for carbon credits.