Over 4.5 Billion to die by 2012

[PMZ]

The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

I didn't see any control in that experiment on the concentration of CO2. What was the concentration in the beaker? 100%? One million parts per million? Just curious. When do you expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to one million parts per million?

Let me know when you find one that isn't about as honest as a side show at a backwater county fair.

Interesting, isn't it? A small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables is supposed to accurately represent the atmosphere and oceans of an entire planet, a system with millions of variables.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen: This is the basis of the "science" of climatology.

You're the one who believes that it should be possible to accurately model climate change in a single experiment.

In fact what you model for us is how humanity would behave in the absence of science.

 

[PMZ]

That's right, the photons (or some other pseudo-intelligent process guiding them) look at the detector and decide to vanish and not hit the detector if the detector is warm.

An idiotic argument from an idiot...how surprising. Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling air to escape from a hole in a baloon or do you think some natural force is at work causing the air to escape? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling water to run down hill, or do you think some natural force is at work that causes the water to run downhill? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling free electrons which way to move down an electrical wire, or do you think some natural force is at work that sends them downstream?

If natural forces are at work in every thing we see, why would some idiot think that in one particular natural phenomenon (i.e. neither heat nor energy move from cool to warm) that some pseudo-intelligent force must be at work for the phenomenon to behave exactly as the law of nature predicts? Answer? Because she/he is an idiot of course.

A good example of how humanity would think without science. Which is, incidentally, where republicans would like to drag us back to.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PMZ]

The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

I didn't see any control in that experiment on the concentration of CO2. What was the concentration in the beaker? 100%? One million parts per million? Just curious. When do you expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to one million parts per million?

Let me know when you find one that isn't about as honest as a side show at a backwater county fair.

You ought to write a book. '' Science in the Absence of Science''. Which would really be about faith. Faith in shaman.

I agree that the experiment for kids that I posted was simplistic. I thought that appropriate for you.

BTW, are you going to post your proof that GHGs don't absorb long wave radiation?

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Yes, and have posted an observable, measureable and repeatable experiment for you at least three times.

You ignored it.

No, I looked at them. When I asked for such an experiment, I meant one that actually shows what it is claimed to be showing...not one that demonstrates an entirely different physical phenomenon which is predicted by the laws of physics.

Sorry that you are so easily fooled. I recommend that you avoid county fairs since you are so easily duped.

 

[SSDD]

That's right, the photons (or some other pseudo-intelligent process guiding them) look at the detector and decide to vanish and not hit the detector if the detector is warm.

An idiotic argument from an idiot...how surprising. Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling air to escape from a hole in a baloon or do you think some natural force is at work causing the air to escape? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling water to run down hill, or do you think some natural force is at work that causes the water to run downhill? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling free electrons which way to move down an electrical wire, or do you think some natural force is at work that sends them downstream?

If natural forces are at work in every thing we see, why would some idiot think that in one particular natural phenomenon (i.e. neither heat nor energy move from cool to warm) that some pseudo-intelligent force must be at work for the phenomenon to behave exactly as the law of nature predicts? Answer? Because she/he is an idiot of course.

A good example of how humanity would think without science. Which is, incidentally, where republicans would like to drag us back to.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Says the moron who believes in magic. The very moron who believes that when the second law says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move from a cool object to a warm object it actually means that heat and energy can move from a cool object to a warm object if a magical gas capable of producing magical backradiation is involved.

 

[SSDD]

The Greenhouse Effect | Nuffield Foundation

I didn't see any control in that experiment on the concentration of CO2. What was the concentration in the beaker? 100%? One million parts per million? Just curious. When do you expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to one million parts per million?

Let me know when you find one that isn't about as honest as a side show at a backwater county fair.

You ought to write a book. '' Science in the Absence of Science''. Which would really be about faith. Faith in shaman.

I agree that the experiment for kids that I posted was simplistic. I thought that appropriate for you.

BTW, are you going to post your proof that GHGs don't absorb long wave radiation?

Of course so called greenhouse gasses absorb LW...which they then immediately emit towards the direction of greater entropy since energy of any kind can not move in a direction of less entropy.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Who do you think you impress with these "you cannot make me understand! You can not!" games?

Here it is for you a 4th time:

Rain falls on snow.

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields&#8230. The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

Three months from now, you will being denying it was ever posted.

 

[PMZ]

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf

Hey, what do you know? An honest experiment and what does it show? Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Let me ask you a question. Why does the thermometer in all set ups reach a limit? It has energy coming in continuously, why doesn't it warm continuously?

 

[PMZ]

An idiotic argument from an idiot...how surprising. Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling air to escape from a hole in a baloon or do you think some natural force is at work causing the air to escape? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling water to run down hill, or do you think some natural force is at work that causes the water to run downhill? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling free electrons which way to move down an electrical wire, or do you think some natural force is at work that sends them downstream?

If natural forces are at work in every thing we see, why would some idiot think that in one particular natural phenomenon (i.e. neither heat nor energy move from cool to warm) that some pseudo-intelligent force must be at work for the phenomenon to behave exactly as the law of nature predicts? Answer? Because she/he is an idiot of course.

A good example of how humanity would think without science. Which is, incidentally, where republicans would like to drag us back to.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Says the moron who believes in magic. The very moron who believes that when the second law says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move from a cool object to a warm object it actually means that heat and energy can move from a cool object to a warm object if a magical gas capable of producing magical backradiation is involved.

As a non scientist, what you imagine the second law to say is irrelevant.

 

[PMZ]

An idiotic argument from an idiot...how surprising. Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling air to escape from a hole in a baloon or do you think some natural force is at work causing the air to escape? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling water to run down hill, or do you think some natural force is at work that causes the water to run downhill? Do you think some pseudo-intelligent force is at work telling free electrons which way to move down an electrical wire, or do you think some natural force is at work that sends them downstream?

If natural forces are at work in every thing we see, why would some idiot think that in one particular natural phenomenon (i.e. neither heat nor energy move from cool to warm) that some pseudo-intelligent force must be at work for the phenomenon to behave exactly as the law of nature predicts? Answer? Because she/he is an idiot of course.

A good example of how humanity would think without science. Which is, incidentally, where republicans would like to drag us back to.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

Says the moron who believes in magic. The very moron who believes that when the second law says that it is not possible for heat or energy to move from a cool object to a warm object it actually means that heat and energy can move from a cool object to a warm object if a magical gas capable of producing magical backradiation is involved.

Science can be so unruly to those with incomplete knowledge of it. That’s why we have scientists.

http://www.prlog.org/11842623-globa...violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics.html


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PMZ]

I didn't see any control in that experiment on the concentration of CO2. What was the concentration in the beaker? 100%? One million parts per million? Just curious. When do you expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to one million parts per million?

Let me know when you find one that isn't about as honest as a side show at a backwater county fair.

You ought to write a book. '' Science in the Absence of Science''. Which would really be about faith. Faith in shaman.

I agree that the experiment for kids that I posted was simplistic. I thought that appropriate for you.

BTW, are you going to post your proof that GHGs don't absorb long wave radiation?

Of course so called greenhouse gasses absorb LW...which they then immediately emit towards the direction of greater entropy since energy of any kind can not move in a direction of less entropy.

Just to clarify. You believe that GHGs absorb long wave, and then re radiate it, but only in directions in which there is a colder receptor.


Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[gslack]

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PROM/PROM-ROSS-Experiment.pdf

Hey, what do you know? An honest experiment and what does it show? Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Let me ask you a question. Why does the thermometer in all set ups reach a limit? It has energy coming in continuously, why doesn't it warm continuously?

Increase the heat enough and you can cause a thermomter to bust.. Not much for actually thinking are you socko....

 

[gslack]

SSDD -

Who do you think you impress with these "you cannot make me understand! You can not!" games?

Here it is for you a 4th time:

Rain falls on snow.

Some of Earth’s accumulated energy is exported via evapotranspiration (latent and sensible heat loss to atmosphere), clouds form from condensing water vapor, some precipitation occurs and (to make it really obvious) some rain falls on glaciers (snow, ice fields…). The liquid water precipitating out of (falling from) the atmosphere is warmer than our glacier (or snow or ice fields) and by melting same it is undeniably returning some of Earth’s previously exported energy back to Earth – this is a feedback. Does precipitation then falsify the 2nd Law? It doesn’t, of course, since Earth is exporting more heat than it is receiving via feedback and heat flow is still from warmer to cooler but undeniably the atmosphere is returning some energy to Earth and thus keeping it from cooling as rapidly as it otherwise would.

Is there a conflict between Greenhouse Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics? | JunkScience.com

Three months from now, you will being denying it was ever posted.

LOL, the idiotic junk science article is your reason???

Tell me junior, what part of evapotranspiration shows two way energy flow?

LOL, please explain how warmer water melting ice or snow shows two way energy flow? Water = warmer, snow/ice = colder... The rainfall is not dependent on GH theory, nor is GH theory dependent on rainfall.. Rain falls due to gravity morn. The energy it uses is from the gravitational pull of the planet pulling it down.

OMG, I cannot believe you are this damn ignorant. And what's worse that guy relies on it...If he had no real logical reason, why bother making crap like that?

Dude should be ashamed..

 

[PMZ]

Hey, what do you know? An honest experiment and what does it show? Amazingly enough exactly what the second law of thermodynamics predicts.

Let me ask you a question. Why does the thermometer in all set ups reach a limit? It has energy coming in continuously, why doesn't it warm continuously?

Increase the heat enough and you can cause a thermomter to bust.. Not much for actually thinking are you socko....

I guess that part of troll training is to never answer the question asked.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

Let me ask you a question. Why does the thermometer in all set ups reach a limit? It has energy coming in continuously, why doesn't it warm continuously?

Increase the heat enough and you can cause a thermomter to bust.. Not much for actually thinking are you socko....

I guess that part of troll training is to never answer the question asked.

^ says one of the many billions killed by 2012. PMS = a blathering idiot ghost.

 

[PMZ]

Obviously neither of you know the answer. And yet you pretend you have something to add to AGW science.

 

[mamooth]

Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall?

No, because gravity always works consistently. There aren't any special exceptions about how gravity turns off in certain cases just because someone's political cult wants that to happen very badly.

In every example you quote, the mechanism is well-defined and consistent. That's what makes them all completely different from your retarded magical intelligent photon theory, which posits a single exception from the normal rules for no apparent reason, and which contradicts a couple other inviolate physical laws (conservation of energy and no-breaking-lightspeed-in-information-transfer would be two).

You've rewritten the basic physical laws of the universe. Given that you're not Einstein, it indicates you're a gibbering crank. That would be why everyone justifiably treats you like a gibbering rank. If you don't want to look like a crank, explain the mechanism behind your magical vanishing photons. Explain where the energy goes, and explain how light from a distant star get the information telling it to vanish just because a cold surface appeared light-years away.

 

[daveman]

I didn't see any control in that experiment on the concentration of CO2. What was the concentration in the beaker? 100%? One million parts per million? Just curious. When do you expect the atmospheric concentration of CO2 to one million parts per million?

Let me know when you find one that isn't about as honest as a side show at a backwater county fair.

Interesting, isn't it? A small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables is supposed to accurately represent the atmosphere and oceans of an entire planet, a system with millions of variables.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen: This is the basis of the "science" of climatology.

You're the one who believes that it should be possible to accurately model climate change in a single experiment.

You're really not paying attention.

I don't believe any such thing, which is why I'm mocking the AGW cult -- they believe it's possible.

When asked for a repeatable, verifiable experiment (you know, the basis of science) proving AGW, we're given a small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables and a screech of "See?! SEE?!!"

In fact what you model for us is how humanity would behave in the absence of science.

Or you could just stop being a moron. Your call.

I love science. It's awesome. Science is the way to get us off this rock. Humanity is vulnerable here, and if we're to survive, we need to spread out among the solar system.

AGW isn't science. It's politics wearing a mask. It fools idiots.

 

[PMZ]

Interesting, isn't it? A small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables is supposed to accurately represent the atmosphere and oceans of an entire planet, a system with millions of variables.

Yes, ladies and gentlemen: This is the basis of the "science" of climatology.

You're the one who believes that it should be possible to accurately model climate change in a single experiment.

You're really not paying attention.

I don't believe any such thing, which is why I'm mocking the AGW cult -- they believe it's possible.

When asked for a repeatable, verifiable experiment (you know, the basis of science) proving AGW, we're given a small container of CO2 in an experiment with maybe three variables and a screech of "See?! SEE?!!"

In fact what you model for us is how humanity would behave in the absence of science.

Or you could just stop being a moron. Your call.

I love science. It's awesome. Science is the way to get us off this rock. Humanity is vulnerable here, and if we're to survive, we need to spread out among the solar system.

AGW isn't science. It's politics wearing a mask. It fools idiots.

People who love science invest the time and energy in learning it, and respect others who demonstrate competence in it. You're way outside those parameters. You love political entertainers who tell you how smart you are. In science you have to actually be smart and objective and independent.

Maybe in your next life.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk 2

 

[PMZ]

Tell me einstein, do you think some sort of pseudo-intelligent process is at work telling a rock to fall to the ground when it is dropped or do you think a natural force is at work that simply causes the rock to fall?

No, because gravity always works consistently. There aren't any special exceptions about how gravity turns off in certain cases just because someone's political cult wants that to happen very badly.

In every example you quote, the mechanism is well-defined and consistent. That's what makes them all completely different from your retarded magical intelligent photon theory, which posits a single exception from the normal rules for no apparent reason, and which contradicts a couple other inviolate physical laws (conservation of energy and no-breaking-lightspeed-in-information-transfer would be two).

You've rewritten the basic physical laws of the universe. Given that you're not Einstein, it indicates you're a gibbering crank. That would be why everyone justifiably treats you like a gibbering rank. If you don't want to look like a crank, explain the mechanism behind your magical vanishing photons. Explain where the energy goes, and explain how light from a distant star get the information telling it to vanish just because a cold surface appeared light-years away.

Gibbering crank. Very descriptive. He's a good example of someone who has what they call ''common'' sense as compared to knowledge. Why? Common sense requires zero effort. And has zero value.