Global CO2 Emissions Up 45 Percent a Year since 1990

[IanC]

Ian they are not an esoteric physics model. They are a factor in any studies involving subatomic particles and their interaction with other bodies or particles. Quantum mechanics is not an esoteric study, its the reason we have microwave ovens and the reason they can even make a claim for CO2 induced warming at all.

And as far as my honesty, I am being completely honest. The dishonesty here resides in the asinine claim that all heat transfers from a CO2 molecule will radiate straight down. Its a complete fallacy and that is one of the reasons the climate models are usually wrong.

You cannot deny sub-atomic particles in greenhouse effect or pretend they are bound by regular physics and thats it. Quantum mechanics is the reason there is a heat transfer at all.

a while back you linked to some sort of google search of EM field vectors that talked about an esoteric quantum effect that couldnt even be accurately be measured. that was your proof that there actually WAS something by that name. it didnt match up with what wirebender was claiming it was.

no one is claiming all radiation from excited CO2 molecules goes straight down to earth but some does and even more comes down at an angle that intersects with the earth's surface. if ten units of radiation go up and three come back that is the equivilent of seven going up. more ghg simply changes the ratio.

Now who is being dishonest? I linked to a webpage explaining a basic concept of Quantum Mechanics, you likening it to "some google search" is BULLSHIT!

You just flat out lied your ass off... It was an explanation of the very basics of Quantum mechanics as it would pertain to electromagnetic fields and interactions.

The climate models do not accurately predict because they for one do not use all of the factors involved, two, cannot quantify all of the complexities involved in the radiation effects, third, they cannot accurately show or relate the actual warming as it would happen in the real world. They take an oversimplification (a gross one) and make vast all en-composing assumptions which are not only unsound scientifically but unrealistic by their own inaccuracies. They in-effect might as well be claiming the heat radiates straight down because that about as accurate as they are currently.

Ian I don't know what your issue with this is, and frankly I don't care. The simple fact is these things exist, they are not made up nor someones twisted concept. You tried to imply they were made up before I showed you they were not, then you tried to claim he was misusing an esoteric concept or factor and that is not true either.

Like it or not, agree with it or not it is a very real, very relevant factor and study. Quantum Mechanics is a very real science and as of yet they understand very little of it. That does not make any less legitimate or any less applicable.

You just called me dishonest in a previous post, and here in this post you flat out lied and did so deliberately...

let me make an analogy. wirebender took a shit into a waffle cone and called it ice cream. you defended him by saying ice cream cones are real. but shit and ice cream arent the same thing. I am against bullshit no matter who says it. I dont want to hear bullshit from either side of the global warming situation. I agree with a lot of what wirebender says but he has a strange flaw in his understanding when it comes to his precious EM vector fields.

now you are calling me a liar for saying your list of links was googled. you may have used a different search engine but the list was just an unfocused group of sites that had peripheral connections to EM vector fields. at least one of your citations was about poorly understood quantum effects otherwise I probably wouldnt remember your feeble attempt to prop up wirebender while calling konradv a retard. It was churlish behaviour then and you resort to churlish behaviour now by calling me a liar.

 

[wirebender]

a while back you linked to some sort of google search of EM field vectors that talked about an esoteric quantum effect that couldnt even be accurately be measured. that was your proof that there actually WAS something by that name. it didnt match up with what wirebender was claiming it was.

There is nothing esoteric about my postion Ian. It isn't an obscure branch of some etherial science that deals with the direction of energy flow in EM fields. That stuff is basic Ian, not esoteric. It is founded solidly on the second law of thermodynamics and is provable in both the real world and the laboratory. Energy flow along any vector is one way. There is no arguing that.

no one is claiming all radiation from excited CO2 molecules goes straight down to earth but some does and even more comes down at an angle that intersects with the earth's surface. if ten units of radiation go up and three come back that is the equivilent of seven going up. more ghg simply changes the ratio.

How does it overcome the EM field from the surface of the earth which has a far greater magnitude than that of the atmosphere, and which angle radiating from the surface of the earth might the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth not cover?

 

[wirebender]

from any single point on earth there are an infinity of possible vectors. there are an infinity of points on the earths surface. there are an infinity of phase alignments on any vector. you claim that every possible vector of these infinities is populated with a photon of the right wavelength to cancel any possible photon returning to earth from a CO2 molecule randomly radiating from the atmosphere. I say that that is farfetched in the extreme. go ahead and 'do the math'.

Yes, from the surface of the earth, there are an infinity of possible vectors. The EM field of the earth radiates out from all of them. There aren't "holes" in the EM field. No such phenomenon has ever been even proposed in the physics literature.

What might cause these holes that would be necessary to allow backradiation to reach the earth? Where are they? What could cause a dead spot in the surface of the earth that would prevent it from radiating?

I have done the math to support my claims Ian. If you have discovered "dead spots" on the surface of the earth that don't radiate the Earth's EM field, I am afraid that is some math that you are going to have to do. Hell, there may be a nobel in it for you since it is brand new stuff.

You seem to place great store in the science of black bodies, you might start there and see if there are places on the surface of a blackbody that don't radiate. I don't recall ever even hearing about such a thing.

 

[wirebender]

You lying bullshitter. LOL That is such a dumb statement it defies belief that someone claiming a scientific background could make it.

Poor rocks. Such a limited, and shallow scope to your thinking. Do you have to write notes to yourself to remember to eat, or brush your teeth, or comb your hair?

Are you under the impression that volcanoes are the extent of the Earth's CO2 making machienry? Is that the only place you believe the earth is capable of outgassing CO2?

What is the range of natural variation from year to year of the Earth's entire CO2 outgassing potential?

 

[wirebender]

Seriously, if you believe that co2 is so good for plants, tree's and the planet-- then why won't you burn coal in your fire place and work to increase your carbon foot print. You went to feed a larger population and you think it can only be good. WHY NOT? What is the down side in your view?

The major problem with coal is soot matthew, not CO2 and sulfer compounds are a secondary problem.

Although I wouldn't mind having a coal fired smart car.

 

[wirebender]

let me make an analogy. wirebender took a shit into a waffle cone and called it ice cream. you defended him by saying ice cream cones are real. but shit and ice cream arent the same thing.

EM fields and vectors and the well known physics that govern thier behavior aren't shit.

I agree with a lot of what wirebender says but he has a strange flaw in his understanding when it comes to his precious EM vector fields.

Describe it. Describe the flaw in my thinking. Describe how I have misapplied any physical law. Describe the error in my mathematics.

To date, you have stated repeatedly that I have some flaw in my thinking but so far, you haven't even begun to state what the nature of it is. I have been describing plain old physics and vectors, and the nature of energy flow. This is rock bottom basic stuff Ian, it is right out of the physics textbooks. If I have made an error, it isn't esoteric, it is foundational and anyone who grasps physics should be able to point out precisely where my error is.

The fact that you can't point to any error on my part tells me that the problem is that it conflicts with something that you have taken on faith and calling it bullshit is nothing more than a kneejerk reaction on your part, and it demonstrates, on your part, an embarrassingly shallow line of thinking.

If I am in error, then show me the error but don't tell me that I am wrong because my postion is in conflict with your faith.

 

[IanC]

a while back you linked to some sort of google search of EM field vectors that talked about an esoteric quantum effect that couldnt even be accurately be measured. that was your proof that there actually WAS something by that name. it didnt match up with what wirebender was claiming it was.

There is nothing esoteric about my postion Ian. It isn't an obscure branch of some etherial science that deals with the direction of energy flow in EM fields. That stuff is basic Ian, not esoteric. It is founded solidly on the second law of thermodynamics and is provable in both the real world and the laboratory. Energy flow along any vector is one way. There is no arguing that.

no one is claiming all radiation from excited CO2 molecules goes straight down to earth but some does and even more comes down at an angle that intersects with the earth's surface. if ten units of radiation go up and three come back that is the equivilent of seven going up. more ghg simply changes the ratio.

How does it overcome the EM field from the surface of the earth which has a far greater magnitude than that of the atmosphere, and which angle radiating from the surface of the earth might the EM field radiated by the surface of the earth not cover?

dude! you are obsessed and deranged over this issue of magical effects of your own version of EM field vectors. according to you if I hold a mirror over my head I shouldnt be able to see myself because the field is stronger up than down! you still havent explained what actually happens to the photon of IR emitted downwards from a molecule of CO2 either. does it just disappear? is it annihilated by a spontaneously created photon from the earth that is perfectly matched for wavelength, trajectory and phase?and where would the annihilation take place, halfway? or does the all seeing, all powerful EM field reach into the CO2 molecule and forbid it to eject a photon in the wrong direction?

 

[Big Fitz]

At this rate we will add 3,600 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in the next 100 years.

Less than the margin of error for detection in the atmosphere. Therefore an irrelevant insignificant amount. Find something new. Remember, the average volume is close to 250,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere with an unknown quantity being both sequestered AND produced by nature a this time, and therefore your number is moot in comparison to this volume of gas.

 

[konradv]

At this rate we will add 3,600 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in the next 100 years.

Less than the margin of error for detection in the atmosphere. Therefore an irrelevant insignificant amount. Find something new. Remember, the average volume is close to 250,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere with an unknown quantity being both sequestered AND produced by nature a this time, and therefore your number is moot in comparison to this volume of gas.

The amount sequestered and produced should be a wash, if nature is in balance. Therefore, any additional CO2 would have to be produced by man, unless you can prove there's another source.

 

[Big Fitz]

At this rate we will add 3,600 billion tons of CO2 to the atmosphere in the next 100 years.

Less than the margin of error for detection in the atmosphere. Therefore an irrelevant insignificant amount. Find something new. Remember, the average volume is close to 250,000 billion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere with an unknown quantity being both sequestered AND produced by nature a this time, and therefore your number is moot in comparison to this volume of gas.

The amount sequestered and produced should be a wash, if nature is in balance. Therefore, any additional CO2 would have to be produced by man, unless you can prove there's another source.

The first major assumption that there is no negative feedback to increased production of CO2 from ANY source that causes an increase in sequestering of CO2.

The second assumption that the production/sequestering balance is ALWAYS a wash is also unproven, unless you know of empirical evidence out there that shows this.

The third major assumption is the actual production rates of CO2 versus sequestered CO2. Once this has been established, we can seriously look at actually what impact, IF ANY can be found of man's input to CO2 is relevant.

The fourth assumption is that since mankind's 'massive' contribution to CO2 production has any sort of DIRECT effect on any aspect of the climate remains unproven, but rather assumed to be true through computer models which cannot be sophisticated enough to include ALL required variables including water vapor to solar activity.

Are you finally seeing why I don't need a doctorate to shred your arguments because it fails basic grade school science and logic?

You have some MAJOR hurdles to overcome before you even approach truthiness.

 

[wirebender]

dude! you are obsessed and deranged over this issue of magical effects of your own version of EM field vectors. according to you if I hold a mirror over my head I shouldnt be able to see myself because the field is stronger up than down!

Geez Ian, I had thought that you were a reasonably bright guy but you are giving the impression that the depth of your thinking process is roughly equivalent to rocks and konradv. I have to tell you that I, for one, and f'ing dissappointed. Tell me Ian, are you unaware of the difference between visible light and IR and are you also unaware that EM fields do not occur in the range of visible light? What might the world look like if we could see EM fields with our eyes?

What you see with your eyes is visible light and has nothing to do with EM fields. Give me a break guy. If you are this far behind the curve, what the hell are you doing trying to tell me that I am wrong? If that mirror analogy is an indication of how well you grasp the topic, you don't know jack.

you still havent explained what actually happens to the photon of IR emitted downwards from a molecule of CO2 either.

I have explained it over and over and like rocks and konradv, apparently you lack sufficient knowledge of the topic to form a picture of it in your mind. I am guessing that you are under the impression that a photon is a free agent that goes zipping about the universe at or near the speed of light. If that is what you believe a photon to be, then it is no wonder that you can't and won't grasp what is going on. A photon is the quantum of an EM field. That is to say that a photon is the smallest possible unit in an EM field. Here is a definition. Read it closely and make sure you understand because if you don't, you can't possibly grasp what is going on in a single EM field, much less between opposing EM fields.

First is the definition of a quantum: (emphasis mine)

quantum - Plural quanta
A discrete, indivisible manifestation of a physical property, such as a force or angular momentum. Some quanta take the form of elementary particles; for example, the quantum of electromagnetic radiation is the photon, while the quanta of the weak force are the W and Z particles.

Now here is the definition of photon: (emphasis mine)

photon (fō'tŏn') - The subatomic particle that carries the electromagnetic force and is the quantum of electromagnetic radiation. The photon has a rest mass of zero, but has measurable momentum, exhibits deflection by a gravitational field, and can exert a force. It has no electric charge, has an indefinitely long lifetime, and is its own antiparticle

You don't have EM fields without photons because that is what they are made of. A photon, being a "unit" of energy goes along its merry way until such time as it expends its energy and when that energy is expended, it no longer exists. When two EM fields oppose each other, the energy of one is expended in an "effort" to move upstream against the other. It is as if you connected a 12 volt car battery to a 9 volt dry cell by two wires. Do you believe for a second that any free electron from the 9 volt dry cell is going to overcome the current coming from the 12 volt battery and add even the most infinitestimal amount of energy to the charge of the 12 volt battery?

When the photon is emitted from the CO2 molecule along a vector in which it is in opposition to the EM field of the earth, it simply expends its energy against the field of greater magnitude and ceases to exist. This isn't esoteric or etherial Ian, it is basic physics. What do you think happens to the energy of the 9 volt dry cell when it is in opposition to the 12 volt car battery? It is simply expended. It isn't destroyed because it can't be. It can, however, be expended. As it is expended (at a rapid rate by the way) the byproduct is heat.

does it just disappear?[/quote0

The bit of energy that it represents is simply expended against the greater EM field radiating away from the earth. When two EM fields are in opposition along any vector, they must be subtracted and the result determines which field has the greater magnitude and thus determines the direction of energy "flow". It isn't magic Ian, and it isn't esoteric. It is rock bottom physics. It is the physics that climate science has ignored when writing its climate models. It is why the claims made by climate science can't be demonstrated in any observable way.

is it annihilated by a spontaneously created photon from the earth that is perfectly matched for wavelength, trajectory and phase?

Is this really that far over your head Ian, or are you being deliberately obtuse in an effort to maintain your faith? We are talking about IR here aren't we?

and where would the annihilation take place, halfway? or does the all seeing, all powerful EM field reach into the CO2 molecule and forbid it to eject a photon in the wrong direction?

Well that would depend on the relative magnitude of the EM field it was opposing. EM fields weaken with distance so along with subtracting the magnitude of the fields, distance is a factor. As the series of calculations RWatt and I went through regarding two stars showed, the EM field of the cooler star finally subtracted to zero at a point over half way to the slightly warmer star.

In the case of the EM field of a photon emitted from a single CO2 moleucle in opposition to the EM field radiated out from the earth, I would suppose the energy that the photon represents would be expended nearly immediately upon its emission as the EM field from the earth would be of a far far far greater magnitude.

Seriously Ian, if your understanding of EM fields and the physics that govern them is this sketchy, I am surprised that you would stand up and tell me that I am wrong because clearly, you do not have a clue and arguing in public only serves to reinforce how poor your understanding of the topic is.

 

[wirebender]

The amount sequestered and produced should be a wash, if nature is in balance. Therefore, any additional CO2 would have to be produced by man, unless you can prove there's another source.

Tell me konradv, when do you beleive any earth system has ever been in balance? Natural variability is nothing more than an indicator of how out of balance earth's systems naturally are and always have been.

 

[Big Fitz]

The amount sequestered and produced should be a wash, if nature is in balance. Therefore, any additional CO2 would have to be produced by man, unless you can prove there's another source.

Tell me konradv, when do you beleive any earth system has ever been in balance? Natural variability is nothing more than an indicator of how out of balance earth's systems naturally are and always have been.

He doesn't get that the system is never in perfect stable balance and never will be. It fluctuates, undulates and modulates. It overcorrects, then undercorrects and thereby generates changes in this world's balance. It's got pretty much nothing to do with man because we cannot change the weather, but we have proven to be able to poison ourselves but even then we can't do it perfectly. The two are not synonymous as the ecofascists would have us believe.

 

[Old Rocks]

But Bent, the scheelite crystal still emits in all directions in a beam of short wave UV. Even in the direction of the lamp illuminating it. This is the same effect as the radiation of long wave IR by the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. Your ding dong hypothesis is falsified.

 

[Old Rocks]

The amount sequestered and produced should be a wash, if nature is in balance. Therefore, any additional CO2 would have to be produced by man, unless you can prove there's another source.

Tell me konradv, when do you beleive any earth system has ever been in balance? Natural variability is nothing more than an indicator of how out of balance earth's systems naturally are and always have been.

He doesn't get that the system is never in perfect stable balance and never will be. It fluctuates, undulates and modulates. It overcorrects, then undercorrects and thereby generates changes in this world's balance. It's got pretty much nothing to do with man because we cannot change the weather, but we have proven to be able to poison ourselves but even then we can't do it perfectly. The two are not synonymous as the ecofascists would have us believe.

Oh my, another dumb fuck that thinks that he is so much smarter than all the geologists and geophysicists at the USGS.

Volcanic Gases and Climate Change Overview

Volcanic versus anthropogenic CO2 emissions
Do the Earth’s volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities? Research findings indicate that the answer to this frequently asked question is a clear and unequivocal, “No.” Human activities, responsible for a projected 35 billion metric tons (gigatons) of CO2 emissions in 2010 (Friedlingstein et al., 2010), release an amount of CO2 that dwarfs the annual CO2 emissions of all the world’s degassing subaerial and submarine volcanoes (Gerlach, 2011).

The published estimates of the global CO2 emission rate for all degassing subaerial (on land) and submarine volcanoes lie in a range from 0.13 gigaton to 0.44 gigaton per year (Gerlach, 1991; Varekamp et al., 1992; Allard, 1992; Sano and Williams, 1996; Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998). The preferred global estimates of the authors of these studies range from about 0.15 to 0.26 gigaton per year. The 35-gigaton projected anthropogenic CO2 emission for 2010 is about 80 to 270 times larger than the respective maximum and minimum annual global volcanic CO2 emission estimates. It is 135 times larger than the highest preferred global volcanic CO2 estimate of 0.26 gigaton per year (Marty and Tolstikhin, 1998).

In recent times, about 70 volcanoes are normally active each year on the Earth’s subaerial terrain. One of these is Kīlauea volcano in Hawaii, which has an annual baseline CO2 output of about 0.0031 gigatons per year [Gerlach et al., 2002]. It would take a huge addition of volcanoes to the subaerial landscape—the equivalent of an extra 11,200 Kīlauea volcanoes—to scale up the global volcanic CO2 emission rate to the anthropogenic CO2 emission rate. Similarly, scaling up the volcanic rate to the current anthropogenic rate by adding more submarine volcanoes would require an addition of about 360 more mid-ocean ridge systems to the sea floor, based on mid-ocean ridge CO2 estimates of Marty and Tolstikhin (1998).

There continues to be efforts to reduce uncertainties and improve estimates of present-day global volcanic CO2 emissions, but there is little doubt among volcanic gas scientists that the anthropogenic CO2 emissions dwarf global volcanic CO2 emissions.

For additional information about this subject, please read the American Geophysical Union's Eos article "Volcanic Versus Anthropogenic Carbon Dioxide" written by USGS scientist Terrence M. Gerlach.

 

[gslack]

a while back you linked to some sort of google search of EM field vectors that talked about an esoteric quantum effect that couldnt even be accurately be measured. that was your proof that there actually WAS something by that name. it didnt match up with what wirebender was claiming it was.

no one is claiming all radiation from excited CO2 molecules goes straight down to earth but some does and even more comes down at an angle that intersects with the earth's surface. if ten units of radiation go up and three come back that is the equivilent of seven going up. more ghg simply changes the ratio.

Now who is being dishonest? I linked to a webpage explaining a basic concept of Quantum Mechanics, you likening it to "some google search" is BULLSHIT!

You just flat out lied your ass off... It was an explanation of the very basics of Quantum mechanics as it would pertain to electromagnetic fields and interactions.

The climate models do not accurately predict because they for one do not use all of the factors involved, two, cannot quantify all of the complexities involved in the radiation effects, third, they cannot accurately show or relate the actual warming as it would happen in the real world. They take an oversimplification (a gross one) and make vast all en-composing assumptions which are not only unsound scientifically but unrealistic by their own inaccuracies. They in-effect might as well be claiming the heat radiates straight down because that about as accurate as they are currently.

Ian I don't know what your issue with this is, and frankly I don't care. The simple fact is these things exist, they are not made up nor someones twisted concept. You tried to imply they were made up before I showed you they were not, then you tried to claim he was misusing an esoteric concept or factor and that is not true either.

Like it or not, agree with it or not it is a very real, very relevant factor and study. Quantum Mechanics is a very real science and as of yet they understand very little of it. That does not make any less legitimate or any less applicable.

You just called me dishonest in a previous post, and here in this post you flat out lied and did so deliberately...

let me make an analogy. wirebender took a shit into a waffle cone and called it ice cream. you defended him by saying ice cream cones are real. but shit and ice cream arent the same thing. I am against bullshit no matter who says it. I dont want to hear bullshit from either side of the global warming situation. I agree with a lot of what wirebender says but he has a strange flaw in his understanding when it comes to his precious EM vector fields.

now you are calling me a liar for saying your list of links was googled. you may have used a different search engine but the list was just an unfocused group of sites that had peripheral connections to EM vector fields. at least one of your citations was about poorly understood quantum effects otherwise I probably wouldnt remember your feeble attempt to prop up wirebender while calling konradv a retard. It was churlish behaviour then and you resort to churlish behaviour now by calling me a liar.

You are full of it Ian. Why are you sitting there and deliberately denying an entire field of science that is formally accepted and relied upon in the scientific community for many years now? Are you that upset you didn't know something? Hell man I don't know a hell of a lot more than I know, but what I do know is enough to get over my arrogance and accept when I don't know.

You keep making simplified and irrelevant sweeping statements like this instead of arguing what is said. You called my links a random google search, when they were chosen for explaining and showing that EM fields and vectors were a part of quantum mechanics and a respected and relied upon field of study. You tried to pretend he made up the terms, which he did not. And you do so without even addressing what he or I said or what we present.

I am not a mathematician or a physics expert, but I know enough to realize you cannot deny the Quantum aspects when they interact with the physical in such a manner as greenhouse effect. Heat is physical, how that is created or transferred is quantum. Its not esoteric or magic, its a respected and accepted science.

Now if you believe wire to be incorrect in his math or the applications of it, then please be my guest and show it mathematically. If you can't then that would make two of us. But just standing there and claiming he made it up or its wrong with nothing but baseless claims of esoteric and magic using nothing but irrelevant and convoluted metaphors is just nay-saying.

 

[konradv]

Now who is being dishonest? I linked to a webpage explaining a basic concept of Quantum Mechanics, you likening it to "some google search" is BULLSHIT!

You just flat out lied your ass off... It was an explanation of the very basics of Quantum mechanics as it would pertain to electromagnetic fields and interactions.

The climate models do not accurately predict because they for one do not use all of the factors involved, two, cannot quantify all of the complexities involved in the radiation effects, third, they cannot accurately show or relate the actual warming as it would happen in the real world. They take an oversimplification (a gross one) and make vast all en-composing assumptions which are not only unsound scientifically but unrealistic by their own inaccuracies. They in-effect might as well be claiming the heat radiates straight down because that about as accurate as they are currently.

Ian I don't know what your issue with this is, and frankly I don't care. The simple fact is these things exist, they are not made up nor someones twisted concept. You tried to imply they were made up before I showed you they were not, then you tried to claim he was misusing an esoteric concept or factor and that is not true either.

Like it or not, agree with it or not it is a very real, very relevant factor and study. Quantum Mechanics is a very real science and as of yet they understand very little of it. That does not make any less legitimate or any less applicable.

You just called me dishonest in a previous post, and here in this post you flat out lied and did so deliberately...

let me make an analogy. wirebender took a shit into a waffle cone and called it ice cream. you defended him by saying ice cream cones are real. but shit and ice cream arent the same thing. I am against bullshit no matter who says it. I dont want to hear bullshit from either side of the global warming situation. I agree with a lot of what wirebender says but he has a strange flaw in his understanding when it comes to his precious EM vector fields.

now you are calling me a liar for saying your list of links was googled. you may have used a different search engine but the list was just an unfocused group of sites that had peripheral connections to EM vector fields. at least one of your citations was about poorly understood quantum effects otherwise I probably wouldnt remember your feeble attempt to prop up wirebender while calling konradv a retard. It was churlish behaviour then and you resort to churlish behaviour now by calling me a liar.

You are full of it Ian. Why are you sitting there and deliberately denying an entire field of science that is formally accepted and relied upon in the scientific community for many years now? Are you that upset you didn't know something? Hell man I don't know a hell of a lot more than I know, but what I do know is enough to get over my arrogance and accept when I don't know.

You keep making simplified and irrelevant sweeping statements like this instead of arguing what is said. You called my links a random google search, when they were chosen for explaining and showing that EM fields and vectors were a part of quantum mechanics and a respected and relied upon field of study. You tried to pretend he made up the terms, which he did not. And you do so without even addressing what he or I said or what we present.

I am not a mathematician or a physics expert, but I know enough to realize you cannot deny the Quantum aspects when they interact with the physical in such a manner as greenhouse effect. Heat is physical, how that is created or transferred is quantum. Its not esoteric or magic, its a respected and accepted science.

Now if you believe wire to be incorrect in his math or the applications of it, then please be my guest and show it mathematically. If you can't then that would make two of us. But just standing there and claiming he made it up or its wrong with nothing but baseless claims of esoteric and magic using nothing but irrelevant and convoluted metaphors is just nay-saying.

STRAWMAN ALERT!!! Mathematics isn't necessary to debunk wirebender. His theory is false on the face of it. If quantum radiation can't travel in the direction of a stronger source, how come I can see the moon in the daytime? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

 

[gslack]

let me make an analogy. wirebender took a shit into a waffle cone and called it ice cream. you defended him by saying ice cream cones are real. but shit and ice cream arent the same thing. I am against bullshit no matter who says it. I dont want to hear bullshit from either side of the global warming situation. I agree with a lot of what wirebender says but he has a strange flaw in his understanding when it comes to his precious EM vector fields.

now you are calling me a liar for saying your list of links was googled. you may have used a different search engine but the list was just an unfocused group of sites that had peripheral connections to EM vector fields. at least one of your citations was about poorly understood quantum effects otherwise I probably wouldnt remember your feeble attempt to prop up wirebender while calling konradv a retard. It was churlish behaviour then and you resort to churlish behaviour now by calling me a liar.

You are full of it Ian. Why are you sitting there and deliberately denying an entire field of science that is formally accepted and relied upon in the scientific community for many years now? Are you that upset you didn't know something? Hell man I don't know a hell of a lot more than I know, but what I do know is enough to get over my arrogance and accept when I don't know.

You keep making simplified and irrelevant sweeping statements like this instead of arguing what is said. You called my links a random google search, when they were chosen for explaining and showing that EM fields and vectors were a part of quantum mechanics and a respected and relied upon field of study. You tried to pretend he made up the terms, which he did not. And you do so without even addressing what he or I said or what we present.

I am not a mathematician or a physics expert, but I know enough to realize you cannot deny the Quantum aspects when they interact with the physical in such a manner as greenhouse effect. Heat is physical, how that is created or transferred is quantum. Its not esoteric or magic, its a respected and accepted science.

Now if you believe wire to be incorrect in his math or the applications of it, then please be my guest and show it mathematically. If you can't then that would make two of us. But just standing there and claiming he made it up or its wrong with nothing but baseless claims of esoteric and magic using nothing but irrelevant and convoluted metaphors is just nay-saying.

STRAWMAN ALERT!!! Mathematics isn't necessary to debunk wirebender. His theory is false on the face of it. If quantum radiation can't travel in the direction of a stronger source, how come I can see the moon in the daytime? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Puppeteer, he already covered this and you know it. you are about as juvenile a poster on this board as there can be.. Shut up junior you never have anything of value to add. Either as yourself or your Poo Poo identity...

 

[konradv]

You are full of it Ian. Why are you sitting there and deliberately denying an entire field of science that is formally accepted and relied upon in the scientific community for many years now? Are you that upset you didn't know something? Hell man I don't know a hell of a lot more than I know, but what I do know is enough to get over my arrogance and accept when I don't know.

You keep making simplified and irrelevant sweeping statements like this instead of arguing what is said. You called my links a random google search, when they were chosen for explaining and showing that EM fields and vectors were a part of quantum mechanics and a respected and relied upon field of study. You tried to pretend he made up the terms, which he did not. And you do so without even addressing what he or I said or what we present.

I am not a mathematician or a physics expert, but I know enough to realize you cannot deny the Quantum aspects when they interact with the physical in such a manner as greenhouse effect. Heat is physical, how that is created or transferred is quantum. Its not esoteric or magic, its a respected and accepted science.

Now if you believe wire to be incorrect in his math or the applications of it, then please be my guest and show it mathematically. If you can't then that would make two of us. But just standing there and claiming he made it up or its wrong with nothing but baseless claims of esoteric and magic using nothing but irrelevant and convoluted metaphors is just nay-saying.

STRAWMAN ALERT!!! Mathematics isn't necessary to debunk wirebender. His theory is false on the face of it. If quantum radiation can't travel in the direction of a stronger source, how come I can see the moon in the daytime? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Puppeteer, he already covered this and you know it. you are about as juvenile a poster on this board as there can be.. Shut up junior you never have anything of value to add. Either as yourself or your Poo Poo identity...

Not to my satisfaction he didn't. Care to give it a shot?

 

[gslack]

STRAWMAN ALERT!!! Mathematics isn't necessary to debunk wirebender. His theory is false on the face of it. If quantum radiation can't travel in the direction of a stronger source, how come I can see the moon in the daytime? PUT UP OR SHUT UP.

Puppeteer, he already covered this and you know it. you are about as juvenile a poster on this board as there can be.. Shut up junior you never have anything of value to add. Either as yourself or your Poo Poo identity...

Not to my satisfaction he didn't. Care to give it a shot?

HUSH ooh poo dah.. Or whatever that name was...