how much warming from adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere is what we

[westwall]

Yes, yes, call back this iteration as well. Your little brother is a moron dude.

OUT! We need no urging to hate humans. But for the present, only a fool fights in a burning house. OUT!

Yes, it has been patently obvious you hate humanity for a long time. And by all means, OUT with you!

 

[itfitzme]

LOL, you never answered it the first time silly socko,there is no restating involved..

Here is another. The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos

Yes please a video to hide your screw up. Don't bother acknowledging any previous errors on your part, just post more until you bury it...

ROFL, you fake scientist socks are too funny.

You do know who Richard Feynman is? As Feynman describes it, reflection requires the absorbtion of the photon, by an electron, in order for a new photon to be emited in a new direction.

It is really just that simple.

 

[mamooth]

Yes, it has been patently obvious you hate humanity for a long time. And by all means, OUT with you!

Stardate ... Armageddon. We must find a way to defeat the alien force of hate that has taken over the board. Stop the war now or spend eternity in futile, bloody violence.

 

[westwall]

Yes, it has been patently obvious you hate humanity for a long time. And by all means, OUT with you!

Stardate ... Armageddon. We must find a way to defeat the alien force of hate that has taken over the board. Stop the war now or spend eternity in futile, bloody violence.

I agree with that. It would be nice if the revisionists would simply state their case and eschew the vitriol that rolling thunder and the passive aggressive nonsensical lies that Saigon spouts out etc.

 

[itfitzme]

Yes, it has been patently obvious you hate humanity for a long time. And by all means, OUT with you!

Stardate ... Armageddon. We must find a way to defeat the alien force of hate that has taken over the board. Stop the war now or spend eternity in futile, bloody violence.

I agree with that. It would be nice if the revisionists would simply state their case and eschew the vitriol that rolling thunder and the passive aggressive nonsensical lies that Saigon spouts out etc.

So how many screen names are you using, gslack?

 

[PMZ]

There is no rocket science in greenhouse gas behavior. When we return them to the atmosphere, they behave just like they did the last time they were there, and just like they do in the lab, and just like they do theoretically. They lower the energy from the sun reflected out into space.

 

[itfitzme]

There is no rocket science in greenhouse gas behavior. When we return them to the atmosphere, they behave just like they did the last time they were there, and just like they do in the lab, and just like they do theoretically. They lower the energy from the sun reflected out into space.

Beats me, never got there.*

I was just enjoying examining how materials interact with photons. That and watching the other two argue endlessly over some point I never addressed. *

I have no current idea how much of what wavelength gets absorbed, or to what percentages it may be converted from one wavelength to another.

*I was following through as to whether reflection is, in fact, absorbtion and re-emittion at the same wave length.

Transmission through glass was missing piece for me.

It obviously must be absorbtion, for reflection, a photon can't change direction. It has to be absorbed and when re-emitted, its a different photon. It must be. *Its got an different direction. *But that transmission just bothered me. *Relevant or no, it is to related and bothered me.

*Gslack and what's his name were so focused on winning, on being right, that they were hung up on the idea that absorbtion and re-emittion must mean at different wavelengths. I never said anything about what wavelength gets re-emmited. *I honestly didn't get what their issue was till later.

Still, I did give a hint by bringing up stimulated emission. *Obviously, stimulated emission is the same wavelength for the stimulated part. *And the question about transmission through glass is also the same wavelength. *

And why would it be a different wavelength anyways, if it's reflection?

He tries to make things to complicated. *Tries to hard. And if you've studied psych seriously, you can see their psycho stuff. *As soon as they say "you". "You this...", "You that ..." out of nowhere. *I say "object". *They say "You ..."*The net just atracts them like bees to honey. They just can't see it. *They are looking at a computer screen, little letters. No face, just words appearing on a screen.**It's like a Rorschoch test. *You see what you want to see. It's not rocket science.

I have no clue how quantum computing is suppose to fit in. * I think he just had some manic fit. *I don't want to try.

It took forever before I realized a new search term to find my missing piece. *It was "electon+valence+band+molecule+vibration+energy". *And somehow that led a path to Feynman and QED.*

You should watch the the Feynman videos I linked. *It's an awesome explanation of QED. *And he makes it not rocket sciene. *That was a missing piece for me, never studied that, too modern. *I get it. It has a natural extention from phasors in electronics and electro-magnetic wave theory. But it really nails down the fact that reflection is absorbsion and re-emission. *It's even more than that, it's then probability of absorbtion and re-emission from every possible path, added up together.

Whether reflected, scattered, transmitted, or refraction, it's all the same. *They are absorbed and re-emitted on every possible probability path.

Oh, and apparently photons aren't waves anymore, not particle/waves. *No waves. *Just particles. Any way we measure them, they go "click click click" as they hit thing. *Einstein would be satisfied with that much. So, Particles with a rotating probability amplitude phase. *Einstien wouldn't be happy with the probability part.

 

[gslack]

Here is another. The Vega Science Trust - Richard Feynman - Science Videos

Yes please a video to hide your screw up. Don't bother acknowledging any previous errors on your part, just post more until you bury it...

ROFL, you fake scientist socks are too funny.

You do know who Richard Feynman is? As Feynman describes it, reflection requires the absorbtion of the photon, by an electron, in order for a new photon to be emited in a new direction.

It is really just that simple.

LOL, no it doesn't silly socko. And further none of 3 videos on your link state any such thing. You just read a title and went with it thinking it explains your claim. The fact is they don't. WHat one of the videos DOES DO is explain how some light is reflected and some is absorbed and emitted as heat. Nice try..

Here I will give you the explanation for a kid...

You seem to misunderstand the behavior of light. And further the differences in light when it interacts with certain matter. There is no such thing a s a perfect reflector, all things reflect some light and absorb some light. Different wavelengths, different materials, and various other things play parts in the process, making all things react differently to light.

Ever wonder why things have color? Why some things are red, yellow or blue? Well suffice to say it is a combination of how our eyes react to the light that is reflected versus the light that is absorbed from an object, and how our mind perceives those things. Things that are black absorb the most light, things that are white reflect the most light. And all the other colors in between are variations of how much is absorbed vs how much is reflected across the light spectrum.

You think when the video mentioned how light is absorbed and then re-emitted, that it meant it was reflection. Well it really wasn't, reflection is what doesn't get absorbed but is reflected off. The interaction at the surface of matter is not absorption because it never gets past the outer molecular bonds of the electrons. By your logic, anything able to hold out water is actually taking water in and emitting it out. That's a silly assumption and the fact you don't understand the difference between absorption and reflection is obvious. Light interacts with surface molecular bonds and the electrons there, but no further. Hence reflection and not absorption..

Get it yet or are we going to have tolerate more of your ignorant ramblings trying to show yourself right? Sorry socko but you're not right, just as you weren't right when you tried this crap as the other you, or the one before that.

 

[gslack]

Stardate ... Armageddon. We must find a way to defeat the alien force of hate that has taken over the board. Stop the war now or spend eternity in futile, bloody violence.

I agree with that. It would be nice if the revisionists would simply state their case and eschew the vitriol that rolling thunder and the passive aggressive nonsensical lies that Saigon spouts out etc.

So how many screen names are you using, gslack?

LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.

I only have one screen name socko,and the fact is nobody here posts like me, acts like me,or debates anything like me. I am unique unlike you and the troll army.

 

[gslack]

There is no rocket science in greenhouse gas behavior. When we return them to the atmosphere, they behave just like they did the last time they were there, and just like they do in the lab, and just like they do theoretically. They lower the energy from the sun reflected out into space.

Beats me, never got there.*

I was just enjoying examining how materials interact with photons. That and watching the other two argue endlessly over some point I never addressed. *

I have no current idea how much of what wavelength gets absorbed, or to what percentages it may be converted from one wavelength to another.

*I was following through as to whether reflection is, in fact, absorbtion and re-emittion at the same wave length.

Transmission through glass was missing piece for me.

It obviously must be absorbtion, for reflection, a photon can't change direction. It has to be absorbed and when re-emitted, its a different photon. It must be. *Its got an different direction. *But that transmission just bothered me. *Relevant or no, it is to related and bothered me.

*Gslack and what's his name were so focused on winning, on being right, that they were hung up on the idea that absorbtion and re-emittion must mean at different wavelengths. I never said anything about what wavelength gets re-emmited. *I honestly didn't get what their issue was till later.

Still, I did give a hint by bringing up stimulated emission. *Obviously, stimulated emission is the same wavelength for the stimulated part. *And the question about transmission through glass is also the same wavelength. *

And why would it be a different wavelength anyways, if it's reflection?

He tries to make things to complicated. *Tries to hard. And if you've studied psych seriously, you can see their psycho stuff. *As soon as they say "you". "You this...", "You that ..." out of nowhere. *I say "object". *They say "You ..."*The net just atracts them like bees to honey. They just can't see it. *They are looking at a computer screen, little letters. No face, just words appearing on a screen.**It's like a Rorschoch test. *You see what you want to see. It's not rocket science.

I have no clue how quantum computing is suppose to fit in. * I think he just had some manic fit. *I don't want to try.

It took forever before I realized a new search term to find my missing piece. *It was "electon+valence+band+molecule+vibration+energy". *And somehow that led a path to Feynman and QED.*

You should watch the the Feynman videos I linked. *It's an awesome explanation of QED. *And he makes it not rocket sciene. *That was a missing piece for me, never studied that, too modern. *I get it. It has a natural extention from phasors in electronics and electro-magnetic wave theory. But it really nails down the fact that reflection is absorbsion and re-emission. *It's even more than that, it's then probability of absorbtion and re-emission from every possible path, added up together.

Whether reflected, scattered, transmitted, or refraction, it's all the same. *They are absorbed and re-emitted on every possible probability path.

Oh, and apparently photons aren't waves anymore, not particle/waves. *No waves. *Just particles. Any way we measure them, they go "click click click" as they hit thing. *Einstein would be satisfied with that much. So, Particles with a rotating probability amplitude phase. *Einstien wouldn't be happy with the probability part.

All that to say that you basically screwed up? LOL condense it socko...

 

[Saigon]

LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.

I only have one screen name socko,and the fact is nobody here posts like me, acts like me,or debates anything like me. I am unique unlike you and the troll army.

Except that you do not 'debate', and neither does Westwall, of course.

For the umpeenth time, if you have reason to believe that any poster here is using socks, report it to the Mods and have them banned. I'll absolutely support you in that.

If not, stop making baseless attacks simply because you are losing the argument.

 

[westwall]

Stardate ... Armageddon. We must find a way to defeat the alien force of hate that has taken over the board. Stop the war now or spend eternity in futile, bloody violence.

I agree with that. It would be nice if the revisionists would simply state their case and eschew the vitriol that rolling thunder and the passive aggressive nonsensical lies that Saigon spouts out etc.

So how many screen names are you using, gslack?

I am just me. I have no socks, nor do I need a sock. That is the purview of you and your ilk.

 

[westwall]

LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.

I only have one screen name socko,and the fact is nobody here posts like me, acts like me,or debates anything like me. I am unique unlike you and the troll army.

Except that you do not 'debate', and neither does Westwall, of course.

For the umpeenth time, if you have reason to believe that any poster here is using socks, report it to the Mods and have them banned. I'll absolutely support you in that.

If not, stop making baseless attacks simply because you are losing the argument.

We've WON the argument saggy. You have no meaningful legislation going to be passed this year or the next. Further, as the warmists themselves finally lose control over the various journals the real data will get out to the real world and you will find your religion in full retreat.

And yes sweety, I DO debate.....but there must be two to tango and all you do is spew nonsense and silliness. If you ever care to REALLY debate something other than posting something up and screaming "see I won", feel free to. But your methods of "debate" bear no semblance to reality....

 

[Foxfyre]

LOL you think westwall and I are the same person? ROFL, west is far more tolerant of you ignorant trolls than I am that's obvious.

I only have one screen name socko,and the fact is nobody here posts like me, acts like me,or debates anything like me. I am unique unlike you and the troll army.

Except that you do not 'debate', and neither does Westwall, of course.

For the umpeenth time, if you have reason to believe that any poster here is using socks, report it to the Mods and have them banned. I'll absolutely support you in that.

If not, stop making baseless attacks simply because you are losing the argument.

We've WON the argument saggy. You have no meaningful legislation going to be passed this year or the next. Further, as the warmists themselves finally lose control over the various journals the real data will get out to the real world and you will find your religion in full retreat.

And yes sweety, I DO debate.....but there must be two to tango and all you do is spew nonsense and silliness. If you ever care to REALLY debate something other than posting something up and screaming "see I won", feel free to. But your methods of "debate" bear no semblance to reality....

Speaking of the warmers religion soon to be in full retreat, remember how much the world resisted revised scientific theories put forth by such great pioneers as Copernicus and Galileo? Both were proclaimed heretics by the Church and most other scientists of their day rejected or ignored them. But truth has a nasty habit of winning out over time.

Now I'm still reading new studies of primitive fossilized tree rings that so far are receiving little press and attention because they so challenge the current AGW religion. So far only those media outlets that report ALL the news rather than only the politically correct news seem to be dealing with it:

. . . An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. . . .

. . . . The international research team used these density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia to create a sequence reaching back to 138 BC. The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga. The researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.

In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun. . . .

. . . ."This figure we calculated may not seem particularly significant," says Esper. "However, it is also not negligible when compared to global warming, which up to now has been less than 1°C. Our results suggest that the large-scale climate reconstruction shown by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) likely underestimate this long-term cooling trend over the past few millennia."
Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time

Copernicus's theory was not fully accepted by the scientific community for most of 150+ years but the rejection of competent science then had no significant affect on the people. Given the political and socioeconomic damage currently in progress implementing the warmers' religion now, however, I hope it doesn't take that long to get the science right this time.

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

What "socioeconomic (sic) damage" is being caused by climate change science?

Have you considered what the economic consequences of NOT adapting to a warmer and more extreme climate might be?

 

[Foxfyre]

Already asked and answered Saigon. I am not buying into your deflection and derailing techniques further.

What did you think of the article re global cooling that I excerpted and linked?

 

[IanC]

Foxfyre -

What "socioeconomic (sic) damage" is being caused by climate change science?

Have you considered what the economic consequences of NOT adapting to a warmer and more extreme climate might be?

It is hard to believe you can say that with a straight face

 

[Saigon]

Already asked and answered Saigon. I am not buying into your deflection and derailing techniques further.

Then please give me the post #, and I will read and respond to that post.

I really do not understand why questioning your posts is "deflection"?! YOU raised the issue of socio-economic damage - so why not discuss it?


Ian -

There is enough spamming and abuse on this thread without you adding to it. Stick to the topic.

 

[Saigon]

Fox -

What did you think of the article re global cooling that I excerpted and linked?

Interesting stuff, and possibly deserving of further study.

Even so - it's a bit of a voice in the wilderness right now. I don't see that anyone seriously interested in the topic is going to cling to a paper that even the authors say might not be significant.

 

[Foxfyre]

Fox -

What did you think of the article re global cooling that I excerpted and linked?

Interesting stuff, and possibly deserving of further study.

Even so - it's a bit of a voice in the wilderness right now. I don't see that anyone seriously interested in the topic is going to cling to a paper that even the authors say might not be significant.

Where did you read that the authors thought the paper 'might not be significant?'