Official Thread for Denial of GreenHouse Effect and Radiative Physics.

[ReinyDays]

Post 2354 says I'm spot on.

Post 2346 says you can't read thread titles ... stupid bitch ...

Look ... no scientific organization wanted their names associated with your post, so the authors gave their country-of-origin ... pure politics ...

 

[Crick]

Post 2346 says you can't read thread titles ... stupid bitch ...

Look ... no scientific organization wanted their names associated with your post, so the authors gave their country-of-origin ... pure politics ...

If you don't think "The Physical Science Basis" deals with the greenhouse effect and radiative physics, I would HAVE to conclude that you've never opened it. That doesn't surprise me, but I imagine it disappoints the deniers here who counted on your for some actual science chops.

 

[jc456]

If you don't think "The Physical Science Basis" deals with the greenhouse effect and radiative physics, I would HAVE to conclude that you've never opened it. That doesn't surprise me, but I imagine it disappoints the deniers here who counted on your for some actual science chops.

you've never stated what is in it that proves your position. Just saying.

 

[Crick]

you've never stated what is in it that proves your position. Just saying.

How many times have I told you that there are no proofs in the natural sciences? Twenty times? Fifty times? Why do you still fail to get it? Are you actually that stupid?

The EVIDENCE that has convinced the world's scientists fills the work titled "The Physical Science Basis". And I HAVE told you where to find that, asshole.

 

[jc456]

The EVIDENCE that has convinced the world's scientists fills the work titled "The Physical Science Basis"

no, there are as many world scientists that say your supposed group nope! And I've told you that asshole.

Friends of Science. Go there, listen to other scientists. Idiot.

 

[Crick]

no, there are as many world scientists that say your supposed group nope! And I've told you that asshole.

Friends of Science. Go there, listen to other scientists. Idiot.

You are an ignorant, lying sack of shit and I'm tired of wasting my time with you.

 

[jc456]

You are an ignorant, lying sack of shit and I'm tired of wasting my time with you.

Defeating you was my honor you fake! Friends of science and Tom Johnson thanks me

 

[Crick]

The Earth has been warming since the Industrial Revolution due to the greenhouse effect acting on human CO2 emissions and methane release. The greenhouse effect involves gases in the Earth's atmosphere that absorb infrared light emitted by the land and sea warmed by the visible light of the sun. That absorption and reemission slows the escape of that energy to space and thus warms the planet. If not for the greenhouse effect, this planet would be a ball of ice. The hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere has caused a 1.1C increase in the Earth's temperature. Global warming is causing the oceans to rise from thermal expansion and the melting of the world's land-bound ice, from Antarctica and Greenland in particular.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Earth has been warming since the Industrial Revolution due to the greenhouse effect acting on human CO2 emissions and methane release. The greenhouse effect involves gases in the Earth's atmosphere that absorb infrared light emitted by the land and sea warmed by the visible light of the sun. That absorption and reemission slows the escape of that energy to space and thus warms the planet. If not for the greenhouse effect, this planet would be a ball of ice. The hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere has caused a 1.1C increase in the Earth's temperature. Global warming is causing the oceans to rise from thermal expansion and the melting of the world's land-bound ice, from Antarctica and Greenland in particular.

When did the Little Ice Age end? Why did it end?

 

[Crick]

The Earth has been warming since the Industrial Revolution due to the greenhouse effect acting on human CO2 emissions and methane release. The greenhouse effect involves gases in the Earth's atmosphere that absorb infrared light emitted by the land and sea warmed by the visible light of the sun. That absorption and reemission slows the escape of that energy to space and thus warms the planet. If not for the greenhouse effect, this planet would be a ball of ice. The hundreds of billions of tons of CO2 that humans have put into the atmosphere has caused a 1.1C increase in the Earth's temperature. Global warming is causing the oceans to rise from thermal expansion and the melting of the world's land-bound ice, from Antarctica and Greenland in particular.

The sun's radiation is centered around the visible spectrum. That might seem a bit too convenient, but recall that the sun was here before our eyes. Anyway, the Earth's atmosphere is almost completely transparent to the visible spectrum so almost all of it strikes the earth, water or clouds. Eventually, all the incident light is either reflected back to space or absorbed. Upward, of course, is the escape to space. Getting absorbed transfers the light's energy to whatever surface absorbed it. That will increase its temperature.

Now here is where we get to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that Reiny Daze throws around as if he has it tattooed on his forehead. It concerns the thermal radiation that all matter above absolute zero (which is to say, ALL matter). The spectrum of that radiation graphs out like a lopsided lump. It looks something like these:

The SB equation will provide us with the spectrum of an object based on its temperature and an emissivity constant for each sort of material. For a "room temperature" object, as you can see in the diagram above, the bulk of thermal radiation is in the infrared (IR) band.. So the energy that came in from the sun in the visible band, leaves via the infrared band.

Now I would not blame you if this gave you the thought that everything will eventually run out of energy and cool itself down to absolute zero. If you were looking at an object that was surrounded by absolutely nothing or by a shell of material magically at absolute zero, that is precisely what WOULD happen. But, here on the Earth, that's just not the case. Remember that EVERYTHING is radiating thermal energy. So, here on the Earth, we are constantly surrounded by stuff: walls, buildings, people, cars, trees, posters to see Ted Cruz's vacation slides, Ted Cruz's slide projector, that is all much warmer than absolute zero and is therefore radiating away. So the temperature of any object, like that vase your wife put on your PC desk, is determined by the balance - the algebraic sum - of the energy it is receiving and the energy it is sending away. That is why everything doesn't just get colder and colder and colder.

Unlike the incredible transparency that air has to visible light, several components in our air absorb portions of the IR spectrum like a sponge: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. With the exception of water vapor, these are all present only in small quantities but they are very effective. In the preindustrial era, CO2 was present in our air at 280 parts per million (ppm or 0.028%). It is now at 420 ppm, but even at just 300 ppm, it has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments to absorb 100% of IR light in a distance of less than 10 meters.

So, portions of the IR light that are emitted by the ground, the water, the trees and plants, the buildings, the streets or the top of your head gets absorbed by these gases in the atmosphere. Just like the surface, that energy absorption causes those gases to warm up. Now that warmth, that thermal energy, has two places it can go. It can either radiate away as IR once again or it can get transferred through a physical collision with another molecule of gas or liquid or solid (air, ocean, earth). Among all the zillions of molecules in our atmosphere, both take place.

When we step back now and have a look at what's happening we'll see that thermal energy still has only two places to go. It can either stay somewhere on the Earth, in our air, our land or our water, or it can escape to outer space and Cosmic Splitsville. But, you know, that was always the case. The Earth and the solar energy pouring on to it is like a bucket left under a leaky faucet. The bucket will fill till it starts overflowing and then the amount that comes in from the faucet and the amount that spills over the sides will be perfectly equal. The bucket will maintain that level of fullness indefinitely. The same is true of the Earth under equilibrium conditions. The amount of energy coming in from the sun and the amount being radiated away by the warm Earth would be exactly equal and the planet's temperature - AS A WHOLE - would be constant. But what happens when something changes?

 

[jc456]

The sun's radiation is centered around the visible spectrum. That might seem a bit too convenient, but recall that the sun was here before our eyes. Anyway, the Earth's atmosphere is almost completely transparent to the visible spectrum so almost all of it strikes the earth, water or clouds. Eventually, all the incident light is either reflected back to space or absorbed. Upward, of course, is the escape to space. Getting absorbed transfers the light's energy to whatever surface absorbed it. That will increase its temperature.

Now here is where we get to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that Reiny Daze throws around as if he has it tattooed on his forehead. It concerns the thermal radiation that all matter above absolute zero (which is to say, ALL matter). The spectrum of that radiation graphs out like a lopsided lump. It looks something like these:

View attachment 855771

The SB equation will provide us with the spectrum of an object based on its temperature and an emissivity constant for each sort of material. For a "room temperature" object, as you can see in the diagram above, the bulk of thermal radiation is in the infrared (IR) band.. So the energy that came in from the sun in the visible band, leaves via the infrared band.

Now I would not blame you if this gave you the thought that everything will eventually run out of energy and cool itself down to absolute zero. If you were looking at an object that was surrounded by absolutely nothing or by a shell of material magically at absolute zero, that is precisely what WOULD happen. But, here on the Earth, that's just not the case. Remember that EVERYTHING is radiating thermal energy. So, here on the Earth, we are constantly surrounded by stuff: walls, buildings, people, cars, trees, posters to see Ted Cruz's vacation slide, Ted Cruz's slide projector, that is all much warmer than absolute zero and is therefore radiating away. So the temperature of any object, that vase your wife put on your PC desk for instance, is determined by the balance - the algebraic sum - of the energy it is receiving and the energy it is sending away. That is why everything doesn't just get colder and colder and colder.

Unlike the incredible transparency that air has to visible light, several components in our air absorb portions of the IR spectrum like a sponge: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. With the exception of water vapor, these are all present only in small quantities but they are very effective. In the preindustrial era, CO2 was present in our air at 280 parts per million (ppm or 0.028%). It is now at 420 ppm, but even at just 300 ppm, it has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments to absorb 100% of IR light in a distance of less than 10 meters.

So, portions of the IR light that are emitted by the ground, the water, the trees and plants, the buildings, the streets or the top of your head gets absorbed by these gases in the atmosphere. Just like the surface, that energy absorption causes those gases to warm up. Now that warmth, that thermal energy, has two places it can go. It can either radiate away as IR once again or it can get transferred through a physical collision with another molecule of gas or liquid or solid (air, ocean, earth). Among all the zillions of molecules in our atmosphere, both take place.

When we step back now and have a look at what's happening we'll see that thermal energy still has only two places to go. It can either stay somewhere on the Earth, in our air, our land or our water, or it can escape to outer space and Cosmic Splitsville. But, you know, that was always the case. The Earth and the solar energy pouring on to it is like a bucket left under a leaky faucet. The bucket will fill till it starts overflowing and then the amount that come in from the faucet and the amount that spill over the sides will be equal. The bucket will maintain that level of fullness indefinitely. The same is true of the Earth under equilibrium conditions. The amount of energy coming in from the sun and the amount being radiated away by the warm Earth would be exactly equal and the planet's temperature AS A WHOLE would be constant. But what happens when something changes?

why did the sun all of the sudden melt the chicago ice sheet?

 

[Crick]

The sun's radiation is centered around the visible spectrum. That might seem a bit too convenient, but recall that the sun was here before our eyes. Anyway, the Earth's atmosphere is almost completely transparent to the visible spectrum so almost all of it strikes the earth, water or clouds. Eventually, all the incident light is either reflected back to space or absorbed. Upward, of course, is the escape to space. Getting absorbed transfers the light's energy to whatever surface absorbed it. That will increase its temperature.

Now here is where we get to the Stefan-Boltzmann equation that Reiny Daze throws around as if he has it tattooed on his forehead. It concerns the thermal radiation that all matter above absolute zero (which is to say, ALL matter). The spectrum of that radiation graphs out like a lopsided lump. It looks something like these:

View attachment 855771

The SB equation will provide us with the spectrum of an object based on its temperature and an emissivity constant for each sort of material. For a "room temperature" object, as you can see in the diagram above, the bulk of thermal radiation is in the infrared (IR) band.. So the energy that came in from the sun in the visible band, leaves via the infrared band.

Now I would not blame you if this gave you the thought that everything will eventually run out of energy and cool itself down to absolute zero. If you were looking at an object that was surrounded by absolutely nothing or by a shell of material magically at absolute zero, that is precisely what WOULD happen. But, here on the Earth, that's just not the case. Remember that EVERYTHING is radiating thermal energy. So, here on the Earth, we are constantly surrounded by stuff: walls, buildings, people, cars, trees, posters to see Ted Cruz's vacation slides, Ted Cruz's slide projector, that is all much warmer than absolute zero and is therefore radiating away. So the temperature of any object, like that vase your wife put on your PC desk, is determined by the balance - the algebraic sum - of the energy it is receiving and the energy it is sending away. That is why everything doesn't just get colder and colder and colder.

Unlike the incredible transparency that air has to visible light, several components in our air absorb portions of the IR spectrum like a sponge: water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide and ozone. With the exception of water vapor, these are all present only in small quantities but they are very effective. In the preindustrial era, CO2 was present in our air at 280 parts per million (ppm or 0.028%). It is now at 420 ppm, but even at just 300 ppm, it has been demonstrated in laboratory experiments to absorb 100% of IR light in a distance of less than 10 meters.

So, portions of the IR light that are emitted by the ground, the water, the trees and plants, the buildings, the streets or the top of your head gets absorbed by these gases in the atmosphere. Just like the surface, that energy absorption causes those gases to warm up. Now that warmth, that thermal energy, has two places it can go. It can either radiate away as IR once again or it can get transferred through a physical collision with another molecule of gas or liquid or solid (air, ocean, earth). Among all the zillions of molecules in our atmosphere, both take place.

When we step back now and have a look at what's happening we'll see that thermal energy still has only two places to go. It can either stay somewhere on the Earth, in our air, our land or our water, or it can escape to outer space and Cosmic Splitsville. But, you know, that was always the case. The Earth and the solar energy pouring on to it is like a bucket left under a leaky faucet. The bucket will fill till it starts overflowing and then the amount that comes in from the faucet and the amount that spills over the sides will be perfectly equal. The bucket will maintain that level of fullness indefinitely. The same is true of the Earth under equilibrium conditions. The amount of energy coming in from the sun and the amount being radiated away by the warm Earth would be exactly equal and the planet's temperature - AS A WHOLE - would be constant. But what happens when something changes?

I've used this analogy before but it's a good one; a cousin to the bucket and the leaky faucet.

Imagine water flowing into the top of a large tank. The water is solar energy and the tank is the Earth's energy content. Near the bottom of the tank, we have a drain line with an adjustable valve that lets the water back out. In the Beginning (da-da-da-dummmmmm), the tank was empty and the water started pouring in. When the water is shallow, there is very little water pressure down at that drain line and so not much flow. The water keeps rising because its coming in faster than its going out. But as the water gets deeper, the flow out the drain line increases. At a certain depth, that increasing depth will have gotten the flow out of the drain to equal the flow in. The water depth will stop changing and everything is stable. The system is at equilibrium.

Now, we change something. We could increase the rate that water is flowing in. That would cause the water level in the tank to rise till the increasing pressure had pushed the outflow to match. We'd have a new equilibrium at a new water depth. If we decreased the flow in, the reverse would happen and we would establish a new equilibrium at a lower water level. Alternatively, we could adjust that drain valve. If we open it up, the outflow will exceed the inflow and the water level will drop. If we close it down a bit, the opposite will happen and the new equilibrium will be at a higher water level. Or we could do both. Increase the inflow and increase the outflow. If you're careful, you might keep the equilibrium right where it was at. Or you could make the adjustments in opposite directions, making the water level change even faster.

This is why adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere, even in small amounts, has a significant effect over the time scales under consideration here. We could close that valve just a tiny, tiny, tiny bit and it would look as if nothing was happening. But it has and that water level will rise and it will keep rising till it finds that new equilibrium. CO2 resists the escape of thermal energy from the Earth. It closes down that drain valve and raises the level at which the system will reattain equilibrium. And CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere: hundreds of years. Almost every bit of CO2 that humans have added to our air is still there. And keep in mind that when you want to look at a percentage change in temperature with regard to physical and chemical effects that will cause, you have to do that on one of the absolute scales. It is not correct, if yesterday was 70F and today it's 80, to say that it is (10/70)% warmer, because the zero on the Fahrenheit and Centigrade scales are arbitrary. Zero temperature is absolute zero and thus, so far, global warming has only produced a change from 286.9 Kelvin to 288 Kelvin. That's enough to be seen and to have effects and, since we are closing that valve faster and faster, further and further every day, the rate of water level change, the rate of temperature change is still accelerating.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I've used this analogy before but it's a good one; a cousin to the bucket and the leaky faucet.

Imagine water flowing into the top of a large tank. The water is solar energy and the tank is the Earth's energy content. Near the bottom of the tank, we have a drain line with an adjustable valve that lets the water back out. In the Beginning (da-da-da-dummmmmm), the tank was empty and the water started pouring in. When the water is shallow, there is very little water pressure down at that drain line and so not much flow. The water keeps rising because its coming in faster than its going out. But as the water gets deeper, the flow out the drain line increases. At a certain depth, that increasing depth will have gotten the flow out of the drain to equal the flow in. The water depth will stop changing and everything is stable. The system is at equilibrium.

Now, we change something. We could increase the rate that water is flowing in. That would cause the water level in the tank to rise till the increasing pressure had pushed the outflow to match. We'd have a new equilibrium at a new water depth. If we decreased the flow in, the reverse would happen and we would establish a new equilibrium at a lower water level. Alternatively, we could adjust that drain valve. If we open it up, the outflow will exceed the inflow and the water level will drop. If we close it down a bit, the opposite will happen and the new equilibrium will be at a higher water level. Or we could do both. Increase the inflow and increase the outflow. If you're careful, you might keep the equilibrium right where it was at. Or you could make the adjustments in opposite directions, making the water level change even faster.

This is why adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere, even in small amounts, has a significant effect over the time scales under consideration here. We could close that valve just a tiny, tiny, tiny bit and it would look as if nothing was happening. But it has and that water level will rise and it will keep rising till it finds that new equilibrium. CO2 resists the escape of thermal energy from the Earth. It closes down that drain valve and raises the level at which the system will reattain equilibrium. And CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere: hundreds of years. Almost every bit of CO2 that humans have added to our air is still there. And keep in mind that when you want to look at a percentage change in temperature with regard to physical and chemical effects that will cause, you have to do that on one of the absolute scales. It is not correct, if yesterday was 70F and today it's 80, to say that it is (10/70)% warmer, because the zero on the Fahrenheit and Centigrade scales are arbitrary. Zero temperature is absolute zero and thus, so far, global warming has only produced a change from 286.9 Kelvin to 288 Kelvin. That's enough to be seen and to have effects and, since we are closing that valve faster and faster, further and further every day, the rate of water level change, the rate of temperature change is still accelerating.

CO2 resists the escape of thermal energy from the Earth.

US CO2 resists more than Chinese CO2.

so far, global warming has only produced a change from 286.9 Kelvin to 288 Kelvin.

Based on what starting date?

 

[ding]

I've used this analogy before but it's a good one; a cousin to the bucket and the leaky faucet.

Imagine water flowing into the top of a large tank. The water is solar energy and the tank is the Earth's energy content. Near the bottom of the tank, we have a drain line with an adjustable valve that lets the water back out. In the Beginning (da-da-da-dummmmmm), the tank was empty and the water started pouring in. When the water is shallow, there is very little water pressure down at that drain line and so not much flow. The water keeps rising because its coming in faster than its going out. But as the water gets deeper, the flow out the drain line increases. At a certain depth, that increasing depth will have gotten the flow out of the drain to equal the flow in. The water depth will stop changing and everything is stable. The system is at equilibrium.

Now, we change something. We could increase the rate that water is flowing in. That would cause the water level in the tank to rise till the increasing pressure had pushed the outflow to match. We'd have a new equilibrium at a new water depth. If we decreased the flow in, the reverse would happen and we would establish a new equilibrium at a lower water level. Alternatively, we could adjust that drain valve. If we open it up, the outflow will exceed the inflow and the water level will drop. If we close it down a bit, the opposite will happen and the new equilibrium will be at a higher water level. Or we could do both. Increase the inflow and increase the outflow. If you're careful, you might keep the equilibrium right where it was at. Or you could make the adjustments in opposite directions, making the water level change even faster.

This is why adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere, even in small amounts, has a significant effect over the time scales under consideration here. We could close that valve just a tiny, tiny, tiny bit and it would look as if nothing was happening. But it has and that water level will rise and it will keep rising till it finds that new equilibrium. CO2 resists the escape of thermal energy from the Earth. It closes down that drain valve and raises the level at which the system will reattain equilibrium. And CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere: hundreds of years. Almost every bit of CO2 that humans have added to our air is still there. And keep in mind that when you want to look at a percentage change in temperature with regard to physical and chemical effects that will cause, you have to do that on one of the absolute scales. It is not correct, if yesterday was 70F and today it's 80, to say that it is (10/70)% warmer, because the zero on the Fahrenheit and Centigrade scales are arbitrary. Zero temperature is absolute zero and thus, so far, global warming has only produced a change from 286.9 Kelvin to 288 Kelvin. That's enough to be seen and to have effects and, since we are closing that valve faster and faster, further and further every day, the rate of water level change, the rate of temperature change is still accelerating.

Why do you keep replying to your own quotes? Do you have dementia?

 

[ding]

I've used this analogy before but it's a good one; a cousin to the bucket and the leaky faucet.

Imagine water flowing into the top of a large tank. The water is solar energy and the tank is the Earth's energy content. Near the bottom of the tank, we have a drain line with an adjustable valve that lets the water back out. In the Beginning (da-da-da-dummmmmm), the tank was empty and the water started pouring in. When the water is shallow, there is very little water pressure down at that drain line and so not much flow. The water keeps rising because its coming in faster than its going out. But as the water gets deeper, the flow out the drain line increases. At a certain depth, that increasing depth will have gotten the flow out of the drain to equal the flow in. The water depth will stop changing and everything is stable. The system is at equilibrium.

Now, we change something. We could increase the rate that water is flowing in. That would cause the water level in the tank to rise till the increasing pressure had pushed the outflow to match. We'd have a new equilibrium at a new water depth. If we decreased the flow in, the reverse would happen and we would establish a new equilibrium at a lower water level. Alternatively, we could adjust that drain valve. If we open it up, the outflow will exceed the inflow and the water level will drop. If we close it down a bit, the opposite will happen and the new equilibrium will be at a higher water level. Or we could do both. Increase the inflow and increase the outflow. If you're careful, you might keep the equilibrium right where it was at. Or you could make the adjustments in opposite directions, making the water level change even faster.

This is why adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere, even in small amounts, has a significant effect over the time scales under consideration here. We could close that valve just a tiny, tiny, tiny bit and it would look as if nothing was happening. But it has and that water level will rise and it will keep rising till it finds that new equilibrium. CO2 resists the escape of thermal energy from the Earth. It closes down that drain valve and raises the level at which the system will reattain equilibrium. And CO2 has a long lifespan in the atmosphere: hundreds of years. Almost every bit of CO2 that humans have added to our air is still there. And keep in mind that when you want to look at a percentage change in temperature with regard to physical and chemical effects that will cause, you have to do that on one of the absolute scales. It is not correct, if yesterday was 70F and today it's 80, to say that it is (10/70)% warmer, because the zero on the Fahrenheit and Centigrade scales are arbitrary. Zero temperature is absolute zero and thus, so far, global warming has only produced a change from 286.9 Kelvin to 288 Kelvin. That's enough to be seen and to have effects and, since we are closing that valve faster and faster, further and further every day, the rate of water level change, the rate of temperature change is still accelerating.

You do realize that because of convective currents the GHG's in the atmosphere are only 44% efficient in trapping heat, right?

 

[ReinyDays]

Why do you keep replying to your own quotes? Do you have dementia?

She loves reading her own posts ...

 

[jc456]

How many times have I told you that there are no proofs in the natural sciences?

It seems you remain confused, I asked you to prove your post, not make any other proofs. You deflective ass hole.

 

[ReinyDays]

The greenhouse effect involves gases in the Earth's atmosphere that absorb infrared light emitted by the land and sea warmed by the visible light of the sun.

Whoa ... what happens to the all infrared emitted by the Sun? ... do your magical forces cause this energy to simply disappear? ... what effect does the additional carbon dioxide have on this radiation, and atmospheric temperatures? ...

Don't bother answering ... you didn't know the Sun emits IR ... so anything you say will be a lie ...

 

[Crick]

Whoa ... what happens to the all infrared emitted by the Sun? ... do your magical forces cause this energy to simply disappear? ... what effect does the additional carbon dioxide have on this radiation, and atmospheric temperatures? ...

Don't bother answering ... you didn't know the Sun emits IR ... so anything you say will be a lie ...

Don't bother posting. You don't know how to tell the truth. Everything you've ever posted was a lie.

 

[jc456]

Don't bother posting. You don't know how to tell the truth. Everything you've ever posted was a lie.

wow, that's all you got huh? Pee Wee Herman responses? I knew you were a punk, but you constantly display that is who you are. You're a rodent who can't get his own way so you misuse everyone's time to whine.