Driver to drive?

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 02:35, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:26:01 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

<snip>

   Sloman is a chemist.  Nothing more.

I'm good with chemistry. It isn't "nothing more". Perhaps he can explain
what happens when the oceans get warmer wrt CO2.

In principle, it comes out of solution. In practice, we are increasing
the CO2 levels in the atmosphere a lot faster than we are decreasing
the solubility of CO2 in sea-water (which is - in fact - a rather
complicated chemical equilibrium).

And what happens to the
ocean water that was in contact with the surface 800 years ago that
submerged into a deep ocean current  when it resurfaces now.

It picks up more CO2. About half the CO2 we are currently injecting
into the atmosphere ends up in the oceans,

His problem was making the argument "I have a Ph.D., ergo..." I'm sure
glad he told us that, because his argument was so damned weak, I'd never
have guessed it. Those who EARN their Ph.D.s don't have to make it.

I made the point because I know more about the vibrational and
rotational modes of CO2 than most practicing electronic engineers.
It's not something you get taught in the average undergraduate
electronics course.

central to their argument, they just state the science.

As I did. You don't seem to be able to follow it.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/23/12 8:19 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

Fact is, every single computer model ever made FAILED to predict the
recent non-warming trend of the last 16 years.

What the Climate Science says...

Empirical measurements of the Earth's heat content show the planet is
still accumulating heat and global warming is still happening. Surface
temperatures can show short-term cooling when heat is exchanged between
the atmosphere and the ocean, which has a much greater heat capacity
than the air.

To say we're currently experiencing global cooling overlooks one simple
physical reality - the land and atmosphere are only one small fraction
of the Earth's climate (albeit the part we inhabit). Global warming is
by definition global. The entire planet is accumulating heat due to an
energy imbalance. The atmosphere is warming. Oceans are accumulating
energy. Land absorbs energy and ice absorbs heat to melt. To get the
full picture on global warming, you need to view the Earth's entire heat
content.

Church et al 2011 extends the analysis of Murphy 2009 which calculated
the Earth's total heat content through to 2003. This new research
combines measurements of ocean heat, land and atmosphere warming and ice
melting to find that our climate system continued to accumulate heat
through to 2008.


Figure 1: Total Earth Heat Content from 1962 to 2008 (Church et al 2011).

A look at the Earth's total heat content clearly shows global warming
has continued past 1998. So why do surface temperature records show 1998
as the hottest year on record? Figure 1 shows the heat capacity of the
land and atmosphere are small compared to the ocean (the tiny brown
sliver of "land + atmosphere" also includes the heat absorbed to melt
ice). Hence, relatively small exchanges of heat between the atmosphere
and ocean can cause significant changes in surface temperature.

In 1998, an abnormally strong El Nino caused heat transfer from the
Pacific Ocean to the atmosphere. Consequently, we experienced
above-average surface temperatures. Conversely, the last few years have
seen moderate La Nina conditions which had a cooling effect on global
temperatures. And the last few months have swung back to warmer El Nino
conditions. This has coincided with the warmest June-August sea surface
temperatures on record. This internal variation where heat is shuffled
around our climate is the reason why surface temperature is such a noisy
signal.

Figure 1 also underscores just how much global warming the planet is
experiencing. Since 1970, the Earth's heat content has been rising at a
rate of 6 x 1021 Joules per year. In more meaningful terms, the planet
has been accumulating energy at a rate of 190,260 gigawatts. Considering
a typical nuclear power plant has an output of 1 gigawatt, imagine
190,000 nuclear power plants pouring their energy output directly into
our oceans. Our climate is still accumulating heat. Global warming is
still happening.

Moreover, even if we focus exclusively on surface and lower atmosphere
temperatures, the warming continues. Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) used
multiple linear regression to filter out the effects of the El Nińo
Southern Oscillation (ENSO), and solar and volcanic activity (Figure 2),
and found that the undelying global surface and lower atmosphere warming
trends have remained very steady in recent years (Figure 3).



Figure 2: Temperature data (with a 12-month running average) before and
after the exogeneous factor removal



Figure 3: Average of all five data sets (GISS, NCDC, HadCRU, UAH, and
RSS) with the effects of ENSO, solar irradiance, and volcanic emissions
removed (Foster and Rahmstorf 2011)

See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-intermediate.htm

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 12:13:32 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:26:01 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Sloman is a chemist. Nothing more.

I'm good with chemistry. It isn't "nothing more". Perhaps he can
explain what happens when the oceans get warmer wrt CO2. And what
happens to the ocean water that was in contact with the surface 800
years ago that submerged into a deep ocean current when it resurfaces
now.


He can only cut & aste the same drivel over & over. He's been doing
it for over a decade. He has no training in the field under discussion,
hence the "Nothing more" comment. He claims to be an engineer, but
never presents himself as one by using real data or any math.


His problem was making the argument "I have a Ph.D., ergo..." I'm sure
glad he told us that, because his argument was so damned weak, I'd
never have guessed it. Those who EARN their Ph.D.s don't have to make
it central to their argument, they just state the science.


He also belongs to the IEEE. Who cares? I knew U.S. Army grunts
that did, too because they ran diesel power plants for remote bases. One
took great joy in ripping up the month's IEEE mailing and tossing it
into the trash when it hit the post office.

His PHD is Chemistry, but he's a self proclaimed expert in every
field. He even reads minds and tells you that you aren't thinking what
you are. He's been desiging an oscillator for over a year, with no
results.

Belonging to the IEEE is easy. All you have to do is pay the money. It
once was you had to have two member sponsors, and have either a BSEE for
a regular member or at least be in the major for a student member. But
not any longer; your credit card is all the credential you need to join.

As for training, the whole point of the Ph.D. is that you train yourself.
Sadly, the American system, and every other system except the German
system, the Ph.D. is earned under the guidance of an advisor, so it is
"training" and some folks go through without having learned how to learn
on their own. The German's have a system that goes beyond the Ph.D. and
the degree requires that the applicant do the work on his own.

As for cutting and pasting - that's the hallmark of Sam Wormley. Just
about everything he posts is a cut and paste and copyright violation.
Wormley adds very little comment so it's certainly not protected under
fair use.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 09:06:23 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 02:47, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:40:39 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 10:20, eRepair <nob...@google.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 07:25, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com
wrote:
.
snip

How's Greenland doing? Is all that ice turning into a gigantic
bucket of fresh water that will suddenly break lose and pour into
the Atlantic swamping the thermo-haline flow?

Here's the most recent report that I know about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/26/greenland-ice-
sheet-
borrowed-time

250 billion tons of ice per year is a tolerably gigantic bucket of
fresh water, but if the Greenland ice sheet is kind enough to melt in
place, rather than sliding off into the ocean as large chunks, as the
Laurentian ice sheet did at the end of the most recent ice age, the
Gulf Stream is unlikely to be much affected. The Gulf Stream has
slowed down a bit in recent decades, but nothing to get excited
about.

Gee, so at least you admit that it has melted before.

What has melted before? The Laurentian ice sheet melts at the start of
every interglacial.

You do agree that it wasn't CO2 based AGW that caused it to melt
before, right?

The ice ages have only been going on for a few million years, but modern
humans haven't been around for more than about 200,000 year,which puts
paid to the anthropogenic component.

Can you show us the model that explains why it melted before?

No. It's tolerably complicated. Models do exist, and are described an
discussed in the literature. You find clicking on URL's to be beyond
you, so I won't bother trying to find one to point you at.

If you can't, then how do you know it isn't a natural melt now?

It's happening rather faster than it did before, and CO2 levels are
going up a lot faster than they ever have before.

Now, OTOH, Svensmark explains his theory here:

snip

It's a pity it's rubbish.

 --
Bill Sloman, Sydney

Your answers are vapid. Your dismissal of Svensmark totally childish.

I spit on YOUR Ph.D. for this mindless post of yours.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:54:30 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 02:03, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:13:24 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 13:17, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:34:42 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22 Dec, 10:22, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know
enough about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the
greenhouse effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I
believe you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like
"denialist"?

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists
showing a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And
you are going to resort the the cheap trick of the semantic
tarbrush trying to equate holocaust denial for denying *that*?

Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is
indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for
some of the warmth of the earth, doubling it won't have much
effect,
due to the fact that the CO2 IR window is totally blocked.

The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't
- doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your
head around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is
wavelength dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the
radiation emitted at the wavelength is re-absorbed within the
atmosphere. At that altitude, half of it makes it out into outer
space.

It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the
amount of IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2
pushes it higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR
emitted has to balance the essentially constant IR flux from the
Sun, the temperatures all the way down to the surface have to warm
up to keep the temperature at the emitting altitude a bit warmer
than it used to be.

Then state the hypothesis in equation form with all the relevant
variables of your choice and show how it predicts and accurately
describes the current state.

It's been done. IIRR you can download the suite of software that lets
you run it on your computer. You've got to register, and it takes
about ten days before they'll get around to recognising your
registration and letting you download the software (which is why I
never bothered).

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

From the website;
"HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular
absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic
parameters that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate
the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."

Do you even read what you post? This isn't a climate model. What it
does is predicts "the transmission and emission of light in the
atmosphere".

Never the less, it's what you need to know if you want to understand the
greenhouse effect.

Do you understand why that isn't producing a temperature and a climate
model?

It's the tool you use to model the radiative transfers up and down
through the atmosphere. Adding in convection makes life more
complicated, and you've got to figure in the Joule-Thompson cooling you
get as you more up through the progressively less dense layers of the
atmosphere, to explain the "lapse rate" - why atmosphere is cooler at
higher altitudes, up to the tropopause.

Since modelling always involves simplification, HITRAN is where you need
to start.

I'm asking because posting this indicates you don't know what you're
talking about.

Your reaction indicates that you don't know what you are talking about.

People have been doing it for a while now.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/

casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650017692_1965017692.pdf

Same problem as before, that's not a climate model that predicts AGW.
It's about atmospheric transmission of electromagnetic radiation. IT
doesn't say "Set the variable of d[CO2]/dt = 5 gigatons of carbon and
the equation says that the dT = +1 Kelvin of mean earth temperature".

You've got walk before you can run.

It is pretty clear you don't understand what a climate model is. You
need to state something of the form:

f([CO2_g],x1,x2,...,xN)= T_global

That's where the process ends up. It takes a few years in graduate
school to get there.

snip

You may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming due to a raise in the
sidebars,
but you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the
sun's spectral output to the earth.

The sun is lot hotter than the earth, and most of it's energy
comes in above the CO2 absorbtion bands. Look up Plancks Law.

WTF?! Dude, the greenhouse effect is about blocking the IR bands in
the EARTH's black body curve, not the suns! Blocking incoming
radiation in the SUN's black body curve causes COOLING.

Right. But since most of the energy input from the sun comes in at
shorter wavelengths than CO2 absorbs, changes in CO2 level in the
atmosphere don't have much - if any effect - on the energy absorbed,
while the CO2 spectrum sits rather more centrally in the range of
wavelengths emitted.

CO2 absorbs at (aprox) 14-20, 3.2, 1.7, 2.8 and 1.2 micrometers.

Except that the symmetric stretch is symmetrical and thus inactive in
absorbtion and emission, though you can see it in the Raman

the 3.2 and 1.7 micrometer bands don't have any energy to block,
they're longer than the Sun's IR curve and higher than the earth's
black body curve.

"Longer than the Sun's IR curve"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_body.svg

The Sun is actually a 6000K radiator, and it's still pushing out plenty
of energy at 1.7 and 3.4 micron, though the peak is in the visible

snipped the rest of the pathetic ignorance

Now that you understand that HITRAN is not a climate model, but you still
have not stated a climate model that predicts. Like I said, that's all
you need to do, but you've not done it because there isn't one.

The rest of your post is childish hubris, except for the part where
you're pretending that there is a lot of energy out at the far end of the
sun's black body curve.

Do you understand that most of the energy is in the bulge? That is what
is responsible for the earth's temperature, not the far out tail.

Maybe if you called more names your vapid post would be more credible?
Nah.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:16:46 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/23/12 9:55 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
In the case of AGW, half of the argument is that CO2 causes warming.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

Evaluating and Explaining Climate Science
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/

CO2 and its effect on climate
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

Confusion over the Basics
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/

Heat Transfer Basics
http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/09/12/heat-transfer-basics-part-zero/

Anthropogenic and natural warming inferred from changes in Earth's
energy balance
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1327.html

The Scientific Case for Modern Anthropogenic Global Warming

http://monthlyreview.org/2008/07/01/the-scientific-case-for-modern-
anthropogenic-global-warming

Empirical evidence that humans are causing global warming

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-
warming.htm

Good grief. This moron really does keep a cut and past list and just
mindlessly copies part of it to the Usenet.

I've rebutted these before, your stupidly programmed bot couldn't address
my objections, and you're clearly just a fucking political spammer and
not here to discuss anything, so get old and drop dead, okay?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 02:03, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 20:13:24 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 13:17, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 23:34:42 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 22 Dec, 10:22, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Fri, 21 Dec 2012 10:24:14 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-21, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
I did a Ph.D. in Physical Chemistry which means I got to know
enough about infra-red absorbtion and emission to follow the
greenhouse effect argument, so you'd probably lose your bet.

If that is the case -- and I am far from telling you that I
believe you -- why do you resort to using cheap non-words like
"denialist"?

Denying what? Denying that the models of certain theorists showing
a climate sensitivity of 3+ degrees C are gospel? And you are
going to resort the the cheap trick of the semantic tarbrush
trying to equate holocaust denial for denying *that*?

Actually, Dr. Sloman seems to be unaware that while it is
indisputable that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is responsible for
some of the warmth of the earth, doubling it won't have much effect,
due to the fact that the CO2 IR window is totally blocked.

The "fact" that the CO2 IR window is "totally blocked" - it isn't -
doesn't have the significance you imagine. You need to get your head
around the concept of "effective emitting altitude" which is
wavelength dependent number. Below that altitude, most of the
radiation emitted at the wavelength is re-absorbed within the
atmosphere. At that altitude, half of it makes it out into outer
space.

It's the temperature at that altitude that thus determines the amount
of IR radiated to outer space at that wavelength. More CO2 pushes it
higher, where the atmosphere is colder. Since the IR emitted has to
balance the essentially constant IR flux from the Sun, the
temperatures all the way down to the surface have to warm up to keep
the temperature at the emitting altitude a bit warmer than it used to
be.

Then state the hypothesis in equation form with all the relevant
variables of your choice and show how it predicts and accurately
describes the current state.

It's been done. IIRR you can download the suite of software that lets
you run it on your computer. You've got to register, and it takes about
ten days before they'll get around to recognising your registration and
letting you download the software (which is why I never bothered).

http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/hitran/

From the website;
"HITRAN is an acronym for high-resolution transmission molecular
absorption database. HITRAN is a compilation of spectroscopic parameters
that a variety of computer codes use to predict and simulate the
transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere."

Do you even read what you post? This isn't a climate model. What it does
is predicts "the transmission and emission of light in the atmosphere".

Never the less, it's what you need to know if you want to understand
the greenhouse effect.

Do you understand why that isn't producing a temperature and a climate
model?

It's the tool you use to model the radiative transfers up and down
through the atmosphere. Adding in convection makes life more
complicated, and you've got to figure in the Joule-Thompson cooling
you get as you more up through the progressively less dense layers of
the atmosphere, to explain the "lapse rate" - why atmosphere is cooler
at higher altitudes, up to the tropopause.

Since modelling always involves simplification, HITRAN is where you
need to start.

I'm asking because posting this indicates you don't know what you're talking about.

Your reaction indicates that you don't know what you are talking
about.

People have been doing it for a while now.

http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/

casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/19650017692_1965017692.pdf

Same problem as before, that's not a climate model that predicts AGW.
It's about atmospheric transmission of electromagnetic radiation. IT
doesn't say "Set the variable of d[CO2]/dt = 5 gigatons of carbon and the
equation says that the dT = +1 Kelvin of mean earth temperature".

You've got walk before you can run.

It is pretty clear you don't understand what a climate model is. You need
to state something of the form:

f([CO2_g],x1,x2,...,xN)= T_global

That's where the process ends up. It takes a few years in graduate
school to get there.

<snip>

You may see a TRIVIAL amount of warming due to a raise in the
sidebars,
but you'd also see a decrease due to CO2's absorption band in the
sun's spectral output to the earth.

The sun is lot hotter than the earth, and most of it's energy comes
in above the CO2 absorbtion bands. Look up Plancks Law.

WTF?! Dude, the greenhouse effect is about blocking the IR bands in the
EARTH's black body curve, not the suns! Blocking incoming radiation in
the SUN's black body curve causes COOLING.

Right. But since most of the energy input from the sun comes in at
shorter wavelengths than CO2 absorbs, changes in CO2 level in the
atmosphere don't have much - if any effect - on the energy absorbed,
while the CO2 spectrum sits rather more centrally in the range of
wavelengths emitted.

CO2 absorbs at (aprox) 14-20, 3.2, 1.7, 2.8 and 1.2 micrometers.

Except that the symmetric stretch is symmetrical and thus inactive in
absorbtion and emission, though you can see it in the Raman

the 3.2 and 1.7 micrometer bands don't have any energy to block, they're
longer than the Sun's IR curve and higher than the earth's black body
curve.

"Longer than the Sun's IR curve"?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Black_body.svg

The Sun is actually a 6000K radiator, and it's still pushing out
plenty of energy at 1.7 and 3.4 micron, though the peak is in the
visible

<snipped the rest of the pathetic ignorance>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 02:47, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 06:40:39 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 10:20, eRepair <nob...@google.com> wrote:
Bill Sloman wrote:
On 23 Dec, 07:25, 1treePetrifiedForestLane <Space...@hotmail.com
wrote:
..

<snip>

How's Greenland doing? Is all that ice turning into a gigantic bucket
of fresh water that will suddenly break lose and pour into the Atlantic
swamping the thermo-haline flow?

Here's the most recent report that I know about.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/26/greenland-ice-sheet-
borrowed-time

250 billion tons of ice per year is a tolerably gigantic bucket of fresh
water, but if the Greenland ice sheet is kind enough to melt in place,
rather than sliding off into the ocean as large chunks, as the
Laurentian ice sheet did at the end of the most recent ice age, the Gulf
Stream is unlikely to be much affected. The Gulf Stream has slowed down
a bit in recent decades, but nothing to get excited about.

Gee, so at least you admit that it has melted before.

What has melted before? The Laurentian ice sheet melts at the start of
every interglacial.

You do agree that
it wasn't CO2 based AGW that caused it to melt before, right?

The ice ages have only been going on for a few million years, but
modern humans haven't been around for more than about 200,000
year,which puts paid to the anthropogenic component.

Can you show us the model that explains why it melted before?

No. It's tolerably complicated. Models do exist, and are described an
discussed in the literature. You find clicking on URL's to be beyond
you, so I won't bother trying to find one to point you at.

If you can't, then how do you know it isn't a natural melt now?

It's happening rather faster than it did before, and CO2 levels are
going up a lot faster than they ever have before.

Now, OTOH, Svensmark explains his theory here:

<snip>

It's a pity it's rubbish.

 --
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

On Dec 22, 3:15 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?

   Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?

www.denier.com

(the conspiracy spreads)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 11:03:33 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

On 12/23/12 8:25 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
CO2 is like alchemy, where the alchemist is paid to turn lead into gold.

This is much better...

CO2 and its effect on climate
http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/co2/

This is better yet:

http://principia-scientific.org/publications/PSI_Miatello_Refutation_GHE.pdf
The object of this study is to demonstrate the nonexistence of the
so-called "greenhouse effect" (GHE) based on established physical laws
of thermodynamics and material hydrostatics as well as relevant
experimental data.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Belonging to the IEEE is easy. All you have to do is pay the money. It
once was you had to have two member sponsors, and have either a BSEE for
a regular member or at least be in the major for a student member. But
not any longer; your credit card is all the credential you need to join.

Like the AARP. They'll take any old fool, with good credit.

As for training, the whole point of the Ph.D. is that you train yourself.
Sadly, the American system, and every other system except the German
system, the Ph.D. is earned under the guidance of an advisor, so it is
"training" and some folks go through without having learned how to learn
on their own. The German's have a system that goes beyond the Ph.D. and
the degree requires that the applicant do the work on his own.

Sloman is an Aussie.

As for cutting and pasting - that's the hallmark of Sam Wormley. Just
about everything he posts is a cut and paste and copyright violation.
Wormley adds very little comment so it's certainly not protected under
fair use.

 

[Michael A. Terrell]

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 3:15 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?

Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?

www.denier.com

Damn! I used to work less than 10 miles from there.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:53:26 -0500, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Marvin the Martian wrote:

Belonging to the IEEE is easy. All you have to do is pay the money. It
once was you had to have two member sponsors, and have either a BSEE
for a regular member or at least be in the major for a student member.
But not any longer; your credit card is all the credential you need to
join.


Like the AARP. They'll take any old fool, with good credit.


As for training, the whole point of the Ph.D. is that you train
yourself.
Sadly, the American system, and every other system except the German
system, the Ph.D. is earned under the guidance of an advisor, so it is
"training" and some folks go through without having learned how to
learn on their own. The German's have a system that goes beyond the
Ph.D. and the degree requires that the applicant do the work on his
own.


Sloman is an Aussie.

AFAIK, The German system is the only system that grants a degree based on
the students own work. All the other systems, including the Australian
system, don't require self learning. That was my point.

As for cutting and pasting - that's the hallmark of Sam Wormley. Just
about everything he posts is a cut and paste and copyright violation.
Wormley adds very little comment so it's certainly not protected under
fair use.

 

[DraconisExtinctor]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 15:59:45 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
<mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:

dagmargoodboat@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 3:15 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?

Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?

www.denier.com


Damn! I used to work less than 10 miles from there.

I grew up less than 20 miles from there 1960 thru 1980

 

[P E Schoen]

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:OrqdncDcOKNQ30rNnZ2dnUVZ5uydnZ2d@giganews.com...

[snip]

Maybe if you called more names your vapid post would be more credible?
Nah.

You are the one using profanity and vulgarity and waving your arms trying to
baffle with BS. The last frantic and desperate efforts of a loser who is out
of ammo.

Paul

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 16:33:36 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:OrqdncDcOKNQ30rNnZ2dnUVZ5uydnZ2d@giganews.com...

[snip]
Maybe if you called more names your vapid post would be more credible?
Nah.

You are the one using profanity and vulgarity and waving your arms
trying to baffle with BS. The last frantic and desperate efforts of a
loser who is out of ammo.

Paul

Then YOU state the Anthropogenic Global warming hypothesis.

Please cite HERE how much CO2 is going up each year do to human
activities:

= Insert mathematical hypothesis here =

Please cite HERE how the equation for the warming as a function of CO2
concentration:

= Insert mathematical hypothesis here =

If you haven't got that (and no one does) then you don't have science,
you have SHIT.

And all wormley does is selects from a list of cut and pastes and posts
them to the usenet. He doesn't even read the replies. He's here to SPAM,
not discuss, and that means he deserves to be even that he's EARNED to be
cursed.

 

[P E Schoen]

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:GoCdnRzb2ZDE4krNnZ2dnUVZ5hqdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Then YOU state the Anthropogenic Global warming hypothesis.

Please cite HERE how much CO2 is going up each year do to human
activities:

= Insert mathematical hypothesis here
Please cite HERE how the equation for the warming as a function of CO2
concentration:

= Insert mathematical hypothesis here
If you haven't got that (and no one does) then you don't have science,
you have SHIT.

And all wormley does is selects from a list of cut and pastes and posts
them to the usenet. He doesn't even read the replies. He's here to SPAM,
not discuss, and that means he deserves to be even that he's EARNED to
be cursed.

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity. Your obvious anger
seems to have displaced any civility and ability to accept and analyze
evidence and opinions differing from yours, and unless you have done
extensive original research on the subject, you are relying on what is
presented by others. You seem to be getting all of your information from
sources that are tainted by corporate sponsorship designed to allow Big
Energy to continue business as usual to maximize their profits, at the
expense of clean air and water, and destructive effects of global warming
PERHAPS caused by extensive burning of fossil fuels. I admit that I lack the
credentials and knowledge to accept or refute the arguments being made, so I
must trust those who do, AND who have the support of the majority of the
scientific community as evidenced in peer-reviewed articles.

It is really quite academic to debate the extent to which our human
activities have affected and will continue to affect the global climate, but
the fact of global warming is quite apparent, as are some of the
consequences. Dr. Will Candler has stated that, even if we stop burning all
fossil fuels today, the deleterious effects will continue for decades or
centuries into the future. So we really can't avoid the problems we MAY have
caused, and the diminishing supply of fossil fuels will have a self-limiting
effect over the next 20-50 years. So what we absolutely need to do is reduce
and eventually eliminate all environmentally destructive methods of
extraction such as fracking and mountaintop removal, and invest seriously in
renewable energy sources AND greatly reduce our demand. At the same time, we
need to invest in our infrastructure and protective measures to reduce the
severity of the effects of increasingly violent weather and other
catastrophes such as earthquakes and volcanic eruptions.

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Answer-Energy-Dividend/dp/1434345084
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/081013.theCompleteAnswer.pdf
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/BGF.121201.ppt
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/Global_Warming_The_Answer_071031.pdf (8
MB)

Paul

 

On Dec 23, 3:59 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net>
wrote:

dagmargoodb...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Dec 22, 3:15 pm, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
k...@att.bizzz wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 12:27:36 +0000 (UTC), RipeCrisbies
GnomeL...@lympledger.co.uk> wrote:

On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:08:03 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:

It has the advantage of being benign. It is not a semantic tarbrush like
"denier", intended to evoke images of holocaust denial.

I think that is something going on in your mind, most people know that
the word denier refers to nylons.

Are your really asserting that a homograph has any meaning in this
discussion?

   Or that he has a fetish for wearing nylons?

www.denier.com

   Damn!  I used to work less than 10 miles from there.

Uuh huh--hence, a denier!!!!! But what sort? Are you an electrical
contractor, or do you wear ladies' stockings?

(P.S. You're better off today. I was there in October--it was mighty
cold even then.)

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

 

[Unum]

On 12/23/2012 5:04 PM, P E Schoen wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:GoCdnRzb2ZDE4krNnZ2dnUVZ5hqdnZ2d@giganews.com...

Then YOU state the Anthropogenic Global warming hypothesis.

Please cite HERE how much CO2 is going up each year do to human
activities:

= Insert mathematical hypothesis here =

Please cite HERE how the equation for the warming as a function of CO2
concentration:

= Insert mathematical hypothesis here =

If you haven't got that (and no one does) then you don't have science,
you have SHIT.

And all wormley does is selects from a list of cut and pastes and posts
them to the usenet. He doesn't even read the replies. He's here to SPAM,
not discuss, and that means he deserves to be even that he's EARNED to
be cursed.

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity. Your obvious anger
seems to have displaced any civility and ability to accept and analyze
evidence and opinions differing from yours, and unless you have done extensive
original research on the subject, you are relying on what is presented by
others. You seem to be getting all of your information from sources that are
tainted by corporate sponsorship designed to allow Big Energy to continue
business as usual to maximize their profits, at the expense of clean air and
water, and destructive effects of global warming PERHAPS caused by extensive
burning of fossil fuels. I admit that I lack the credentials and knowledge to
accept or refute the arguments being made, so I must trust those who do, AND
who have the support of the majority of the scientific community as evidenced
in peer-reviewed articles.

It is really quite academic to debate the extent to which our human activities
have affected and will continue to affect the global climate, but the fact of
global warming is quite apparent, as are some of the consequences. Dr. Will
Candler has stated that, even if we stop burning all fossil fuels today, the
deleterious effects will continue for decades or centuries into the future. So
we really can't avoid the problems we MAY have caused, and the diminishing
supply of fossil fuels will have a self-limiting effect over the next 20-50
years. So what we absolutely need to do is reduce and eventually eliminate all
environmentally destructive methods of extraction such as fracking and
mountaintop removal, and invest seriously in renewable energy sources AND
greatly reduce our demand. At the same time, we need to invest in our
infrastructure and protective measures to reduce the severity of the effects
of increasingly violent weather and other catastrophes such as earthquakes and
volcanic eruptions.

http://www.amazon.com/Global-Warming-Answer-Energy-Dividend/dp/1434345084
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/081013.theCompleteAnswer.pdf
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/BGF.121201.ppt
http://newkoinonia.com/environment/Global_Warming_The_Answer_071031.pdf (8 MB)

Paul

Hey its marvin the troll, what can you expect. He spams the newsgroups
with this garbage on a regular basis. Reply to his crap and you will
merely be feeding the nonsense.

 

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:45:29 -0600, Unum <noneof@yourbusiness.com>
wrote:

Hey its marvin the troll, what can you expect. He spams the newsgroups
with this garbage on a regular basis. Reply to his crap and you will
merely be feeding the nonsense.

That's *exactly* your reason for being here, obviously.