Driver to drive?

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 19:22:38 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 04:10, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 08:04:43 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 01:26, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terr...@earthlink.net
wrote:
Marvin the Martian wrote:

snip

You'd be better off not using your real name, because 1) it doesn't
matter, and 2) you're making a fool of yourself and someone's going to
google you and find all the dumb-ass flippant remarks you made. And you
ARE making them!

It's a bit late for that. And the dumb-ass flippant remarks are the only
appropriate response to your over-confident ignorance.

If you have a Ph.D., let it show in the quality of the science in your
posts. All you're proving is what I learned in grad school... Ph.D.s
are like sausage - quite tasty until you see how they're made, what
they're made of, and how much shit goes into them.

Perfectly true. Some Ph.D.s are better than others. Mine was at least
original, and still looks more or less competent. The electronics could
have been better, but they weren't too bad, and they worked.

So, where is the mean global temperature as a function of Co2 level?? Are
you still defending a hypothesis you are completely ignorant of?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 04:43, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

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,

I never said it was. It is an essential component of any comprehensive
climate model

but you still have not stated a climate model that predicts.

I'll leave that to the IPCC. Their new report is due out any time now,
and it will list the predicitive models they've reviewed.

Like I said, that's all you need to do, but you've not done it because there isn't one.

There are loads. All of them to complicated to be any use to you. If
you want instant gratification, try the last IPCC report

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.

That's not what I said at all. Your - silly - claim was that there
wasn't any, and all I needed to do to show you up an an ignorant fraud
was to point this out.

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.

That's what I started out pointing out, with the additional
observation that that bulge is at much shorter wavelengths than CO2
absorbs - a point that seemed to have escaped you at the time.

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

Obviously. It's perfectly credible as it stands. It might have had
more rhetorical effect if I'd put more effort into depicting you as a
self-deceiving ignoramus, but you do fine at that without any help.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 04:43, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
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,

I never said it was. It is an essential component of any comprehensive
climate model

Lets review from above. I asked for the climate model that predicts, you
gave HITRAN.

Either you were so ignorant that you thought HITRAN was a climate model,
or you were posting crap and hoping that I wouldn't notice.

You could have just made a blunder, but you don't seem to want to admit
that.

So you're either ignorant, or dishonest. Either way it comes out bad for
you.

And do you have that climate model that predicts yet?

but you still have not stated a climate model that predicts.

I'll leave that to the IPCC. Their new report is due out any time now,
and it will list the predicitive models they've reviewed.

Ah, so here you admit you don't know of any such model, and you BELIEVE
without any rational basis (or you would have cited it) that the IPCC
(known liars, btw) must have it.

You're defending a hypothesis that you don't even know exists!

Like I said, that's all you need to do, but you've not done it because
there isn't one.

There are loads. All of them to complicated to be any use to you. If
you want instant gratification, try the last IPCC report

So, aside from being a snide asshole, you got nothin', huh? Maybe you can
arrogant you way out of this one, but not with me, boy.

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.

That's not what I said at all. Your - silly - claim was that there
wasn't any, and all I needed to do to show you up an an ignorant fraud
was to point this out.

LOL! yes, you were bringing up CO2 absorption bands that were in between
the sun's black body curve, and the earths, and trying to argue they were
significant.

again, you try to ball your way out of saying something STUPID.

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.

That's what I started out pointing out, with the additional observation
that that bulge is at much shorter wavelengths than CO2 absorbs - a
point that seemed to have escaped you at the time.

here...

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7c/
Atmospheric_Transmission.png>

The 2 micrometer band, see how it takes a bite out of the sun's black
body curve?

Are you learning yet?

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

Obviously. It's perfectly credible as it stands. It might have had more
rhetorical effect if I'd put more effort into depicting you as a
self-deceiving ignoramus, but you do fine at that without any help.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 13:55, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:15:35 -0600, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org
wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, 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.

Really asshole? Got that hypothesis yet? State the equation that predicts
Temperature as a function of CO2, and I'll apologize. You could settle
this easily by stating that function. EASY. You say it exist, just post
it!

But you can't because that equation doesn't exist. Some assholes said
they had it in computer models, but 1) every single model failed to
predict and 2) every single one of those models failed to describe
reality and past observation. What's more, the "climate scientist"
assholes know they don't have it that's why they're looking for a
positive feedback mechanism which couldn't possibly exist because it
would mean that the system is unstable and should have gone to venus like
conditions already.  That's why you're an asshole! Just another liar
pushing a political agenda and trying to pass it off as science.

Modest amounts of positive feedback can increase the gain of a system without
making it unstable. As the feedback is increased, the system gain first goes up
a tad, then gets twitchier and noisier, and eventually the gain becomes infinite
and it runs away. Something like a 3:1 positive feedback inspired gain, on top
of the base CO2 warming effect, could satisfy the alarmist predictions but not
latch up and fry the planet. That's unlikely; the net feedback is probably
negative.

You've ignored the water vapour positive feedback.

Computer simulations of super-complex, poorly understood, wildly chaotic systems
are worthless, or less.

Weather is chaotic, climate isn't. John von Neumann understood this
and a lot of less talented people have manged to grasp it since.
clearly, you aren't that talented.

As for poorly understood, I think you are confusing "complicated and
difficult to model" with "poorly understood". Your opinion on the
subject is clearly worthless. The work itself is valued by people
better placed to assess it's real utility, otherwise it wouldn't still
be going on.

We did get into, and get out of, ice ages somehow.

That "somehow" has now been worked out in quite some detail. New
Scientist 3rd November 2012 pages 32-35 "The Great Thaw" picks up part
of the story.

Ditto ages of high temperature and enormous (like, 5000 PPM) CO2 levels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filehanerozoic_Carbon_Dioxide.png

We are dangerously close to running out of CO2. Drill, baby, drill.

We aren't running out of CO2. We, and our crop plants, are well
adapted to the world as it is. Change the world enough, and we aren't.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:59:10 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 15:25, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:34:06 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 02:55, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:20:41 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 01:25, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:21:38 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, 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:

snip

The expected rise in temperature over that period was of the order of
0.1K which is rather less than the noise on the temperature record.

If it was 0.1 Kelvins and in the noise level, you'd have to say that
the hypothesis wasn't proven.

The only problem with that is, the data was not gathered per the
protocol, and there is a large UHI warming in the data, a systematic
bias FOR AGW, and the data still doesn't distinctly demonstrate the
hypothesis.

Even with bad science, it is a failed hypothesis.

Naturally you don't see much correlation. If you extend the study
period for long enough to see a bigger temperature rise you do see
more correlation

Nice crystal ball you have there, but I have to call bullshit on your
predictions of the future.

You can legitimately extend it back into the past - to 1958 anyway, when
accurate CO2 measurements started.

From 1940 to 1970, the GISS data shows that mean global temperature was
DECREASING. And that was with data contaminated with UHI effects.

Are you so young you don't remember the "ice age" scare?

Even the correlation proves causation fallacy fails here. You don't
have a correlation to base your fallacy on!

You've got it backwards. The hypothesis based on the well-known
physics of the greenhouse effect, and it would be very odd if more
CO2 in the atmosphere wasn't raising global temperature levels.

We've only been measuring CO2 in the atmosphere directly and reliably
since 1958. Geologists, ice-core collectors and sediment analysts
have got indirect data that goes back a few million years, and none
of that falsifies the hypothesis.

No, it isn't 'based on well known physics". The problem is, the physics
says a rise in CO2 alone will NOT cause the claimed amount of warming.
That's why they're looking for the as yet undiscovered "positive
feedback".

It has been discovered - the small temperature rise from the CO2 raises
the vapour pressure of water in the atmosphere. Water vapour is another
greenhouse gas, rather more potent than CO2.

aw... you don't know that your buddies at the IPCC say water vapor causes
no forcing at all!? Are you calling the IPCC liars?

And no, that has not been discovered. It's been proposed, but no one has
been able to show it. There's a problem of negative feedback, you see...
the more water vapor, the more clouds, the more clouds, the cooler the
planet.

Which brings us back to Svensmark and REAL climate science and not that
Marxist crap you're advocating.

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 04:36, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

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.

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

True. But his academic critics did a perfectly adult job, and it's not
my place to steal their glory.

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

I'm supposed to put any effort into responding to you?

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 15:25, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:34:06 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 02:55, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 07:20:41 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
On 24 Dec, 01:25, Marvin the Martian <mar...@ontomars.org> wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2012 06:21:38 -0600, Mickey Langan wrote:
On 2012-12-22, Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
On 22 Dec, 18:07, Mickey Langan <mic...@perusion.net> wrote:
On 2012-12-21, 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:

<snip>

The expected rise in temperature over that period was of the order of
0.1K which is rather less than the noise on the temperature record.

If it was 0.1 Kelvins and in the noise level, you'd have to say that the
hypothesis wasn't proven.

The only problem with that is, the data was not gathered per the
protocol, and there is a large UHI warming in the data, a systematic bias
FOR AGW, and the data still doesn't distinctly demonstrate the
hypothesis.

Even with bad science, it is a failed hypothesis.

Naturally you don't see much correlation. If you extend the study period
for long enough to see a bigger temperature rise you do see more
correlation

Nice crystal ball you have there, but I have to call bullshit on your
predictions of the future.

You can legitimately extend it back into the past - to 1958 anyway,
when accurate CO2 measurements started.

Even the correlation proves causation fallacy fails here. You don't
have a correlation to base your fallacy on!

You've got it backwards. The hypothesis based on the well-known physics
of the greenhouse effect, and it would be very odd if more CO2 in the
atmosphere wasn't raising global temperature levels.

We've only been measuring CO2 in the atmosphere directly and reliably
since 1958. Geologists, ice-core collectors and sediment analysts have
got indirect data that goes back a few million years, and none of that
falsifies the hypothesis.

No, it isn't 'based on well known physics". The problem is, the physics
says a rise in CO2 alone will NOT cause the claimed amount of warming.
That's why they're looking for the as yet undiscovered "positive
feedback".

It has been discovered - the small temperature rise from the CO2
raises the vapour pressure of water in the atmosphere. Water vapour is
another greenhouse gas, rather more potent than CO2.

<snip>

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Unum]

On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:
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,

I never said it was. It is an essential component of any comprehensive
climate model

Lets review from above. I asked for the climate model that predicts, you
gave HITRAN.

Either you were so ignorant that you thought HITRAN was a climate model,
or you were posting crap and hoping that I wouldn't notice.

Marvin can't counter the facts and now he wants to argue about
whether or not HITRAN is a climate model, lol.

You could have just made a blunder, but you don't seem to want to admit
that.

So you're either ignorant, or dishonest. Either way it comes out bad for
you.

And do you have that climate model that predicts yet?

Why can't you just respond to all that info above about CO2 Marvin?

but you still have not stated a climate model that predicts.

I'll leave that to the IPCC. Their new report is due out any time now,
and it will list the predicitive models they've reviewed.

Ah, so here you admit you don't know of any such model, and you BELIEVE
without any rational basis (or you would have cited it) that the IPCC
(known liars, btw) must have it.

You're defending a hypothesis that you don't even know exists!

This is where Marvin makes up your position for you and tries to
get you to defend it.

Like I said, that's all you need to do, but you've not done it because
there isn't one.

There are loads. All of them to complicated to be any use to you. If
you want instant gratification, try the last IPCC report

So, aside from being a snide asshole, you got nothin', huh? Maybe you can
arrogant you way out of this one, but not with me, boy.

Its all about personal attacks at this point. Gets there pretty quick
when Marvin runs out of ideas. This usually takes about two exchanges.

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.

That's not what I said at all. Your - silly - claim was that there
wasn't any, and all I needed to do to show you up an an ignorant fraud
was to point this out.

LOL! yes, you were bringing up CO2 absorption bands that were in between
the sun's black body curve, and the earths, and trying to argue they were
significant.

again, you try to ball your way out of saying something STUPID.

Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands and the various
radiation flows are not significant Marvin.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 17:25, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:

On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

<snip>

Its all about personal attacks at this point. Gets there pretty quick
when Marvin runs out of ideas. This usually takes about two exchanges.

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[hda]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <paul@peschoen.com>
wrote:

"Marvin the Martian" wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Paul

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's longsuit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

 

[Bill Sloman]

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:









"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[hda]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill.sloman@ieee.org> wrote:

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:









"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have an
intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for anyone
with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

The martian is very exact, not you, not hot like 4th rock from the sun
unlike venus. AND all, true.

Logic, how would you know ? You are evasive as well on the questions
posed. Try some close-reading for a start.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:









"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as a
function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon dioxide
as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

Ought to be easy for a smart Ph.D. like you. You're so superior to the
rest of us. ;-P

But even though I've asked you to state the THEORY you're defending, you
can't do it. Best you could do is say "maybe somewhere in the next IPCC
paper" which isn't even written yet.

Remember, if YOU are going to push this "theory", then it is up to you to
make the case for it. Only religious nuts do the "I'm right and you have
to prove me wrong!" argument. But that appears to be what you're doing.

Most of your argument is that of an arrogant, egotistical asshole, where
you blow off your inability to explain by claiming everyone else is just
too stupid and ignorant to understand a great genius like you! You have a
Ph.D. in Chemistry.

Believe me, I'm appropriately impressed with your argument. :-D

Now state the fucking equations.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 00:25:10 -0600, Unum wrote:

On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

Now that you understand that HITRAN is not a climate model,

I never said it was. It is an essential component of any comprehensive
climate model

Lets review from above. I asked for the climate model that predicts,
you gave HITRAN.

Either you were so ignorant that you thought HITRAN was a climate
model, or you were posting crap and hoping that I wouldn't notice.

Marvin can't counter the facts and now he wants to argue about whether
or not HITRAN is a climate model, lol.

I asked Slowman for the climate model he is defending.

He gave me something that wasn't a climate model.

You don't understand that. There seems to be very little you understand,
and you're out to prove to everyone that you don't understand.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:27:35 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 17:25, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

Its all about personal attacks at this point. Gets there pretty quick
when Marvin runs out of ideas. This usually takes about two exchanges.

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.

Well, then correct my wrong ideas. After all you have a Ph.D. in
chemistry so you're a fucking EXPERT, right? The who P in Ph.D. is about
professing the knowledge you've gained. So, profess and quit being a
prissy little egotistical bastard who's overly impressed with himself.

STATE THE THESIS YOU'RE DEFENDING, and show how it predicts. HITRAN is
NOT a climate model, Try again.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY
ignorant of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid
and condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means
to profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're
coming off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling
ME an "ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that
you're defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT
it is, and that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

Clearly you don't know what you're defending, and that's not just non-
science, that's contemptibly stupid and disgraceful for someone who
claims to have a Ph.D..

Prove me wrong and give us the equations!

Look, I can point to Svensmark's paper and pick the equations right off
his graphs.

<http://www.space.dtu.dk/upload/institutter/space/forskning/05_afdelinger/
sun-climate/full_text_publications/svensmark_2007cosmoclimatology.pdf>

I can pick out the equation relating cosmic rays to low cloud amount from
his figures 3 and 5, Figure 8 shows that his principles agree with proxy
data for the last 500 million years, so it fits known observation.
Further, the Danish predicted the current 16 cool period based on solar
cycle, so it's made a prediction where all the AGW "models" FAILED.

He then relates the various factors that affect the intensity of high
energy cosmic ray at lower atmospheric levels; our position in the
galaxy, solar cycle length, earth's magnetic field and so on.

That's called a PREDICTIVE THEORY in science. Do they teach that down in
Australia?

You're looking for something as convincing as Svensmark's work. Ought to
be easy since AGW is funding in the billions of dollars and Svensmark was
only funded a million or so, and he had to fight the IPCC and the AGW
frauds for that little amount.

Instead, you shit on Svensmark. What's that about?

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what it
is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this thread.

So, you're answer is that you're going to pretend you've defined it.

Care to point out where you did that? Was that where you said that maybe
next years IPCC report will have it? You didn't have it then.

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth. The
high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it tempting,
but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to point up any
more.

And you follow up your arrogance with an irrelevant ad hom.

Like I said, you worked hard to EARN my calling you an egotistical
asshole.

 

[Wally W.]

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:39:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 13:55, John Larkin
Computer simulations of super-complex, poorly understood, wildly chaotic systems
are worthless, or less.

Weather is chaotic, climate isn't.

Bare assertion.

Credible cite needed.

John von Neumann understood this

Where did von Neumann make this distinction between weather and
climate?

 

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 01:27:35 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 17:25, Unum <non...@yourbusiness.com> wrote:
On 12/23/2012 11:25 PM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:19:25 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

snip

Its all about personal attacks at this point.

Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?

Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
there's no shortage.

Lets see... you're defending a hypothesis that you are TOTALLY ignorant
of, and you cannot state. Most of your rebuttals are vapid and
condescending. You do know that the Latin root of professor means to
profess, that you can STATE your position right? Instead, you're coming
off as an ignorant condescending asshole, and you're calling ME an
"ignoramus" for asking you what the hell is the hypothesis that you're
defending? Then you pretty much admit that YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT it is, and
that MAYBE the IPCC has it? Can't defend you thesis, huh?

Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?

And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

That seems to be the point.

Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
hypothesis.

He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this
thread.

Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.

He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
point up any more.

On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
programming compels it.

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian <marvin@ontomars.org>
wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:









"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as a
function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon dioxide
as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation, it's
about hypothesis and experiment. Historically, practically any field of research
that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic system,
even if they understand all the physics and all the states and all the inputs,
which in this case nobody does.

And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[John Larkin]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 10:43:00 -0500, Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> wrote:

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 20:39:13 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 13:55, John Larkin
Computer simulations of super-complex, poorly understood, wildly chaotic systems
are worthless, or less.

Weather is chaotic, climate isn't.

Bare assertion.

Credible cite needed.

The temperature and CO2 record, over the last 500 million years, sure looks
chaotic. No climate model can be trusted that doesn't explain that history.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology Inc
www.highlandtechnology.com jlarkin at highlandtechnology dot com

Precision electronic instrumentation
Picosecond-resolution Digital Delay and Pulse generators
Custom timing and laser controllers
Photonics and fiberoptic TTL data links
VME analog, thermocouple, LVDT, synchro, tachometer
Multichannel arbitrary waveform generators

 

[Marvin the Martian]

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:03:52 -0800, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 09:02:58 -0600, Marvin the Martian
marvin@ontomars.org> wrote:

On Mon, 24 Dec 2012 05:07:01 -0800, Bill Sloman wrote:

On 24 Dec, 21:42, hda <agent...@xs4all.nl.invalid> wrote:
On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 21:44:11 -0500, "P E Schoen" <p...@peschoen.com
wrote:









"Marvin the Martian"  wrote in message
news:4KWdnR8Cz8laJ0rNnZ2dnUVZ5v2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

On Sun, 23 Dec 2012 18:04:13 -0500, P E Schoen wrote:

You are proving my point by continued use of profanity.

Really asshole?
[snip]
Some assholes said
[snip]
That's why you're an asshole!
]snip]
someone you asshole lie and
[snip]
assholes slander and lie about Svensmark is because it means that
there
[snip]
label of asshole, so wear it proudly!

Phil, is that you? Confirming my point. No sense even trying to have
an intelligent conversation with a troll exhibiting an anal orifice
obsession,
or perhaps a spoiled child. But here is a site with some links for
anyone with an actual brain to examine:
http://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s11b.htm

Just answer the martian questions !

OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
Marvin's long suit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...

He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.

All you have to do is state the mean global temperature of the earth as
a function of carbon dioxide, and state the concentration of carbon
dioxide as a function of human emissions.

Then show how these equations make useful predictions that work, and are
consistent with the past. This is called in my country "The scientific
method".

It is not. The scientific method isn't about predictions and simulation,
it's about hypothesis and experiment.

A prediction is a hypothesis. I don't know where you get this
"simulation" stuff unless you're talking about the alarmist who use
simulations to "prove" their hypothesis. I never mentioned simulation.

Historically, practically any
field of research that was not verified by experiment was mostly bogus.

Nobody, smart or dumb, can predict the evolution of a complex chaotic
system, even if they understand all the physics and all the states and
all the inputs, which in this case nobody does.

That's nice. Maybe I even agree with that.

However, Svensmark has a climate theory that is consistent with the last
500 million years and has predicted the last 16 years, so climate isn't
one of those unknowable complex chaotic systems.

And besides, you can do nothing about it. So why don't you design some
electronics... which can be verified by experiment.

Ah! I see the problem. Apparently MR. "IEEE" Slowman included
sci.electronics.design in the newsgroups. I've trimmed that group out out
of the follow ups.