Re: The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:49:39, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 10/05/13 16:16, emoneyjoe wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:57:47 +0100, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 10/05/13 14:49, emoneyjoe wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:19:35 +0100, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 09/05/13 23:32, emoneyjoe wrote:
> >>>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
> >>>>> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> >>>>>>> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
> >>>>>> one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
> >>>>>> Earth from freezing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> There is the problem with the entire AGW
> >>>>> mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
> >>>>> the Earth.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The sun warms the Earth, stupid, and
> >>>>> the rocks and soil radiate IR away.
> >>>>> The N2 and O2 do not radiate much,
> >>>>> and that is what holds the heat, the gases
> >>>>> that do not radiate much.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> That fact has been explained to you literally
> >>>>>> more than 200 times; that fact has been known since the mid 1800s.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Not that many, and it is false, the error
> >>>>> may have originated with a statement made
> >>>>> in a paper long ago about the Earth without
> >>>>> an atmosphere being much colder.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do any of the crystal ball gazers realize
> >>>>> that an Earth without an atmosphere is NOT
> >>>>> an Earth with an N2 and O2 atmosphere?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Apparently not.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> it is the surface where temperature counts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> No. It is the oceans' global average temperature that counts, as it is
> >>>>>> the oceans that control Earth'sclimate.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It is where the data used in the average
> >>>>> annual global temperature is recorded.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> The oceans are cold, and it requires
> >>>>> a lot more thermal energy to raise the
> >>>>> temperature of water one degree than
> >>>>> it takes to raise the temperature of air.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> And tree and foliage transpiration results in more cooling than any
> >>>>>>> of the other warming GH processes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> What the fuck? No.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Absolutely, because most of the
> >>>>> GH processes involve radiating IR
> >>>>> to space, the entire atmosphere is
> >>>>> cooled by IR radiation to space,
> >>>>> by GHGs, otherwise the N2 and O2
> >>>>> would retain a lot more heat than
> >>>>> at present.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Ask any AGW crystal gazer what
> >>>>> cools the atmosphere and see what
> >>>>> they say.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> If they don't say GreenHouse Gases,
> >>>>> they are either lying, or as stupid as you.
> >>>>
> >>>> What would the average temperature of the earth be if it had no atmosphere?
> >>>
> >>> Is that a joke?
> >>>
> >>> The question of what GHGs do is not
> >>> answered by considering an Earth without
> >>> an atmosphere, it is answered by the
> >>> consideration of an Earth with the same
> >>> atmosphere as it has at present , but
> >>> without GHGs and without water.
> >>>
> >>> If the Earth was warmer with just
> >>> an N2 and O2 atmosphere than it is
> >>> now, that shows that GHGs cool
> >>> the atmosphere.
> >>>
> >>> Then the question is, would more
> >>> CO2 cool the Earth more?
> >>>
> >>> More CO2 clearly cools the upper
> >>> atmosphere.
> >>
> >> Bu;, what would the average temperature of the earth be if it had no
> >> atmosphere?
> >> Would it have one? Do you know it? Could you calculate it? Have you
> >> looked it up?
> >
> > You aren't being funny, humor is not
> > going to hide the fact that there is a flaw
> > in AGW, and it was caused by the gossip
> > about an Earth without an atmosphere.
> >
> > Even that thought is flawed, because
> > an average temperature doesn't mean
> > much if the extremes are too far apart,
> > the atmosphere retains heat, but not
> > as much as just N2 and O2 would retain,
> > because N2 and O2 could not radiate
> > much heat to space.
> >
> > I wish the AGW cult wasn't so stupid,
> > and could do rational thinking, rather
> > than just using gossip as the only source
> > for ideas.
> >
> > Rational thought became more useful
> > when the lead pencil was invented, being
> > able to write something down, and think
> > about it more is what lead to the rapid
> > progress in science and technology.
> >
> > Too bad there is a group that ignores
> > rational thought and thrives on gossip.
>
> Let's just stick to one thing at a time. Can a bare planet, without an
> atmosphere, have a temperature? Its a simple question. Assume it's
> rotating fast enough so that it doesn't have time to cool down much
> before the sun rises again.
>
All the bare rock planet have many many temperatures the temperatures
all depending on spatial and spectral reflectivity at that point To
assume
that any physical thing acts anywhere near a black-body is a fatal
mistake.
this parameter has never even been measured even here on Earth by
your Climate Clowns. They are way to busy spouting nonsense.

[Will Janoschka]

On Thu, 9 May 2013 20:55:39, Desertphile <Deser...@spammegmail.com>

wrote:

> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> wrote:
>
> > The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
> >
> > Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> > the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
>
> WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
> one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep

> Earth from freezing. That fact has been explained to you literally

> more than 200 times; that fact has been known since the mid 1800s.

This is a bold faced lie. You clowns try but fail to male the Earth
act like a black-body. It ius anything but a black-body

>
> > it is the surface where temperature counts.
>
> No. It is the oceans' global average temperature that counts, as it is
> the oceans that control Earth'sclimate.
>

> > And tree and foliage transpiration results in more cooling than any
> > of the other warming GH processes.
>
> What the fuck? No.
>

[Will Janoschka]

On Fri, 10 May 2013 15:15:24, Dawlish <pjg...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> On Friday, May 10, 2013 2:49:54 PM UTC+1, emoneyjoe wrote:
> > On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:19:35 +0100, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On 09/05/13 23:32, emoneyjoe wrote:

> > >> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile

> > >> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> > >>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> > >>> wrote:
> >
> > >>>> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
> >
> > >>>> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> > >>>> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
> > >>> WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
> > >>> one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
> > >>> Earth from freezing.
> >

> > >> There is the problem with the entire AGW
> > >> mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
> > >> the Earth.
> > >>
> > >> The sun warms the Earth, stupid, and
> > >> the rocks and soil radiate IR away.
> > >> The N2 and O2 do not radiate much,
> > >> and that is what holds the heat, the gases
> > >> that do not radiate much.
> > >>
> > >>

> > >>> That fact has been explained to you literally
> > >>> more than 200 times; that fact has been known since the mid 1800s.
> > >>

> > >> Not that many, and it is false, the error
> > >> may have originated with a statement made
> > >> in a paper long ago about the Earth without
> > >> an atmosphere being much colder.
> > >>
> > >> Do any of the crystal ball gazers realize
> > >> that an Earth without an atmosphere is NOT
> > >> an Earth with an N2 and O2 atmosphere?
> > >>
> > >> Apparently not.
> > >>
> > >>

> > >>>> it is the surface where temperature counts.
> > >>>
> > >>> No. It is the oceans' global average temperature that counts, as it is
> > >>> the oceans that control Earth'sclimate.
> > >>

> > >> It is where the data used in the average
> > >> annual global temperature is recorded.
> > >>
> > >> The oceans are cold, and it requires
> > >> a lot more thermal energy to raise the
> > >> temperature of water one degree than
> > >> it takes to raise the temperature of air.
> > >>
> > >>

> > >>>> And tree and foliage transpiration results in more cooling than any
> > >>>> of the other warming GH processes.
> > >>>
> > >>> What the fuck? No.
> > >>

> More CO2 warms the lower atmosphere by a greater extent, as the
> optical depth increases. Ask a physicist.

All of the "physiicists", say exactly the opposite, except your
Climate Clowns.


All the bare rock planets have many many temperatures the temperatures

[Will Janoschka]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 21:08:37, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 11 May 2013 10:55:50 -0600, Desertphile
> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 10 May 2013 20:12:12 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 10 May 2013 16:23:39 -0600, Desertphile
> >> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On Thu, 09 May 2013 18:32:23 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>

> >> >wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
> >> >> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
> >> >> >wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
> >> >> >> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
> >> >> >
> >> >> >WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
> >> >> >one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
> >> >> >Earth from freezing.
> >> >
> >> >> There is the problem with the entire AGW mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
> >> >> the Earth.
> >> >

> >> >What?
> >
> >> GHGs cool the atmosphere
> >
> >Yet all of the world's physicists say the opposite. How do you explain
> >that?
>
> I don't think they say the opposite,
> but if they do, they are lying, because
> they know nothing else can cool the
> atmosphere.
>

Joe, all of the world's physicists agree with
you, ratrher than with Climate Clowns.

Without any explanations from the learned.
CO2 levels are up. Weather is more volitile.
Temperatures are not up. So WTF.

Could be CO2 or not. No measurements:
Does increasing atmospheric CO2
increase volitile weather. I do not know!

The partial derivitive of atmospheric CO2
with respect to everything else that changes
is not known. It will not be known before all
now living "stuff" is long dead.

Pick somthing easy, like insuring that you
always will win at Bingo.
>
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/11/13 10:11 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Without any explanations from the learned. CO2 levels are up.
> Weather is more volitile. Temperatures are not up. So WTF.

What's happening, Will, is that the earth is absorbing 0.6 W/m^2 more
radiation than it's giving up. That's a lot of energy, Will, and it's
making the weather more volatile. Temperature are going up... higher
than you can shake a fist at... especially ocean temps... melting ice
like crazy, man.

What the climate science shows is that this warming is caused by
human activity and that *rate of warming* is *faster than* anything
recorded in the *geologic record*.

[benj]

Will you just don't understand science the way that technician Wormley
does. CO2 is heating the earth dramatically and rapidly and higher than
it ever did before even in prehistory! And it's all caused by YOU!

That HUGE flow of temperature melts polar ice kills virtual penguins and
virtual polar bears, but before it gets to heat the land, it suddenly
sinks to the bottom of the ocean where it heats the cold water there.
This completely explains our current weather emergencies like spring
blizzards and the current cold weather. It's because all that temperature
that is causing damage and extreme weather quickly sinks to the ocean
bottom AFTER causing the damage but BEFORE causing heating! It's so
obvious!

This is what "climate science" says, Will. You need an education. But
until then all you need to do is just send Sam your wallet. Preferably
full of money. Nuff said.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sat, 11 May 2013 22:37:38 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

All figments of somebody's imagination,
1974 was a year with many times more tornados,
Galveston was the biggest loss of life in a US
hurricane, if ice were melting fast the oceans
would be rising faster than the usual erosion
rate, and temperatures haven't gone up a
degree or as much as the max year to year
difference in temperature.

It really takes a lot of cooks to take
whole number data and manipulate it
to give an anomaly of a couple of tenths
of a degree.

[Will Janoschka]

Ben I am proud to not understand Worm-lies climate science..
If Sam wants to make a point, he can do so by dying first!!!

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/11/13 11:36 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> If Sam wants to make a point, he can do so by dying first!!!

That seems harsh, Will, do you talk to people like that when you
are looking them in the face?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 03:37:38, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/11/13 10:11 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > Without any explanations from the learned. CO2 levels are up.
> > Weather is more volitile. Temperatures are not up. So WTF.
>
> What's happening, Will, is that the earth is absorbing 0.6 W/m^2 more
> radiation than it's giving up.

Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates
thar the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more
than it is receiving, causing such cold weather!

If you wihs to curb the use of fossile fuel, please die immidiately!
We will not burn your body, but just let it stink!.

[josephus]

prove it. you asserted it. SHOW US.

josephus



--
I go sailing in the summer
and look at stars in the winter
Its not what you know that gets you in trouble
Its what you know that aint so. -- Josh Billings

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/12/13 12:01 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
> the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
> receiving, causing such cold weather!

"The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per
square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over
the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the
rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding
400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how
much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we
want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391
ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to
restore energy balance and prevent further warming". -- James Hansen


> 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/
>

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 13:24:11 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On 5/12/13 12:01 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
>> the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
>> receiving, causing such cold weather!
>
>
> "The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per
> square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over
> the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the
> rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding
> 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how
> much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we
> want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391
> ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to
> restore energy balance and prevent further warming". -- James Hansen

And we must wash our underwear to
prevent smelling like the above paragraph.

>> 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/

Most fossil fuels are burned to provide
space heating and transportation.

To get back to 350 ppmV, the whole
world would have to shut off all heating
systems, and park all vehicles.

Then an efficient way to remove 50 ppmV
CO2 from the air would have to be invented.

Sure, Sam, there are two ways that will
happen:

When hell freezes over, and

In a pig's ass.

[Will Janoschka]

Would you like to comne 'roung and see, Religions Nut that you are?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:24:11, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/13 12:01 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
> > the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
> > receiving, causing such cold weather!
>
>
> "The total energy imbalance now is about six-tenths of a watt per
> square meter. That may not sound like much, but when added up over
> the whole world, it's enormous. It's about 20 times greater than the
> rate of energy use by all of humanity. It's equivalent to exploding
> 400,000 Hiroshima atomic bombs per day 365 days per year. That's how
> much extra energy Earth is gaining each day. This imbalance, if we
> want to stabilize climate, means that we must reduce CO2 from 391
> ppm, parts per million, back to 350 ppm. That is the change needed to
> restore energy balance and prevent further warming". -- James Hansen
>

Have you ever made a measurement Sam? Why do you spout nonsense?

[Will Janoschka]

Show your partial derivitives of atmospheric CO2

with respect to everything else that changes

I did make the claim that such is not known.

It will not be known before all now living "stuff"
is long dead.

Make the measurements and disprove my clam!

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/12/13 6:05 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Have you ever made a measurement Sam? Why do you spout nonsense?
>
> Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
> the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
> receiving, causing such cold weather!
>

I spent a career making measurements in physics and astronomy (radio),
Will--and calculating the error bars!

Will, did you ever consider that satellites can measure the incoming
radiation to the earth.... and that satellites can measure the
outgoing radiation coming up from the planet below? Well, Will, did
you ever consider that?

[Sam Wormley]

Should I bring a knife, gun or rope? You seem pretty hostile.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 18:46:23 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Is that how the stupid 0.6 watts per m^2 comes from?

[Will Janoschka]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 23:46:23, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/13 6:05 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > Have you ever made a measurement Sam? Why do you spout nonsense?
> >
> > Sam, please give a demonstration or measurement that indicates thar
> > the Earth is "not" radiating 0.6 Watt/Meter sq more than it is
> > receiving, causing such cold weather!
> >
>
> I spent a career making measurements in physics and astronomy (radio),
> Will--and calculating the error bars!

You certainly do not demonstrate such a capability here. Can you give
an
example of anything you did measure?

>
> Will, did you ever consider that satellites can measure the incoming
> radiation to the earth.... and that satellites can measure the
> outgoing radiation coming up from the planet below? Well, Will, did
> you ever consider that?
>

Your satellites cannot and do not measure the amount of sensible heat
absorbed
by the earth surface causing its temperature to rise. The downward
spaceborn
radiometers measure only the zenith radiation from the earth and
atmosphere to
the colder photofdetector. They do not and cannot measure the outgoing

radiative heat transfer. Such would require a orbit greater than that
of Mars
and be perpendicular to the plane of the elliptic Next stupid
question Sam?

[Will Janoschka]

To Religions Nuts OI always are bring the wepon of choice and
of course you Skeptical Science Buble ti protect you.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/12/13 8:28 PM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Sun, 12 May 2013 23:46:23, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Will, did you ever consider that satellites can measure the incoming
>> radiation to the earth.... and that satellites can measure the
>> outgoing radiation coming up from the planet below? Well, Will, did
>> you ever consider that?
>>
> Your satellites cannot and do not measure the amount of sensible
> heat absorbed by the earth surface causing its temperature to rise.
> The downward spaceborn radiometers measure only the zenith radiation
> from the earth and atmosphere to the colder photofdetector.

Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
which results in the earth warming globally.

Try to focus on the measurement, Will.

[Sam Wormley]

I take it you have no interest in discussing climate science, Will.

[emoneyjoe]

On Sun, 12 May 2013 21:13:35 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Except the average temperature goes
up and down.

Do these measurements differentiate
between reflected solar energy and other
radiation?

I hope better science is being done
for the amount of money wasted than
just measurements from orbit.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I take it you have no interest in discussing climate science, Will.

Most people have not interest in discussing climate science in a physics
group, ass hat.

Take it to a climate group.




--
Jim Pennino

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 04:14:15 -0000

Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
in discussing underlaying physics.

For such people is taking discussion
out of physics group good choice.

--
Poutnik

[Will Janoschka]

Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have
ever made such a measurement lier!!

[Will Janoschka]

Sam there is njo such thing as climate science,
You only want to spout climate FRAUD.

[Wally W.]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 07:13:55 +0200, Poutnik wrote:

>
>ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 04:14:15 -0000
>
>
>>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I take it you have no interest in discussing climate science, Will.
>>
>> Most people have not interest in discussing climate science in a physics
>> group, ass hat.
>>
>> Take it to a climate group.
>
>Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
>in discussing underlaying physics.

Mowst AGW trolls here are not discussing the physics of climate
science.

They are spreading FUD and screeching about tipping points.

[columbiaaccidentinvestigation]

On May 13, 5:05 am, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:"Mowst AGW trolls

here are not discussing the physics of climate science."

On May 10, 8:55 pm, Wally W. <ww8...@aim.com> wrote:"The link appeals
to *your* narrow interests; you assume everyone else shares your
narrow interest; and you assume everyone is reading your "post" in
Google Groups."
https://groups.google.com/group/alt.global-warming/msg/8a743dcb7d2a70c7

Ok so you claim that some are no interested in science, but when you
had a choice to discuss the science, you avoided the study with
another stupid reply. Why do you lazy trolls think you can have it
both ways?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 4:16 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Sam there is njo such thing as climate science, You only want to
> spout climate FRAUD.

You sure about that, Will? Only fumb duckers deny climate science.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 4:13 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have ever made such a
> measurement lier!!
>

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/12/13 10:31 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> Except the average temperature goes up and down.

Try looking at temperature with the "noise" removed.
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm
> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/FR11_All.gif


> Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term
> noise.
>
> The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long
> term climate change over a relatively short period of time. Only
> over a period of decades can you confidently discern climate trends.
> Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate.
>
> Nevertheless, several important questions remain - what's caused the
> warming of global surface temperatures to slow in the short-term?
>

[Will Janoschka]

You lie Sam. No such measurement hsas been made!

[Will Janoschka]

Sam: Only fumb duckers claim any science climate FRAUD!

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:26:40, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/12/13 10:31 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
> > Except the average temperature goes up and down.
>
> Try looking at temperature with the "noise" removed.

Why Sam The noise is where the information is.
-snip BS-

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 04:14:15 -0000
>
>
>>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > I take it you have no interest in discussing climate science, Will.
>>
>> Most people have not interest in discussing climate science in a physics
>> group, ass hat.
>>
>> Take it to a climate group.
>
> Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
> in discussing underlaying physics.

If I can make any sense of that gibberish, that is not relevant to posting
the crap in sci.phyisics.

Most of the climate crap posted here is science free, doom and gloom
speculations.

> For such people is taking discussion
> out of physics group good choice.

Gibberish; I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
temperature and it is not.

So, either no such meansurement was made or someone screwed up the
measurement, ass hat.




--
Jim Pennino

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 16:34:00 -0000

>
> > Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
> > in discussing underlaying physics.
>
> If I can make any sense of that gibberish, that is not relevant to posting
> the crap in sci.phyisics.
>
> Most of the climate crap posted here is science free, doom and gloom
> speculations.
>
> > For such people is taking discussion
> > out of physics group good choice.
>
> Gibberish; I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.

I do not pretend my English is perfect, as I am not native.

But I use it everyday in work. Very most people
do not have problems with my English, nor with sense I put in.

So, perhaps you may have problems with English or understanding.


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 16:37:59 -0000

>
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 5/13/13 4:13 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> >> Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have ever made such a
> >> measurement lier!!
> >>
> >
> > Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
> > top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
> > which results in the earth warming globally.
>
> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
> temperature and it is not.

Same as temperature is continually increasing or decreasing
during switching seasons ? ;-)

>
> So, either no such meansurement was made or someone screwed up the
> measurement, ass hat.



--

Poutnik

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 10:48 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>
> Why Sam The noise is where the information is.

If only that were true, Will.

>
> Try looking at temperature with the "noise" removed.

> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-january-2008-intermediate.htm
> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/FR11_All.gif

[Sam Wormley]

Why do you claim that, Will?

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 11:37 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>
>> Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
>> top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
>> which results in the earth warming globally.

> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
> temperature and it is not.

Bingo--The earth is increasing in temperature! The jimp's narrow
concept of temperatures doesn't take into account all of the earth!

The jimp is easily fooled!

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:26:40 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

I think you messed up the attributes,
I don't talk about trends over decades,
that is all BS, there is no trend in a random,
self controlling, chaotic weather system.

The lack of non-volatile limited
electronic storage is no excuse for
not having the original data, if all
of the "research" was in a well
managed company, all the
"scientists" would have been
fired long ago.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 16:34:00 -0000
>>
>> > Rather most people discussing climate do not have interest
>> > in discussing underlaying physics.
>>
>> If I can make any sense of that gibberish, that is not relevant to posting
>> the crap in sci.phyisics.
>>
>> Most of the climate crap posted here is science free, doom and gloom
>> speculations.
>>
>> > For such people is taking discussion
>> > out of physics group good choice.
>>
>> Gibberish; I haven't a clue what you are trying to say.
>
> I do not pretend my English is perfect, as I am not native.

Well, that explains why you sound like an idiot on drugs most of the time.

> But I use it everyday in work. Very most people
> do not have problems with my English, nor with sense I put in.

Yes, I would imagine you have no problems asking for directions to
the restroom.

> So, perhaps you may have problems with English or understanding.

I do not speak whatever flavor of pidgen English it is that you speak.

A non-native speaker would, if he had any sense, consult an appropriate
dictionary before getting in a snit over the meaning of an English
word, such as "physics".



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 16:37:59 -0000
>
>
>>
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On 5/13/13 4:13 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> >> Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have ever made such a
>> >> measurement lier!!
>> >>
>> >
>> > Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
>> > top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
>> > which results in the earth warming globally.
>>
>> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
>> temperature and it is not.
>
> Same as temperature is continually increasing or decreasing
> during switching seasons ? ;-)

No, moron.

The annual global average would be continually increasing and it is not.




--
Jim Pennino

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 17:11:12 -0000

>
> A non-native speaker would, if he had any sense, consult an appropriate
> dictionary before getting in a snit over the meaning of an English
> word, such as "physics".

Perfect English does not prevent from being a native Usenet troll.
Even more, most of troll are native speakers.

--
Poutnik

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/13 11:37 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley<swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
>>> top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
>>> which results in the earth warming globally.
>
>> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
>> temperature and it is not.
>
> Bingo--The earth is increasing in temperature! The jimp's narrow
> concept of temperatures doesn't take into account all of the earth!

The jimp's concept of temperature is that which is measured by a thermometer,
ass hat.

Thermometers show the Earth is not currently increasing in temperature
and hasn't been for quite some time now.

> The jimp is easily fooled!

The jimp has known how to read a thermometer since grade school, ass hat,
when are you going to learn how to do it?




--
Jim Pennino

[emoneyjoe]

Only a stupid egotist would say they can
measure the total radiation of the Earth to
0.60 watts out of hundreds of watts.

It is BS, and they know it is BS.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

Perhaps true but totally irrelevant to the point that you haven't a
clue what you are talking about, i.e. the definition of "physics".



--
Jim Pennino

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 12:14:07 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You are the one fooled by peer reviewed
papers, there is no way the thermal energy
the AGW nuts claim is missing could be
measurable in the oceans, the difference
in specific heat between water and air
is too great, a whole degree in the air
would be less than a tenth of a degree
in water, unless you want to claim all
the heat is running and hiding in the
same place.

It isn't in the Bermuda Triangle, is it?

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:27:38 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

Translation:

Perfect English does not prevent a native from
being a Usenet troll.

Even more, most trolls are native speakers.


Not a lot of difference, but, I hope it helps.

[benj]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 08:26:40 -0500, Sam Wormley wrote:

> On 5/12/13 10:31 PM, emoneyjoe wrote:
>> Except the average temperature goes up and down.
>
> Try looking at temperature with the "noise" removed.
>> http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-cooling-january-2007-to-
january-2008-intermediate.htm
>> http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/FR11_All.gif
>
>
>> Global temperatures continue to rise steadily beneath the short-term
>> noise.

This is blatant lie. Global temperatures have not risen for well over a
decade. YOU climate clowns are using statistical variations to promote
your criminal tax schemes.

>> The flaw in this interpretation is in drawing conclusions about long
>> term climate change over a relatively short period of time. Only over
>> a period of decades can you confidently discern climate trends.
>> Otherwise, you run the danger of mistaking weather for climate.

Your "flaw" ass-hat is that when confronted with the THIRTY YEARS
(1940-1970) when temperature went DOWN while CO2 went UP you suddenly
lose your hearing. That's not a mistake. That is blatant dishonesty.
Sam, your dishonesty has NO place in real science.

>> Nevertheless, several important questions remain - what's caused the
>> warming of global surface temperatures to slow in the short-term?

Oh sure, "it slowed" rather than has been essentially flat! Sam, perhaps
the answer to your question is that no scientists were recently able to
get away with fudging climate data because in increased scrutiny and
that's why recent temperatures have not been "dramatically rising". (Even
though you repeat over and over and over that they are)

[Wally W.]

No, they claim the warm water defies bouyancy, sinks a half-mile down,
and hides there ... waiting for the mother of all tipping points,
which is not to be confused with all the tipping points that have
passed before.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 11:37 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
> temperature and it is not.

Global Temperature Update Through 2012
> http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 12:13 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> The annual global average would be continually increasing and it is not.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 12:25 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> The jimp's concept of temperature is that which is measured by a thermometer,
> ass hat.
>
> Thermometers show the Earth is not currently increasing in temperature
> and hasn't been for quite some time now.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

A great example of what Darrell Huff was talking about in "How to Lie with
Statistics", ass hat.

Perhaps if you knew any statistics or even read Huff's book you wouldn't
be so impressed with such puerile nonsense.





--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yet again the same puerile response.

Read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and learn why this
graph you worship is utter shit.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

Yet again the same puerile response, ass hat.

[Sam Wormley]

As noted before, the jimp is easily fooled.

The Big Picture Look at Global Warming
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/heat_content55-07.png?w=578&h=396
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture-global-warming.html
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg

> Rapid Global Warming

> Certain climate denialists have also recently tried very hard to
> argue that the planet is not "rapidly warming," although "rapid" is a
> highly subjective term, which they have failed to define.
>
> We can use paleoclimate data to create an objective gauge of what may
> be considered "rapid warming." For example, transitions between
> glacial and interglacial periods are among the most rapid
> warming/cooling events in the paleoclimate record, and occur over
> several thousand years. During these transitions, the Earth's
> average surface temperature changes by approximately 5�C. Thus the
> average rate of warming during a glacial-interglacial transition is
> approximately 1�C per millenium, or 0.01�C per decade. Our current
> rate of warming is approximately 0.08�C per decade over the past 100
> years, 0.17�C per decade over the past 30 years, and is expected to
> increase in upcoming decades unless we get our greenhouse gas
> emissions under control. Thus by an objective measure, the planet is
> indeed warming rapidly.
>
> Reality Check

> The bottom line is that no matter how hard we might try to convince
> ourselves otherwise, every line of observational evidence shows that
> the planet is warming, and from an objective geological perspective,
> it's warming at a rapid rate.

The jimp cannot understand the evidence. :-o

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 6:32 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

> Read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and learn why this
> graph you worship is utter shit.
>

As noted before, the jimp is easily fooled.

The Big Picture Look at Global Warming

> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/heat_content55-07.png?w=578&h=396
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture-global-warming.html
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg
>

> Rapid Global Warming

> Certain climate denialists have also recently tried very hard to
> argue that the planet is not "rapidly warming," although "rapid" is a
> highly subjective term, which they have failed to define.
>
> We can use paleoclimate data to create an objective gauge of what may
> be considered "rapid warming." For example, transitions between
> glacial and interglacial periods are among the most rapid
> warming/cooling events in the paleoclimate record, and occur over
> several thousand years. During these transitions, the Earth's
> average surface temperature changes by approximately 5�C. Thus the
> average rate of warming during a glacial-interglacial transition is
> approximately 1�C per millenium, or 0.01�C per decade. Our current
> rate of warming is approximately 0.08�C per decade over the past 100
> years, 0.17�C per decade over the past 30 years, and is expected to
> increase in upcoming decades unless we get our greenhouse gas
> emissions under control. Thus by an objective measure, the planet is
> indeed warming rapidly.
>
> Reality Check

> The bottom line is that no matter how hard we might try to convince

> ourselves otherwise, *every line of observational evidence shows* that
> the *planet is warming*, and from an objective geological perspective,
> it's *warming at a rapid rate*.

[emoneyjoe]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:57:21 -0500, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com>

AGW warming trend = -------------------------------------------

:-)

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 6:33 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> Read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and learn why this
> graph you worship is utter shit.
>
>

Actually, noting how easily the jimp is fooled, he might want to
read is own book recommendation.

>
> The Big Picture Look at Global Warming
> http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/heat_content55-07.png?w=578&h=396
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/big-picture-global-warming.html
> http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011_med.jpg
>
>

> Reality Check for the jimp

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 20:28:44 -0000

As I do not talking about definition of physics,
you have no clue what I am talking about.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 17:19:03 -0400

> >Perfect English does not prevent from being a native Usenet troll.
>

> Translation:
>
> Perfect English does not prevent a native from
> being a Usenet troll.

No, this translation twisted the intended sense.


--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:46 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
wrote:

No it doesn't, you don't understand English. :-)

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 10:43 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:14:37, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 5/13/13 4:16 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>> Sam there is njo such thing as climate science, You only want to
>>> spout climate FRAUD.
>>
>> You sure about that, Will? Only fumb duckers deny climate science.
>
> Sam: Only fumb duckers claim any science climate FRAUD!
>

Hey Will--Fumb duckers won't even look at the climate data.

The bottom line is that no matter how hard we might try to convince

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 20:17:41 -0400

No, you do not understand, what I wanted to say in sentence.. :-)

a native Usenet troll
NOT
a native being a Usenet troll.

--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:25:10 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 20:17:41 -0400
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:46 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 17:19:03 -0400
>> >
>> >> >Perfect English does not prevent from being a native Usenet troll.
>> >>
>> >> Translation:
>> >>
>> >> Perfect English does not prevent a native from
>> >> being a Usenet troll.
>> >
>> >No, this translation twisted the intended sense.
>>
>> No it doesn't, you don't understand English. :-)
>
>No, you do not understand, what I wanted to say in sentence.. :-)
>
>a native Usenet troll
>NOT
>a native being a Usenet troll.

"prevent from being" is not good English,
so maybe

"Perfect English does not prevent a person
from being a native speaking Usenet troll"

is what you want.

A lot of things are assumed in other
languages so words can be left out, but
in English, all words are needed, very
little is assumed.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 20:28:44 -0000
>
>
>>
>> In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>> >
>> > ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Mon, 13 May 2013 17:11:12 -0000
>> >
>> >>
>> >> A non-native speaker would, if he had any sense, consult an appropriate
>> >> dictionary before getting in a snit over the meaning of an English
>> >> word, such as "physics".
>> >
>> > Perfect English does not prevent from being a native Usenet troll.
>> > Even more, most of troll are native speakers.
>>
>> Perhaps true but totally irrelevant to the point that you haven't a
>> clue what you are talking about, i.e. the definition of "physics".
>>
> As I do not talking about definition of physics,
> you have no clue what I am talking about.

I seldom have a clue what you are talking about because it is in pidgen
English.

However, what started this off is your insistance that things that are
not physics are indeed physics because you haven't an clue what the
word "physics" means.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>
> emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 20:17:41 -0400
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:46 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 17:19:03 -0400
>> >
>> >> >Perfect English does not prevent from being a native Usenet troll.
>> >>
>> >> Translation:
>> >>
>> >> Perfect English does not prevent a native from
>> >> being a Usenet troll.
>> >
>> >No, this translation twisted the intended sense.
>>
>> No it doesn't, you don't understand English. :-)
>
> No, you do not understand, what I wanted to say in sentence.. :-)

No one seems to be able to understand what you wanted to say in your
pidgen English.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

A total lie, ass hat.

Temperature is measured with thermometers and the thermometers show no
current warming at any rate.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/13/13 6:31 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 5/13/13 12:13 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>> The annual global average would be continually increasing and it is not.
>>>
>>>
>>> Global Temperature Update Through 2012
>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
>>
>> A great example of what Darrell Huff was talking about in "How to Lie with
>> Statistics", ass hat.
>>
>> Perhaps if you knew any statistics or even read Huff's book you wouldn't
>> be so impressed with such puerile nonsense.
>>
>
> As noted before, the jimp is easily fooled.

Nope, I actually read the book so I am not fooled by your phoney statistics,
ass hat.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/13 6:32 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
>> Read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and learn why this
>> graph you worship is utter shit.
>>
>
>
> As noted before, the jimp is easily fooled.

Nope, I actually read the book years ago, ass hat, so I am not fooled by
your phoney statistics.



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/13 6:33 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>> Read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and learn why this
>> graph you worship is utter shit.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, noting how easily the jimp is fooled, he might want to
> read is own book recommendation.

Nope, having read the book years ago and actually haven taken classes in
statistics I am not fooled by your puerile statistics, ass hat.




--
Jim Pennino

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 21:26:12 -0400

>
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:25:10 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 20:17:41 -0400
> >
> >
> >>
> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:46 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 17:19:03 -0400
> >> >
> >> >> >Perfect English does not prevent from being a native Usenet troll.
> >> >>
> >> >> Translation:
> >> >>
> >> >> Perfect English does not prevent a native from
> >> >> being a Usenet troll.
> >> >
> >> >No, this translation twisted the intended sense.
> >>
> >> No it doesn't, you don't understand English. :-)
> >
> >No, you do not understand, what I wanted to say in sentence.. :-)
> >
> >a native Usenet troll
> >NOT
> >a native being a Usenet troll.
>
> "prevent from being" is not good English,
> so maybe

So "Good manners prevent us from being rude"
is bad English ?

>
> "Perfect English does not prevent a person
> from being a native speaking Usenet troll"
>
> is what you want.

No, it is not what I want.

I have not used native in sense of speaking,
but rather as a native behaviour, a kind of word game,
as something what is natural to you.

>
> A lot of things are assumed in other
> languages so words can be left out, but
> in English, all words are needed, very
> little is assumed.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Tue, 14 May 2013 01:38:54 -0000

>
> I seldom have a clue what you are talking about because it is in pidgen
> English.

So, most people must have superior ability to understand it.
Why not you ?

>
> However, what started this off is your insistance that things that are
> not physics are indeed physics because you haven't an clue what the
> word "physics" means.
>

Pidgen thinking... Whatever pidgen is,
as Google translate Nor Free dictionary
does not know the word.

Are you claiming that methods of physical chemistry
do not use physical methods and therefore are out of scope of physics ?

Is mass spectroscopy out of physical interest ?


--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Tue, 14 May 2013 01:40:00 -0000

>
> No one seems to be able to understand what you wanted to say in your
> pidgen English.

No one seems to be interested in your trolling,
as your behaviour is a school example of that.

You may be better in English than I am.

But it is shame of you,
how dirty way you use this precious tool
of cultural heritage of your ancestors.


--
Poutnik

[emoneyjoe]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 07:47:13 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>

wrote:

>
>emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 21:26:12 -0400
>
>
>>
>> On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:25:10 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 20:17:41 -0400
>> >
>> >
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 14 May 2013 02:07:46 +0200, Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >emoneyjoe posted Mon, 13 May 2013 17:19:03 -0400
>> >> >
>> >> >> >Perfect English does not prevent from being a native Usenet troll.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Translation:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Perfect English does not prevent a native from
>> >> >> being a Usenet troll.
>> >> >
>> >> >No, this translation twisted the intended sense.
>> >>
>> >> No it doesn't, you don't understand English. :-)
>> >
>> >No, you do not understand, what I wanted to say in sentence.. :-)
>> >
>> >a native Usenet troll
>> >NOT
>> >a native being a Usenet troll.
>>
>> "prevent from being" is not good English,
>> so maybe
>
>So "Good manners prevent us from being rude"
>is bad English ?

No, the word "us" makes it ok.

>> "Perfect English does not prevent a person
>> from being a native speaking Usenet troll"
>>
>> is what you want.
>
>No, it is not what I want.
>
>I have not used native in sense of speaking,
>but rather as a native behaviour, a kind of word game,
>as something what is natural to you.

Well, you have a hostile attitude that
is sure to get you ignored.

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:11:16, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/13 10:41 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> > On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:24:02, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 5/13/13 4:13 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> >>> Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have ever made such a
> >>> measurement lier!!
> >>>
> >>
> >> Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
> >> top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
> >> which results in the earth warming globally.
> >
> > You lie Sam. No such measurement hsas been made!
> >
>
> Why do you claim that, Will?
>
Show the measurements Sam, not the claims>

[Will Janoschka]

Bold faced lies and FRAUD.
>

[Will Janoschka]

On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:10:42, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/13 10:48 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> >
> > Why Sam The noise is where the information is.
>
> If only that were true, Will.
>
-snip nonsense-

The noise is always where the information is.
Never in over massaged statistics.
Sho the numberts not the claims.

[Will Janoschka]

Nutnik being a childish troll.

[Will Janoschka]

On Tue, 14 May 2013 00:00:07, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 5/13/13 6:32 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>
> > Read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and learn why this
> > graph you worship is utter shit.
> >
>
>
> As noted before, the jimp is easily fooled.
>
> The Big Picture Look at Global Warming

-Snip Sam's foolish nonsense-

>
> The jimp cannot understand the evidence. :-o
>

Sam cannot read let alone understand.
>
>
>

[Poutnik]

emoneyjoe posted Tue, 14 May 2013 02:36:24 -0400

> >>
> >> "prevent from being" is not good English,
> >> so maybe
> >
> >So "Good manners prevent us from being rude"
> >is bad English ?
>
> No, the word "us" makes it ok.

And if there no set of people meant particularly,
describing just atributes of good manners ?

>
>
> >> "Perfect English does not prevent a person
> >> from being a native speaking Usenet troll"
> >>
> >> is what you want.
> >
> >No, it is not what I want.
> >
> >I have not used native in sense of speaking,
> >but rather as a native behaviour, a kind of word game,
> >as something what is natural to you.
>
> Well, you have a hostile attitude that
> is sure to get you ignored.
>

The above was explanation, it was not meant personally.
What is natural to you is like native to you.

It was not meant as you have such behaviour.

Will has hostile attitude, not me.
He is spitting around all the time.

--
Poutnik

[Poutnik]

Will Janoschka posted Tue, 14 May 2013 02:46:31 -0500

More you are spitting around,
more mke people a proper picture about you themselves.

--
Poutnik

[Tom P]

On 05/11/2013 05:01 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
> On Fri, 10 May 2013 17:49:39, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 10/05/13 16:16, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 14:57:47 +0100, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/05/13 14:49, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 10 May 2013 09:19:35 +0100, RedAcer <rred...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 09/05/13 23:32, emoneyjoe wrote:
>>>>>>> On Thu, 09 May 2013 14:55:39 -0600, Desertphile
>>>>>>> <Deser...@spammegmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On Wed, 08 May 2013 19:16:55 -0400, emoneyjoe <emon...@iglou.com>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Cooling Processes of Water, Water Vapor, and Clouds
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Evaporation from the ocean alone is far more cooling than
>>>>>>>>> the warming effects of water vapor in the atmosphere because
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> WTF?? Without thre current amount of water vapor in Earth's atmosphere
>>>>>>>> one would need a great deal more CO2 than it currently has to keep
>>>>>>>> Earth from freezing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is the problem with the entire AGW
>>>>>>> mess, the premise that GHGs are what warms
>>>>>>> the Earth.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The sun warms the Earth, stupid, and
>>>>>>> the rocks and soil radiate IR away.
>>>>>>> The N2 and O2 do not radiate much,
>>>>>>> and that is what holds the heat, the gases
>>>>>>> that do not radiate much.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That fact has been explained to you literally
>>>>>>>> more than 200 times; that fact has been known since the mid 1800s.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not that many, and it is false, the error
>>>>>>> may have originated with a statement made
>>>>>>> in a paper long ago about the Earth without
>>>>>>> an atmosphere being much colder.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do any of the crystal ball gazers realize
>>>>>>> that an Earth without an atmosphere is NOT
>>>>>>> an Earth with an N2 and O2 atmosphere?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> it is the surface where temperature counts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. It is the oceans' global average temperature that counts, as it is
>>>>>>>> the oceans that control Earth'sclimate.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is where the data used in the average
>>>>>>> annual global temperature is recorded.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The oceans are cold, and it requires
>>>>>>> a lot more thermal energy to raise the
>>>>>>> temperature of water one degree than
>>>>>>> it takes to raise the temperature of air.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And tree and foliage transpiration results in more cooling than any
>>>>>>>>> of the other warming GH processes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What the fuck? No.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Absolutely, because most of the
>>>>>>> GH processes involve radiating IR
>>>>>>> to space, the entire atmosphere is
>>>>>>> cooled by IR radiation to space,
>>>>>>> by GHGs, otherwise the N2 and O2
>>>>>>> would retain a lot more heat than
>>>>>>> at present.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ask any AGW crystal gazer what
>>>>>>> cools the atmosphere and see what
>>>>>>> they say.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If they don't say GreenHouse Gases,
>>>>>>> they are either lying, or as stupid as you.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What would the average temperature of the earth be if it had no atmosphere?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that a joke?
>>>>>
>>>>> The question of what GHGs do is not
>>>>> answered by considering an Earth without
>>>>> an atmosphere, it is answered by the
>>>>> consideration of an Earth with the same
>>>>> atmosphere as it has at present , but
>>>>> without GHGs and without water.
>>>>>
>>>>> If the Earth was warmer with just
>>>>> an N2 and O2 atmosphere than it is
>>>>> now, that shows that GHGs cool
>>>>> the atmosphere.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then the question is, would more
>>>>> CO2 cool the Earth more?
>>>>>
>>>>> More CO2 clearly cools the upper
>>>>> atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>> Bu;, what would the average temperature of the earth be if it had no
>>>> atmosphere?
>>>> Would it have one? Do you know it? Could you calculate it? Have you
>>>> looked it up?
>>>
>>> You aren't being funny, humor is not
>>> going to hide the fact that there is a flaw
>>> in AGW, and it was caused by the gossip
>>> about an Earth without an atmosphere.
>>>
>>> Even that thought is flawed, because
>>> an average temperature doesn't mean
>>> much if the extremes are too far apart,
>>> the atmosphere retains heat, but not
>>> as much as just N2 and O2 would retain,
>>> because N2 and O2 could not radiate
>>> much heat to space.
>>>
>>> I wish the AGW cult wasn't so stupid,
>>> and could do rational thinking, rather
>>> than just using gossip as the only source
>>> for ideas.
>>>
>>> Rational thought became more useful
>>> when the lead pencil was invented, being
>>> able to write something down, and think
>>> about it more is what lead to the rapid
>>> progress in science and technology.
>>>
>>> Too bad there is a group that ignores
>>> rational thought and thrives on gossip.
>>
>> Let's just stick to one thing at a time. Can a bare planet, without an
>> atmosphere, have a temperature? Its a simple question. Assume it's
>> rotating fast enough so that it doesn't have time to cool down much
>> before the sun rises again.
>>
> All the bare rock planet have many many temperatures the temperatures
> all depending on spatial and spectral reflectivity at that point To
> assume
> that any physical thing acts anywhere near a black-body is a fatal
> mistake.
> this parameter has never even been measured even here on Earth by
> your Climate Clowns. They are way to busy spouting nonsense.
>
>

However, we can measure the temperatures and the spectral properties of
the moon and Mars.
Why should a bare rock planet be notably different?

[Tom P]

Climate science is a branch of planetary physics, which is a branch of
astrophysics, which is a branch of physics.

[Tom P]

On 05/13/2013 07:11 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> On 5/13/13 10:41 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 13:24:02, Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/13/13 4:13 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:
>>>> Not you Sam or any other of your climate clowns have ever made such a
>>>> measurement lier!!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Will, the measurement incoming and outgoing radiation through the
>>> top of the earth's atmosphere average to a difference of 0.6 W/m^2
>>> which results in the earth warming globally.
>>
>> You lie Sam. No such measurement hsas been made!
>>
>
> Why do you claim that, Will?
>
>

Sam, you may have noticed by now that Will is a troll of the worst type.

[Tom P]

On 05/14/2013 01:33 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/13 11:37 AM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> If that were true, then the Earth would be continually increasing in
>>> temperature and it is not.

>>
>> Global Temperature Update Through 2012
>>> http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
>

> Yet again the same puerile response, ass hat.

>
> Read "How to Lie with Statistics" by Darrell Huff and learn why this
> graph you worship is utter shit.
>
>
>

In that case, please provide us a copy of the correct graph.

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Tue, 14 May 2013 01:38:54 -0000
>
>>
>> I seldom have a clue what you are talking about because it is in pidgen
>> English.
>
> So, most people must have superior ability to understand it.
> Why not you ?
>>
>> However, what started this off is your insistance that things that are
>> not physics are indeed physics because you haven't an clue what the
>> word "physics" means.
>>
> Pidgen thinking... Whatever pidgen is,
> as Google translate Nor Free dictionary
> does not know the word.

The phrase "pidgen English" refers to the garbled English spoken by
non-native speakers, also sometimes called "pigeon English".

> Are you claiming that methods of physical chemistry
> do not use physical methods and therefore are out of scope of physics ?

I am saying your entire question is just babbling nonsense with zero
understanding of the words you are using.

> Is mass spectroscopy out of physical interest ?

Yet more gibberish with zero understanding of the words you are using.

Physics in the modern world is the study of matter, motion through time
and space, energy, and force.

In the modern world there are many interdisciplinary areas such as
quantum chemistry where the boundaries between chemistry and physics
are blurred.

Your view that physics is the study of everything is the antique view
of natural philosophy from 2,000 years ago.




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:
>

> ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com posted Tue, 14 May 2013 01:40:00 -0000
>
>>
>> No one seems to be able to understand what you wanted to say in your
>> pidgen English.
>
> No one seems to be interested in your trolling,
> as your behaviour is a school example of that.

What?

> You may be better in English than I am.

The neighbor's five year old speaks better English than you do.

> But it is shame of you,
> how dirty way you use this precious tool
> of cultural heritage of your ancestors.

What?


--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Poutnik <pou...@privacy.invalid> wrote:

> More you are spitting around,
> more mke people a proper picture about you themselves.

What?



--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

I would agree with that and there are separate groups for climate science,
planetary physics, and astrophysics.

So post the crap in a group where it is directly related instead of one
that is 3 levels away.




--
Jim Pennino

[ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com]

In sci.physics Tom P <wero...@freent.dd> wrote:

Obviously yet another person who has neither taken statistics classes
nor read the book.

The point is not whether or not the graph is "correct", the point is that
the graph is drawn in such a way to exaggerate the importance of certain
information and minimize the importance of other information.





--
Jim Pennino

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/14/13 2:37 AM, Will Janoschka wrote:

> The noise is always where the information is. Never in over massaged
> statistics. Sho the numberts not the claims.

http://edu-observatory.org/olli/Climate/FR11_All.gif

[Sam Wormley]

Will, some say you are a troll of the worst type. I just wonder how
you got to be so ignorant of climate science.

[Sam Wormley]

On 5/13/13 8:42 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 5/13/13 6:31 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>> In sci.physics Sam Wormley <swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On 5/13/13 12:13 PM, ji...@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:
>>>>> The annual global average would be continually increasing and it is not.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Global Temperature Update Through 2012
>>>>> http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/719139main_2012_GISTEMP_summary.pdf
>>>
>>> A great example of what Darrell Huff was talking about in "How to Lie with
>>> Statistics", ass hat.
>>>
>>> Perhaps if you knew any statistics or even read Huff's book you wouldn't
>>> be so impressed with such puerile nonsense.
>>>
>>
>> As noted before, the jimp is easily fooled.
>
> Nope, I actually read the book so I am not fooled by your phoney statistics,
> ass hat.
>

Perfect example, jimp, of how easily you fool yourself. You might want
to read that book anew! :-o

[Sam Wormley]