>>>>>>>>> If you aren't able to grasp the basics, why continue to make an ass >>>>>>>>> out of yourself?
>>>>>>>> One of my buddies called me up last night and asked me how >>>>>>>> I felt about the global warming falling out of the sky..
>>>>>>>> I told him it sure beat having to to mow the yard again, >>>>>>>> though I knew I was going to have shovel out a path to the >>>>>>>> car to grab some stuff I'd left in it.. About a foot deep too.
>>>>>>>> He, in turn, reported that he'd not had as many tomatoes this >>>>>>>> year, owing to the sustained warmth (above 65'F) hadn't permitted >>>>>>>> the vines to set as much fruit this past season..
>>>>>>>> --It's a friendly sort of rivalry we have..
>>>>>>> Sounds more like two morons trying to out-idiot
>>>>>> Too bad you weren't around when I told him that we'd be recycling >>>>>> refrigerants (eg Freon) because of the ozone hole they affected..
>>>>>> --Guess how that turned out..
>>>>> The Ozone Hole has gotten bigger since the ban took place.
>>>> No, proving it was even more urgent that we banned the CFC's >>>> and developed alternatives for than we first recognized..
>>>>> Any other 'pre-DICK-tions" you wanna make?
>>>> Yeah, you're going to your own death, blithely ignorant of the >>>> entire world of science, and we won't miss your ambitious ignorance >>>> in the least..
>>>>> Truth be told, climate is a lot harder to model than >>>>> the AGW'tards think.
>>>> And, precisely what sort of experience with that can your present?
>>>> To be certain, it could be improved by some new insights, >>>> but simply saying that it is more difficult than some >>>> vague value of " the AGW 'tards" isn't helping your critique..
>>>>> All the more reason to adopt China's attitude >>>>> and go slow on greenhouse gas caps.
>>>> Nope, you're again bass-ackwards on this matter..
>>>> --Please continue striving for your very own Darwin Award..
>>> Projection
>> I note that you haven't presented anything regarding how the >> climate is modeled, nor your experience with such work. And >> don't forget your original faux pas about the Ozone Hole..
>> --Which I though might hit your 'mute' button.. *>LOL!<*
> Do you have experience modeling the Navier-Stokes equation?
Yes, indeed I do.. In fact, I was going back over the foundations of that in my differentials, ODE's to be exact, textbook..
Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?
> Then why do you get into a modern 747
I haven't flown in one of those yet..
> Let's hear your pig ignorant views
I don't have any 'pig ignorant views', I'm degreed in physics..
> The real debate is not with you and these newsgroups
Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from global warming exists. The 'debate', such as it is now, is now centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing in the next few decades. The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative" the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..
So, yes, it can be a stone-cold bitch to solve for that many variables when the initial boundary conditions are but estimates, but we've gotten higher quality systems of measurements and the observational data from weather satellites is much more precise..
That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation' sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..
On Dec 26, 1:19 pm, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> I note that you haven't presented anything regarding how the > >> climate is modeled, nor your experience with such work. And > >> don't forget your original faux pas about the Ozone Hole..
> >> --Which I though might hit your 'mute' button.. *>LOL!<*
> > Do you have experience modeling the Navier-Stokes equation?
> Yes, indeed I do.. In fact, I was going back over the foundations > of that in my differentials, ODE's to be exact, textbook..
Very good, you're a cut above your typical Green. But as flawed.
> Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?
Not much, not without Googling it. From memory this is a pseudoforce that comes with having a non-inertial frame of reference, or a relativistic term. Let me Google it... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor–vector–scalar_gravity Yes, I was right. It's a Lagrangian term that comes with moving with the particle. Nothing to do with AGW but you win the point--you know your stuff, after memorizing it for a decade. Good boy.
> > Then why do you get into a modern 747
> I haven't flown in one of those yet..
Really, you should get out more. You live in the boondocks.
> > The real debate is not with you and these newsgroups
> Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from > global warming exists. The 'debate', such as it is now, is now > centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing > in the next few decades. The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone > in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative" > the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..
Right, we are in agreement here. But CFCs also show how "wrong" the models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right? All the more reason to go slow.
> So, yes, it can be a stone-cold bitch to solve for that many > variables when the initial boundary conditions are but estimates, > but we've gotten higher quality systems of measurements and the > observational data from weather satellites is much more precise..
Still doesn't matter, as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the boundary conditions being off 1% can affect the trajectory very dramatically. Any degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear to a strong degree.
> That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's > EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation' > sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..
> --See subject header for details, cupcakes..
Not clear what you mean here, fruitcake. You mean real news is found in your favorite site, "alt.fan.rush-limbaugh"? OK nutter. Goodbye you failed excuse for a physics major!
> On Dec 26, 1:19 pm, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >> I note that you haven't presented anything regarding how the > > >> climate is modeled, nor your experience with such work. And > > >> don't forget your original faux pas about the Ozone Hole..
> > >> --Which I though might hit your 'mute' button.. *>LOL!<*
> > > Do you have experience modeling the Navier-Stokes equation?
> > Yes, indeed I do.. In fact, I was going back over the foundations > > of that in my differentials, ODE's to be exact, textbook..
> Very good, you're a cut above your typical Green. But as flawed.
> > Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?
> Not much, not without Googling it. From memory this is a pseudoforce > that comes with having a non-inertial frame of reference, or a > relativistic term. Let me Google it...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tensor–vector–scalar_gravity > Yes, I was right. It's a Lagrangian term that comes with moving with > the particle. Nothing to do with AGW but you win the point--you know > your stuff, after memorizing it for a decade. Good boy.
> > > Then why do you get into a modern 747
> > I haven't flown in one of those yet..
> Really, you should get out more. You live in the boondocks.
> > > The real debate is not with you and these newsgroups
> > Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from > > global warming exists. The 'debate', such as it is now, is now > > centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing > > in the next few decades. The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone > > in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative" > > the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..
> Right, we are in agreement here. But CFCs also show how "wrong" the > models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right? All the more reason > to go slow.
> > So, yes, it can be a stone-cold bitch to solve for that many > > variables when the initial boundary conditions are but estimates, > > but we've gotten higher quality systems of measurements and the > > observational data from weather satellites is much more precise..
> Still doesn't matter, as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the > boundary conditions being off 1% can affect the trajectory very > dramatically. Any degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is > nonlinear to a strong degree.
> > That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's > > EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation' > > sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..
> > --See subject header for details, cupcakes..
> Not clear what you mean here, fruitcake. You mean real news is found > in your favorite site, "alt.fan.rush-limbaugh"? OK nutter. Goodbye > you failed excuse for a physics major!
> RL
Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based, I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a fantasy of Gorean proportions.
> Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and > another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the > Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based, > I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a > fantasy of Gorean proportions.
You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise. Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it to say.
On Dec 26, 8:59 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/26/09 7:38 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
> > Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and > > another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the > > Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based, > > I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a > > fantasy of Gorean proportions.
> You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take > global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise. > Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it > to say.
As opposed to AGW alarmists that *make* the data say what they want it to.
> On Dec 26, 8:59 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/26/09 7:38 PM, Frogwatch wrote:
>>> Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and >>> another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the >>> Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based, >>> I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a >>> fantasy of Gorean proportions.
>> You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take >> global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise. >> Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it >> to say.
> As opposed to AGW alarmists that *make* the data say what they want it > to.
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>> GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>> GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>> On Dec 25, 10:25 am, GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> whined/opined: ------- >>>>>>> The Ozone Hole has gotten bigger since the ban took place.
>>>>>> No, proving it was even more urgent that we banned the CFC's >>>>>> and developed alternatives for than we first recognized..
>>>>>>> Any other 'pre-DICK-tions" you wanna make?
>>>>>> Yeah, you're going to your own death, blithely ignorant of the >>>>>> entire world of science, and we won't miss your ambitious ignorance >>>>>> in the least..
>>>>>>> Truth be told, climate is a lot harder to model than >>>>>>> the AGW'tards think.
>>>>>> And, precisely what sort of experience with that can your present?
>>>>>> To be certain, it could be improved by some new insights, >>>>>> but simply saying that it is more difficult than some >>>>>> vague value of " the AGW 'tards" isn't helping your critique..
>>>>>>> All the more reason to adopt China's attitude >>>>>>> and go slow on greenhouse gas caps.
>>>>>> Nope, you're again bass-ackwards on this matter..
>>>>>> --Please continue striving for your very own Darwin Award..
>>>>> Projection
>>>> I note that you haven't presented anything regarding how the >>>> climate is modeled, nor your experience with such work. And >>>> don't forget your original faux pas about the Ozone Hole..
>>>> --Which I though might hit your 'mute' button.. *>LOL!<*
>>> Do you have experience modeling the Navier-Stokes equation?
>> Yes, indeed I do.. In fact, I was going back over the foundations >> of that in my differentials, ODE's to be exact, textbook..
> Very good, you're a cut above
Yes, it's painfully self-evident..
>> Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?
> Not much, not without Googling it.
That's as I suspected. I'm more concerned with predicting the fields using radiometry to test the hypothesis..
>>> Then why do you get into a modern 747
>> I haven't flown in one of those yet..
> Really, you should get out more.
It doesn't pay as good as it used to..
> You live in the boondocks.
Yup.. And your point as?
>>> Let's hear your pig ignorant views
>> I don't have any 'pig ignorant views', I'm degreed in physics..
>>> The real debate is not with you and these newsgroups
>> Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from >> global warming exists. The 'debate', such as it is now, is now >> centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing >> in the next few decades. The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone >> in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative" >> the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..
> Right, we are in agreement here. But CFCs also show how "wrong" the > models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right?
In both cases, we're seeing that we've erred in being too conservative with our estimates of the situation.
>> So, yes, it can be a stone-cold bitch to solve for that many >> variables when the initial boundary conditions are but estimates, >> but we've gotten higher quality systems of measurements and the >> observational data from weather satellites is much more precise..
> Still doesn't matter,
Yes, it does. Our measurements are establishing better the sorts of boundaries and initial values for the variables that are being modeled..
> as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the boundary conditions > being off 1% can affect the trajectory very dramatically. Any > degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear to a > strong degree.
Could you translate that again please?
>> That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's >> EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation' >> sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..
>> --See subject header for details, cupcakes..
> Not clear what you mean here
Yeah, that was becoming increasingly clear from your bloviations..
On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:22 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/26/09 7:38 PM, Frogwatch wrote: >> Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and >> another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the >> Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based, >> I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a >> fantasy of Gorean proportions.
> You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take > global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise. > Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it > to say.
What data, is it in the 3rd grade textbook you use?
Please ask Al Gore to send some warmer weather, at least something above zero C.
> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:22 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> > wrote:
>> On 12/26/09 7:38 PM, Frogwatch wrote: >>> Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and >>> another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the >>> Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based, >>> I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a >>> fantasy of Gorean proportions.
>> You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take >> global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise. >> Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it >> to say.
> What data, is it in the 3rd grade textbook you use?
> Please ask Al Gore to send some warmer weather, > at least something above zero C.
You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing sci.physics in your replies.
> >>> Do you have experience modeling the Navier-Stokes equation?
> >> Yes, indeed I do.. In fact, I was going back over the foundations > >> of that in my differentials, ODE's to be exact, textbook..
> > Very good, you're a cut above
> Yes, it's painfully self-evident..
> >> Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?
> > Not much, not without Googling it.
> That's as I suspected. I'm more concerned with predicting the > fields using radiometry to test the hypothesis..
Good. You're about a generation behind the geophysicists who already use gravity anomalies to find oil formations.
> >>> Then why do you get into a modern 747
> >> I haven't flown in one of those yet..
> > Really, you should get out more.
> It doesn't pay as good as it used to..
True, and it will get worse if you Greens win. Economic stagnation. An economic Ice Age and Holocause, simultaneously.
> > You live in the boondocks.
> Yup.. And your point as?
That's my point. You're out of touch, a hick.
> >> Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from > >> global warming exists. The 'debate', such as it is now, is now > >> centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing > >> in the next few decades. The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone > >> in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative" > >> the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..
> > Right, we are in agreement here. But CFCs also show how "wrong" the > > models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right?
> In both cases, we're seeing that we've erred in being too > conservative with our estimates of the situation.
No, the opposite. Even cutting CO2 dramatically may not solve GW.
> > Still doesn't matter,
> Yes, it does. Our measurements are establishing better > the sorts of boundaries and initial values for the variables > that are being modeled..
> > as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the boundary conditions > > being off 1% can affect the trajectory very dramatically. Any > > degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear to a > > strong degree.
> Could you translate that again please?
You're a brainaic and you can't understand what I just wrote? Your pedigree is suspect now. I'm beginning to think you're like that other bloke on this thread pretending to be degreed.
On Dec 27, 4:38 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
> Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW > deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking against > man-made global warming.
Wrong. The rest of your post therefore can be ignored. An iota is a scintilla is a sot is a speck. There is more than an iota.
> The science is still based on data which stands on its own, models are > perfectly valid, there is agreement between data and models, and the > models are able to predict what will happen to man-made global warming > in a century from now. Our predicament is charted a century ahead, yet > we fail to reach firm international agreement to curb greenhouse gas > emissions.
I see--sarcasm is your weapon of choice. You can also backwardly fit any n-th order polynomial to any stock market data you like, but it will fail to predict the future. That's because the stock market, like climate, is nonlinear. Too advanced for you rabbit, but trust the experts.
[Boring pseudo policy prescriptions from somebody who has no clue about how politics work deleted]
On Dec 27, 10:08 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot > of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing > sci.physics in your replies.
Can't stand the heat, Sam Worm? I don't ordinarily post in sci.physics not because of my physics background but because flakes hang out there--is that you?
> On Dec 27, 10:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: >> You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot >> of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing >> sci.physics in your replies.
> Can't stand the heat, Sam Worm? I don't ordinarily post in > sci.physics not because of my physics background but because flakes > hang out there--is that you?
> RL
I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.
On Dec 27, 4:20 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:38 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
> > Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW > > deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking against > > man-made global warming.
> Wrong. The rest of your post therefore can be ignored. An iota is a > scintilla is a sot is a speck. There is more than an iota.
OK, so you say. But you seem not to want to share it with us. Any particular reason?
> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>> GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>> GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>> GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> courageously deleted and bleated:
>>>>>>> Man_of_Mind restored the hilarious bitch-slappings administered to:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 25, 10:25 am, GayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> whined/opined: --------- >>>>>>>>> The Ozone Hole has gotten bigger since the ban took place.
>>>>>>>> No, proving it was even more urgent that we banned the CFC's >>>>>>>> and developed alternatives for than we first recognized..
>>>>>>>>> Any other 'pre-DICK-tions" you wanna make?
>>>>>>>> Yeah, you're going to your own death, blithely ignorant of the >>>>>>>> entire world of science, and we won't miss your ambitious ignorance >>>>>>>> in the least..
>>>>>>>>> Truth be told, climate is a lot harder to model than >>>>>>>>> the AGW'tards think.
>>>>>>>> And, precisely what sort of experience with that can your present?
>>>>>>>> To be certain, it could be improved by some new insights, >>>>>>>> but simply saying that it is more difficult than some >>>>>>>> vague value of " the AGW 'tards" isn't helping your critique..
>>>>>>>>> All the more reason to adopt China's attitude >>>>>>>>> and go slow on greenhouse gas caps.
>>>>>>>> Nope, you're again bass-ackwards on this matter..
>>>>>>>> --Please continue striving for your very own Darwin Award..
>>>>>>> Projection
>>>>>> I note that you haven't presented anything regarding how the >>>>>> climate is modeled, nor your experience with such work. And >>>>>> don't forget your original faux pas about the Ozone Hole..
>>>>>> --Which I though might hit your 'mute' button.. *>LOL!<*
>>>>> Do you have experience modeling the Navier-Stokes equation?
>>>> Yes, indeed I do.. In fact, I was going back over the foundations >>>> of that in my differentials, ODE's to be exact, textbook..
>>> Very good, you're a cut above
>> Yes, it's painfully self-evident..
>>>> Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?
>>> Not much, not without Googling it.
>> That's as I suspected. I'm more concerned with predicting the >> fields using radiometry to test the hypothesis..
> Good. You're about a generation behind the geophysicists who > already use gravity anomalies to find oil formations.
Nooo, you're about two 'generations' behind me. I'm looking for a 'bow shock' off of a moving gravitational field..
What's the speed of gravity, Gomez?
>>>>> Then why do you get into a modern 747
>>>> I haven't flown in one of those yet..
>>> Really, you should get out more.
>> It doesn't pay as good as it used to..
> True, and it will get worse if you Greens win
Another false premise, supposition and conclusion on the behalf of a "geophysicist"? *>LOL!<* That's dubious..
>>> You live in the boondocks.
>> Yup.. And your point as?
> That's my point. You're out of touch, a hick.
That would be an unproven/unprovable negative claim on your behalf..
>>>> I don't have any 'pig ignorant views', I'm degreed in physics..
>>>>> The real debate is not with you and these newsgroups
>>>> Indeed, it also not about whether a climate change resulting from >>>> global warming exists. The 'debate', such as it is now, is now >>>> centered entirely upon how much of an effect we will be experiencing >>>> in the next few decades. The after-effects of CFC's upon the ozone >>>> in the upper atmosphere is but an example of just how "conservative" >>>> the estimates from the 'computer models' have turned out to be..
>>> Right, we are in agreement here. But CFCs also show how "wrong" the >>> models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right?
>> In both cases, we're seeing that we've erred in being too >> conservative with our estimates of the situation.
> No, the opposite.
And your reasoning for that is?
> Even cutting CO2 dramatically may not solve GW.
So, your solution is to do nothing..
*>sigh<* The subject header seems to appropriate now..
>>>> So, yes, it can be a stone-cold bitch to solve for that many >>>> variables when the initial boundary conditions are but estimates, >>>> but we've gotten higher quality systems of measurements and the >>>> observational data from weather satellites is much more precise..
>>> Still doesn't matter,
>> Yes, it does. Our measurements are establishing better >> the sorts of boundaries and initial values for the variables >> that are being modeled..
>>> as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the boundary conditions >>> being off 1% can affect the trajectory very dramatically. Any >>> degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear to a >>> strong degree.
>> Could you translate that again please?
> You're a brainaic and you can't understand what I just wrote?
I think that you're being a little imprecise with your words..
"Any degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear to a strong degree."
Would you like to revise that?
> Your pedigree is suspect now.
Really? I was thinking much the same of your inane babblings..
> I'm beginning to think you're like that other bloke on this > thread pretending to be degreed.
I see that Sam has you pinned for a liar as well..
Example follows..
>>>> That said, the 'real debate' is also not taking place on Inhofe's >>>> EPS blog-site, nor any of the pseudo-science 'disinformation' >>>> sources that you frightie-righties are want to cut-n-paste from..
>>>> --See subject header for details, cupcakes..
>>> Not clear what you mean here
>> Yeah, that was becoming increasingly clear from your bloviations..
>On 12/27/09 5:31 AM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> On Sat, 26 Dec 2009 19:59:22 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> >> wrote:
>>> On 12/26/09 7:38 PM, Frogwatch wrote: >>>> Having a BS degree in physics, an MS degree in Applied physics and >>>> another MS degree in physics AND an MSEE and having worked on the >>>> Infra-red spectroscopy models on which global warming theory is based, >>>> I might know a tiny bit about AGW and I declare it to be pure BS, a >>>> fantasy of Gorean proportions.
>>> You sound just like that silly Martian, Marvin, who fails to take >>> global climate change seriously, when the data indicates otherwise. >>> Marvin likes to dismiss all data that doesn't fit what he wants it >>> to say.
>> What data, is it in the 3rd grade textbook you use?
>> Please ask Al Gore to send some warmer weather, >> at least something above zero C.
> You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot > of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing > sci.physics in your replies.
Ok newbie, I spent about 15 years hanging out in sci.physics, where were you, in elementary school?
I don't usually remove newsgroups, prior posters are responsible for them, and removing any breaks the thread for some interested people.
But if you only read and post in sci.physics, maybe I would be doing everybody a favor, fiction about future disasters is not of widespread interest.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/27/09 9:22 AM, RayLopez99 wrote: >> On Dec 27, 10:08 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> You guys that normally don't hang out in sci.physics have a lot >>> of difficult discussing the physics, so I would suggest removing >>> sci.physics in your replies.
>> Can't stand the heat, Sam Worm? I don't ordinarily post in >> sci.physics not because of my physics background but because flakes >> hang out there--is that you?
>> RL
> I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course > you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration > and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.
And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?
I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics must have CO2 on the brain.
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>> I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course >> you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration >> and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.
> And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?
> I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics > must have CO2 on the brain.
On Dec 27, 11:11 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor...@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
> On Dec 27, 4:20 pm, RayLopez99 <raylope...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 27, 4:38 am, Rav1ng rabbit <rab...@dot.com> wrote:
> > > Let me add to this, on day 38 and counting after climate gate the AGW > > > deniers industry has not found one iota of evidence speaking against > > > man-made global warming.
> > Wrong. The rest of your post therefore can be ignored. An iota is a > > scintilla is a sot is a speck. There is more than an iota.
> OK, so you say. But you seem not to want to share it with us. Any > particular reason?
• ROTFLMAO Where is the evidence speaking *for* "man-made global warming"?
> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
> >> I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course > >> you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration > >> and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.
> > And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?
> > I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics > > must have CO2 on the brain.
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 17:23:28 -0600, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 12/27/09 4:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote: >> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> >>> I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course >>> you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration >>> and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.
>> And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?
>> I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics >> must have CO2 on the brain.
>Remember:
Remember what, something fictional, made up, some hypothetical computer climate model program parameters with no rational physical basis?
I think you are covering to much ground with too little close inspection, I found your first post to sci.physics and it was a snotty one line retort, hardly a discussion of physics.
<last_p...@primus.ca> wrote: >On Dec 27, 6:23 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/27/09 4:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>> > On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>> >> I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course >> >> you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration >> >> and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.
>> > And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?
>> > I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics >> > must have CO2 on the brain.
Peter Muehlbauer wrote: > "I M @ good guy"<I...@good.guy> wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 16:02:12 -0800 (PST), Last Post >> <last_p...@primus.ca> wrote:
>>> On Dec 27, 6:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 12/27/09 4:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>>>>>> I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course >>>>>> you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration >>>>>> and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.
>>>>> And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?
>>>>> I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics >>>>> must have CO2 on the brain.
> On Dec 27, 6:23 pm, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On 12/27/09 4:53 PM, I M @ good guy wrote:
>>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 09:38:43 -0600, Sam Wormley<sworml...@gmail.com>
>>>> I suggest you not post at all in sci.physics, unless, of course >>>> you would like to discuss some physics, such as all the vibration >>>> and rotation modes of the O-C-O molecule.
>>> And you don't understand there is a lot more H-O-H?
>>> I have heard of water on the brain, but AGW fanatics >>> must have CO2 on the brain.
On Dec 27, 1:26 pm, Man_of_Mind <baron.von.m...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Know anything about gravitational tensors, punk?
> >>> Not much, not without Googling it.
> >> That's as I suspected. I'm more concerned with predicting the > >> fields using radiometry to test the hypothesis..
> > Good. You're about a generation behind the geophysicists who > > already use gravity anomalies to find oil formations.
> Nooo, you're about two 'generations' behind me. I'm looking > for a 'bow shock' off of a moving gravitational field..
> What's the speed of gravity, Gomez?
I see. You are replicating the "pop science" you saw in a magazine like Omni (defunct) or Popular Mechanics. This experiment is best left to CERN and the big boys, not a backyard laboratory hick like you. Better if you spend your time doing original research and not trying to puff up your resume with fashionable science. Shame on you (or us, if you're funded by taxpayers). Speed of gravity? Less than light it gravitons exist and have mass, otherwise, equal to light and possibly even greater than light. BTW back in the 1960s gravity waves were first attempted to be found, I forgot the scientist but his apparatus was about the size of a coffee can as I recall. He was a bit eccentric too, like you, but the difference was he was a genius, unlike you.
> >>>>> Then why do you get into a modern 747
> >>>> I haven't flown in one of those yet..
> >>> Really, you should get out more.
> >> It doesn't pay as good as it used to..
> > True, and it will get worse if you Greens win
> Another false premise, supposition and conclusion on the > behalf of a "geophysicist"? *>LOL!<* That's dubious..
No it's not. You're going to opine about economics too? Jack of all trades (master of none).
> >>> You live in the boondocks.
> >> Yup.. And your point as?
> > That's my point. You're out of touch, a hick.
> That would be an unproven/unprovable negative claim on your behalf..
The proof was supplied by you, hayseed. You've never flown in a Boeing jumbo jet. Possibly never flow in a plane at all, if you live in cramped and tiny England.
> >>> Right, we are in agreement here. But CFCs also show how "wrong" the > >>> models are...so why should the AGW GCMs be right?
> >> In both cases, we're seeing that we've erred in being too > >> conservative with our estimates of the situation.
> > No, the opposite.
> And your reasoning for that is?
> > Even cutting CO2 dramatically may not solve GW.
> So, your solution is to do nothing..
My solution is a mild carbon tax, for budget balancing and Peak Oil mitigating reasons, as the science behind AGW is still unsettled.
> >> Yes, it does. Our measurements are establishing better > >> the sorts of boundaries and initial values for the variables > >> that are being modeled..
> >>> as you might recall from nonlinear PDEs the boundary conditions > >>> being off 1% can affect the trajectory very dramatically. Any > >>> degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear to a > >>> strong degree.
> >> Could you translate that again please?
> > You're a brainaic and you can't understand what I just wrote?
> I think that you're being a little imprecise with your words..
> "Any degree of imprecision is fatal of climate is nonlinear > to a strong degree."
> Would you like to revise that?
Yes, but if you had an iota of brains you would simply substitute "as" for the second "of".
> > Your pedigree is suspect now.
> Really? I was thinking much the same of your inane babblings..
Then start thinking junior, and quit parroting what others say and do.
> > I'm beginning to think you're like that other bloke on this > > thread pretending to be degreed.
> I see that Sam has you pinned for a liar as well..
Sam the censor bigot? Yes he wants me to stop posting in sci.physics. I guess he can't stand somebody else stealing his limelight I suppose.
|
