| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Michael Gordge" |
| Date: |
15 Dec 2007 07:20:37 PM |
| Object: |
Can Bwet Save Gore? |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0
Helps to show how fucking meaningless and infiltrated by commie
retards the Nobel Prize scam is these days.
MG
.
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Bwet Save Gore? |
15 Dec 2007 08:49:26 PM |
|
|
On Dec 15, 5:20 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0
Helps to show how fucking meaningless and infiltrated by commie
retards the Nobel Prize scam is these days.
MG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpu7IZcdzXE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WtF0l-yuL6E
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Bwet Save Gore? |
15 Dec 2007 09:49:48 PM |
|
|
On Dec 16, 11:49 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 15, 5:20 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0
Helps to show how fucking meaningless and infiltrated by commie
retards the Nobel Prize scam is these days.
MG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpu7IZcdzXE
Commie hysterical piffle, a pack of fucking lies, contradicted by the
fact that levels of Co2 FOLLOW and dont lead temperature change.
And to believe that reducing a gas in the atmosphere by 0.0000000023%
is going to stop the world getting hotter can only happen in the mind
of a fucking idiot.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Bwet Save Gore? |
17 Dec 2007 12:06:10 AM |
|
|
On Dec 15, 7:49 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 16, 11:49 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
On Dec 15, 5:20 pm, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDI2NVTYRXU&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBCRStksqL0
Helps to show how fucking meaningless and infiltrated by commie
retards the Nobel Prize scam is these days.
MG
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zpu7IZcdzXE
Commie hysterical piffle, a pack of fucking lies, contradicted by the
fact that levels of Co2 FOLLOW and dont lead temperature change.
What causes the temperature change?
Your argument form is flawed, for if we substitute other subjects and
predicates we come up with an argument like this. "farting adds no
heat to the air in a closed room, but the increase in temperature
draws out the warm gasses"
The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form of radiation. The
Earth reflects about 30% of the incoming solar radiation. The
remaining 70% is absorbed, warming the land, atmosphere and oceans.
For the Earth's temperature to be in steady state so that the Earth
does not rapidly heat or cool, this absorbed solar radiation must be
very closely balanced by energy radiated back to space in the infrared
wavelengths. Since the intensity of infrared radiation increases with
increasing temperature, one can think of the Earth's temperature as
being determined by the infrared flux needed to balance the absorbed
solar flux. The visible solar radiation mostly heats the surface, not
the atmosphere, whereas most of the infrared radiation escaping to
space is emitted from the upper atmosphere, not the surface. The
infrared photons emitted by the surface are mostly absorbed in the
atmosphere by greenhouse gases and clouds and do not escape directly
to space.
The reason this warms the surface is most easily understood by
starting with a simplified model of a purely radiative greenhouse
effect that ignores energy transfer in the atmosphere by convection
(sensible heat transport) and by the evaporation and condensation of
water vapor (latent heat transport). In this purely radiative case,
one can think of the atmosphere as emitting infrared radiation both
upwards and downwards. The upward infrared flux emitted by the surface
must balance not only the absorbed solar flux but also this downward
infrared flux emitted by the atmosphere. The surface temperature will
rise until it generates thermal radiation equivalent to the sum of the
incoming solar and infrared radiation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
And to believe that reducing a gas in the atmosphere by 0.0000000023%
is going to stop the world getting hotter can only happen in the mind
of a fucking idiot.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Bwet Save Gore? |
17 Dec 2007 02:15:17 AM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 3:06 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What causes the temperature change?
Oh for fucks sake, what change?
This morning the weather man says it will be 35 degrees today, it
didn't hit 30 and yet he expects people to believe his forcast 100
years from now.
FFS give me a break.
The temperature changes more waiting for the fucking traffic lights to
change than the mysterical histerical anti-human tree huggers claim it
will in a 100 years.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Bwet Save Gore? |
18 Dec 2007 01:05:00 AM |
|
|
On Dec 17, 12:15 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 17, 3:06 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
What causes the temperature change?
Oh for fucks sake, what change?
This morning the weather man says it will be 35 degrees today, it
didn't hit 30 and yet he expects people to believe his forcast 100
years from now.
FFS give me a break.
The temperature changes more waiting for the fucking traffic lights to
change than the mysterical histerical anti-human tree huggers claim it
will in a 100 years.
MG
I was presenting research evidence about heat that is either trapped
in certain atmosperice layers and light that cannot escape back into
space. Are you questioning general meteorology now?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Bwet Save Gore? |
18 Dec 2007 02:36:48 AM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 4:05 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are you questioning general meteorology now?
I am questioning the weather man who cant get today's nor even the
next hour's weather predictions right and yet he expects us to believe
his forecast 100 years fucking away.
I am questioning, what fucking evidence is there that a planet 2-7
degrees warmer is bad for mankind?
FOR *****'S SAKE Mortal, man survives extremely well in temperaures
ranging from -30 to plus 50 degree C already.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "Immortalist" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Bwet Save Gore? |
18 Dec 2007 10:41:23 PM |
|
|
On Dec 18, 12:36 am, Michael Gordge <mikegor...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
On Dec 18, 4:05 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Are you questioning general meteorology now?
I am questioning the weather man who cant get today's nor even the
next hour's weather predictions right and yet he expects us to believe
his forecast 100 years fucking away.
I am questioning, what fucking evidence is there that a planet 2-7
degrees warmer is bad for mankind?
FOR *****'S SAKE Mortal, man survives extremely well in temperaures
ranging from -30 to plus 50 degree C already.
Michael Gordge
I think your view is healthy but also some concern is healthy also. It
seems that your beef is with distorted media outlets and not the
harmony of meteorilogical physics.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Randroids Discuss Atmospheric Science |
18 Dec 2007 04:59:16 PM |
|
|
Randroids are just too dumb to understand the difference between macro
and micro in economics and they aspire to discuss atmospheric science?
Are you questioning general meteorology now?
I am questioning the weather man who cant get today's nor even the
next hour's weather predictions right and yet he expects us to believe
his forecast 100 years
We cannot "even" predict the speed of a N2 molecule two seconds from
now, yet we know the temperature of a N2 cylinder two hours from now.
First try something easy: First try to explain why Warren Buffet
makes more money with tax hikes on the rich.
THEN try the physical sciences.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gordge" |
|
| Title: Can Bwet Save Gore |
18 Dec 2007 08:55:54 PM |
|
|
On Dec 19, 7:59 am, Bret Cahill <BretCah...@aol.com> wrote:
Randroids are just too dumb to understand the difference between macro
and micro in economics....
Sooo ewe have to be intelligent to understand something that doesn't
in reality exist do ewe Bwet?
In the concept of TRADE, which is what leads to ANY and ALL wankfeast
leftist retarded control freak talk in economics, "man endevours to
obtain a greater for lesser value and in as peaceful a way as he can"
and that is all that in reality happens, all the rest is man made, its
invented by leftist retards like chazzz who pretends to have something
worth while to offer, they dont as Bwet's piffle is evidence of.
MG
.
|
|
|
| User: "V-for-Vendicar" |
|
| Title: Re: Can Bwet Save Gore |
17 Dec 2007 04:04:15 PM |
|
|
"Michael Gordge" <mikegordge@xtra.co.nz> wrote
In the concept of TRADE, which is what leads to ANY and ALL wankfeast
leftist retarded control freak talk in economics, "man endevours to
obtain a greater for lesser value and in as peaceful a way as he can"
and that is all that in reality happens, all the rest is man made, its
invented by leftist retards like chazzz who pretends to have something
worth while to offer, they dont as Bwet's piffle is evidence of.
The complications come in when Libertarians and Randites claim it is their
right to trade candy for the services of the little girls who play in the
park.
It's just free trade after all.
As long as the child is willing...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bret Cahill" |
|
| Title: Can Randroids Keep Their Sheep Away From Wolves? |
18 Dec 2007 10:37:49 PM |
|
|
Instead of sponging off of socialists, why not try to do a useful
day's work?
1. Trim your sheep.
2. Protect your sheep.
3. Keep your sheep's hind legs out of your boots.
Bret Cahill
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
