Science > Physics > Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
25 Dec 2006 06:14:36 PM |
| Object: |
Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud |
Bawana wrote:
turdtapper wrote:
< who cares???>
whink whink whink
thats the sound of your mental masturbation
Science is the determination of cause and effect. If you cannot meet
this criteria you are not doing science. If you persist in a belief,
such as global warming by CO2, that is not based on science, you are a
follower of SUPERSTITION. If you wish to push this superstition off on
the people of the US, you are guilty of intent to commit fraud.
If you cannot quantify your energy, you are not doing physics.
Heat is a quantity of energy. At any specific temperature, an energy of
highest probabilty for the oscilator exists according to the
determination of Wien's law within Planck's law. In order for a gas to
have mean energy of kT for the translational energy of the average
velocities of the molecules, it must have the according energy density
of the radiation field. Direct experiments can prove that the
collisions of gas molecules are elastic. This means that kinetic energy
is not completely transfered in collisions but a certain quantiy is
converted to heat energy and radiated. A gas cannot maintain it's
energy of kinetic motion without the saturation of the energy at the
level of the most probable energy state which is 4.96kT. CO2 is a
normal gas. At low pressures it obeys the perfect gas law. It's heat
capacity at atmospheric conditions is almost the same as O2 and N2.
It is false science from the presumptions of the theoretical viewpoint
of QM, that CO2 absorbs specific energies which atmospheric gases do
not. Gases emit continous spectra in the thermal frequencies. All
molecules have the defiecient bands in their continous spectra. These
in no way inhibit CO2 release of heat energy or cause CO2 to have the
property claimed by the poor theoretical physicists, of blocking
outgoing radiation from the earth. Valid scientifec analyses proves
this fact.
Your fantasy of doom, and the need to have the wierdos and rejects from
society, who get their freak on by pulling on their pud to their
fantasy of global warming and the need to put them in charge of the
imposed socialist state upon the free peoples of the US, will face
consequences for their mental masturbation and invalid science and
invalid theoretical science.
HA ha , you'll never get your imposition of ***** controls on CO2 in
the US, Australia or China. Go pull on your pud to some other fantasy.
Stick a corncob up your ***** if you're really worried about GHGs, and
leave us the hell alone.
WHAT PART OF 'LEAVE US THE HELL ALONE' DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND?
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a psycological disease. Seek help and buy an air
conditioner,
.
|
|
| User: "Spacelord" |
|
| Title: Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud |
11 Jan 2007 08:42:55 AM |
|
|
Science is the determination of cause and effect. If you cannot meet
this criteria you are not doing science.
No, I think you don know what science is about at all.
Science is about making models of reality as accurate as possible.
Whe the model conflicts with reality, the model should be changed in
favor of a better one.
Global warmth is a fact, not a theory. There is a stadistical relation
between CO2 combustion and global warmth. That is not a theory. Climate
scientists try to make an accurate model, using avalaible data.
If you persist in a belief,
such as global warming by CO2, that is not based on science, you are a
follower of SUPERSTITION. If you wish to push this superstition off on
the people of the US, you are guilty of intent to commit fraud.
If you cannot quantify your energy, you are not doing physics.
Nonsense. Nothing in the real world is based on science, it is science
who try to aproach reality. EVERYTHING is a belief, science also. That
is the reason it evolves and theories change. Whith your talibanesque
approach to science, quantum physics would have never been developed.
Heat is a quantity of energy. At any specific temperature, an energy of
highest probabilty for the oscilator exists according to the
determination of Wien's law within Planck's law. In order for a gas to
have mean energy of kT for the translational energy of the average
velocities of the molecules, it must have the according energy density
of the radiation field. Direct experiments can prove that the
collisions of gas molecules are elastic. This means that kinetic energy
is not completely transfered in collisions but a certain quantiy is
converted to heat energy and radiated. A gas cannot maintain it's
energy of kinetic motion without the saturation of the energy at the
level of the most probable energy state which is 4.96kT. CO2 is a
normal gas. At low pressures it obeys the perfect gas law. It's heat
capacity at atmospheric conditions is almost the same as O2 and N2.
Go tell your theories to the atmostphere, it seems to have been
watching tv instead of listening to your wisdom.
. Valid scientifec analyses proves this fact.
*****.
Your fantasy of doom, and the need to have the wierdos and rejects from
society, who get their freak on by pulling on their pud to their
fantasy of global warming and the need to put them in charge of the
imposed socialist state upon the free peoples of the US, will face
consequences for their mental masturbation and invalid science and
invalid theoretical science.
"The free poeples of the US"?
Man, you DO know a lot about SUPERSTITION.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud |
11 Jan 2007 08:18:27 PM |
|
|
Spacelord said:
"The free poeples of the US"?
Bush's patriot act and torture prisons have ensured American freedom
forever.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud |
11 Jan 2007 03:14:48 PM |
|
|
Spacelord wrote:
Science is the determination of cause and effect. If you cannot meet
this criteria you are not doing science.
No, I think you don know what science is about at all.
Science is about making models of reality as accurate as possible.
Whe the model conflicts with reality, the model should be changed in
favor of a better one.
Global warmth is a fact, not a theory. There is a stadistical relation
between CO2 combustion and global warmth. That is not a theory. Climate
scientists try to make an accurate model, using avalaible data.
That is so damn funny. So let us review your model. """"The earth
should be at 255K according to the solar constant and such. The
presence of 'grenhouse gases', reduces the radiation leaving the earth
and raises the temperature by 33C to 288K. Otherwise the earth would be
about 0 farenheight and life as we know it would not be
possible""""""""
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
hahahahahahahahahahaha
A 33C increase in temperature from 255K is a 63% increase in radiated
energy according to Boltzman-Stefan. This means that you would have to
increase the solar constant by 63% or restrict 63% of outgoing
radiation in order to increase the density of the radiation field by
this proportion. Even this is insane and not thermodynamically
possible. And then you claim very small concentration increase can
increase this temperature even more. Even to your favorite fantasy,
atmosphere like venus in RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE EFFECT. Completely
impossible made up crap.
This is your fundamental for your climate model. But none of you have
enough physics to realize that the moon is at 250C in sunlight. You
have a factor of 'albedo'. but the moon is highly reflective to visible
light also. Why is it only 30C or so at the equator on earth. The
atmosphere blocks a considerable amount of energy from the sun from
reaching the surface. Even at the surface at the equator, 1000Wm-2 is
recieved at solar noon. This is fully three fouth's of the solar
constant. The air, removes this energy quickly from absorbed surfaces
by conduction and microconvection and it is dissapated into lesser
pressure by convection in the lower atmosphere.
Nowhere is the temperature deficient according to the recieved
radiation like your theory says. The atmosphere blocks the lower
thermal frequencies. 50% of the solar contstant is visible light. 9% is
ultraviolet, 41% is infrared. Most of the visible light reaches the
surface. The stratosphere absorbs 1% of the solar constant in UV before
the lower atmosphere. This is 14 Wm-2 in ultraviolet. The missing 370
Wm-2, is almost all in the infrared, about 200Wm-2 which do not pass
through the atmosphere in the comparative frequencies that the earth
radiates it's energy(in a band around 10 microns) These frequencies do
not pass through air regardless of the concentrations of supposed
'grenhouse gases'. This is why in the dark, earth surface temperatures
do not fall to near absolute zero like the moon.
Your theory cannot explain the 1000Wm-2 recieved at the equator. SO YOU
GUYS JUST CONTINUE TO IGNORE THIS IMPORTANT EMPIRICAL DATA, Your basic
temperature model is pure ***** concocted to the end result that you
wish to achieve: that very minute concentrations of CO2 can affect the
temperature of the atmosphere. The estimated input of man made CO2 in
150 years is 100 parts per million. It is clinical insanity to believe
that this concentration of CO2 affects the temperature of the
atmosphere. There may be natural fluctuations in temperatures and
climate. It is impossible that this is the result of CO2 or other man
made gases.
Deatherage
CO2Phobia is a dangerous and fatal disease like rabies
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sue Perry" |
|
| Title: Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud |
11 Jan 2007 08:08:15 PM |
|
|
said:
That is so damn funny. So let us review your model. """"The earth
should be at 255K according to the solar constant and such. The
presence of 'grenhouse gases', reduces the radiation leaving the earth
and raises the temperature by 33C to 288K. Otherwise the earth would be
about 0 farenheight and life as we know it would not be
possible""""""""
Another blithering right wing idiot who doesn't understand the science and
substitutes gibberish to cover his shortcomings.
You should have stayed in school little boy because you're in over your
head. All you're capable of is cut and paste nonsense.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hanson Sucked Me, Did He Suck You?" |
|
| Title: Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead *****: Exxon said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute to climate change... |
11 Jan 2007 10:22:58 PM |
|
|
wrote:
The estimated input of man made CO2 in
150 years is 100 parts per million. It is clinical insanity to believe
that this concentration of CO2 affects the temperature of the
atmosphere.
Deatherage
Exxon Surrenders but Death-Rag keeps sucking their dead *****: Exxon
said "Greenhouse gas emissions are one of the factors that contribute
to climate change...
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ian Gregory" |
|
| Title: Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud |
26 Dec 2006 06:32:52 AM |
|
|
On 2006-12-26, <> wrote:
Science is the determination of cause and effect.
A bit brief as a definition. Perhaps something more like "Science is
the observation identification, description, experimental investigation,
and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
If the phenomena uder consideration are related to climate then
it is climate science.
If you are interested in climate science then there is no substitute
for reading what climate scientists say about it, because in a way,
science is sort of recursively defined as "what scientists do".
Generally, any area of science will be based on an huge body of
consensus with areas of uncertainty which are the subject of
active study. There will also be "heretics" who believe that part
of the consensus is wrong. But even the heretics accept that the
current scientific consensus (whether or not they personally believe
it) at least includes these basics:
a) The observed dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 concentraion
since the start of the industrial revolution is a consequence
of human activity.
b) Past records indicate a strong positive corelation between
atmospheric CO2 concentration and average global temperature
c) Global average temperature since 2000 is higher than for any
similar period since records began
In fact there seems to be far more consensus than that amongst
scientists, and if you want to learn more about it then don't
trust me or any other random nutters posting on alt.discordia,
just read what scientists working in the field have to say. You
can Google for your own sources but one source I would recommend
which certainly seems to command wide respect as a balanced
overview of the field is:
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
Unlike the posts you tend to find on Usenet, that site is well
referenced so you can go to original sources if you don't trust
the objectivity of the author.
Ian
--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bawana" |
|
| Title: Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud |
26 Dec 2006 07:52:00 AM |
|
|
Ian Gregory wrote:
On 2006-12-26, <> wrote:
Science is the determination of cause and effect.
A bit brief as a definition. Perhaps something more like "Science is
the observation identification, description, experimental investigation,
and theoretical explanation of phenomena."
If the phenomena uder consideration are related to climate then
it is climate science.
http://tinyurl.com/yjuxc6
JEFF JACOBY
Climate of fear
By Jeff Jacoby, Globe Columnist | December 24, 2006
BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone" in New
York City at a time of uncontrolled global warming. Somehow the Earth's
orbit had shifted, and the planet was moving inexorably toward the sun.
"This is the eve of the end," Serling intoned in his introduction.
"Because even at midnight it's high noon, the hottest day in history,
and you're about to spend it -- in the Twilight Zone."
The episode revolves around a few desperate New Yorkers struggling to
survive the murderous heat. As the temperature climbs, social order
crumbles. An intruder, crazed with thirst, breaks into an apartment to
steal water. An elderly woman collapses and dies. Thermometers shatter,
their mercury boiling over. Finally Norma, the main character, screams
and passes out. Then comes the twist: Norma wakes up to find that it's
snowing outside. She'd been having a nightmare. The Earth isn't
hurtling toward the sun, after all; it's spinning away from the sun.
The world isn't going to end in searing heat, but in a dark and deathly
deep-freeze. Fade to credits.
Well, that's climate change for you. Maybe Mother Earth is warming up,
or maybe she's cooling down, but either way it's always bad news.
Here, for example, is former vice president Al Gore in 2006, on the
threat posed by global warming: "Our ability to live is what is at
stake." It doesn't get much more dire than that.
Yet here is climatologist Reid Bryson, in Fortune magazine's
award-winning analysis of global cooling in 1974: "It is something
that, if it continues, will affect the whole human occupation of the
earth -- like a billion people starving." It doesn't get much more dire
than that, either.
Bryson's article is quoted in "Fire and Ice," a richly documented
report by the Business & Meida Institute, an arm of the Media Research
Center. Climate-change alarmism is at least a century old, and the
report offers many examples of it:
In 1902, the Los Angeles Times reported that the great glaciers were
undergoing "their final annihilation" due to rising temperatures. But
by 1923, it was the ice that was doing the annihilating: "Scientist
says Arctic ice will wipe out Canada," the Chicago Tribune declared on
Page 1.
So it was curtains for the Canadians? Uh, not quite. In 1953, The New
York Times announced that "nearly all the great ice sheets are in
retreat." Yet no sooner did our neighbors to the north breathe a sigh
of relief than it turned out they weren't off the hook after all: "The
rapid advance of some glaciers," wrote Lowell Ponte in "The Cooling,"
his 1976 bestseller, "has threatened human settlements in Alaska,
Iceland, Canada, China, and the Soviet Union." And now? "Arctic Ice Is
Melting at Record Level, Scientists Say," the Times reported in 2002.
Over the years, the alarmists have veered from an obsession with lethal
global cooling around the turn of the 20th century to lethal global
warming a generation later, back to cooling in the 1970s and now to
warming once again. You don't have to be a scientist to realize that
all these competing narratives of doom can't be true. Or to wonder
whether any of them are.
Perhaps that is why most Americans discount the climate-change
fear-mongering that is so fashionable among journalists and
politicians. Last spring, as Time magazine was hyperventilating about
global warming ("The debate is over. Global warming is upon us -- with
a vengeance. From floods to fires, droughts to storms, the climate is
crashing"), a Gallup poll was finding that only 36 percent of the
public say they worry "a great deal" about it.
Still, there is always a market for apocalyptic forebodings. Paul
Ehrlich grew rich predicting the imminent deaths of hundreds of
millions of human beings from starvation and epidemic disease. "The
Limits to Growth," the Club of Rome's 1972 bestseller, warned that
humankind was going to experience "a rather sudden and uncontrollable
decline" as the world's resources -- everything from gold to petroleum
-- ran dry. Jonathan Schell and Carl Sagan forecast a devastating
"nuclear winter" unless atomic arsenals were frozen, or better still,
abolished. Those doomsday prophesies never came to pass. Neither have
the climate-change catastrophes that have been bruited about for a
century.
"The whole aim of practical politics," wrote H.L. Mencken in 1920, "is
to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety)
by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them
imaginary." Some things never change.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Guns R Gud" |
|
| Title: Re: turdtapper's delusion of relevance, fantasies for the weak minded when pulling on their pud |
26 Dec 2006 08:19:15 AM |
|
|
Bawana said:
BACK IN 1961, Rod Serling set an episode of "The Twilight Zone"
Science fiction writer Michael Chricton (who wrote the science fact book Jurassic
Park) penned a fictional book calling Global Warming a big hoax. That's all the proof
anyone needs that Global Warming is like Darwin's Evolution theory, a big-time Godless
socialist hoax by the Leftist Elite media designed to undermine right wing common
sense values thru loyalty to the Lord God and his son Jesus Christ, our saviour.
Rod Serling's many true accounts as shown on TV agree with the facts that Michael
Chricton has produced. You don't need to be a fancy scientist to be smarter than
them. The Pope's not a scientist and he talks to God.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
