whats wrong with britain having a more temperate climate is the countries closer to the equator become ovens in the process.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

As the Alpine glaciers melt archaeologists are finding pristine artefacts nearly a thousand years old such as the remains of houses, fences and home implements being uncovered. How is this possible?

Nothing is static, Matt. Objects can move between places. Wind, Rain, Water all plays its part.

That response does not differ from "god wills it" or "ask the kahuna." Here we have absolute evidence of alpine farms which were later cover by glaciers and hysterical screaming about the terrible consequences of those glaciers going away again.

True believers to adequately explain those changes in the past to give even a superficial indication of understanding the interaction of those factors.

A model which cannot explain the past is worthless. A model which make incorrect predictions is worthless. A model which does not work is worthless.

Models which have not been validated are mere curiosities until they are. No climate model has been validated.

Also, how can I trust you if you spell 'artifacts' wrong?

Does it all come down to which of the two accepted spellings one uses?

Rather building homes and raising cattle under glaciers requires the strength of heroes. Or perhaps the glaciers were not there a thousand years ago. Perhaps one day will retreat sufficient that the ice tunnel used by Hannibal to get elephants across the Alps will be revealed. It could not be there was an ice free path back then. That would make Hannibal a weakling and a melter.

Or I could sell you a house next to a beach for $1, minimum staying period 100 years?

Since previous post threatened a four inch sea level rise in that century, I'll take two. When do we close? Is there any consistency of reasoning among believers? A rhetorical question of course.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Nothing is static, Matt. Objects can move between places. Wind, Rain, Water all plays it's part.

Climate is also not static. Around 1000 years ago we had the medieval warming period when it was much warmer than it is today. It was so warm that wine could be produced in southern England. About 400 years ago we were in the little ice age and it was much cooler than it is today. The little ice age cooled things down so much that we are still warming from it.
Thats why skeptic don't deny that there is warming. The question is how much if any of the warming is due to CO2. It currently looks like additional CO2 will result in very little if any warming.

The question of interest is would we care? All the fancies called predictions are negative, apocalyptic even. That can only occur with the assumption this is now the best of all possible climates. I paid good money for the palm tree franchise for DC. I demand warming REAL SOON!

Turning Siberia into the bread basket of the world strikes me as a good thing.

On can even look to the future where tree-huggers and condemning fusion power and demanding the continued burning of fossil fuels to preserve tropical Siberia.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

whats wrong with britain having a more temperate climate is the countries closer to the equator become ovens in the process.

Other than the fact we know it does not work that way it does not matter at all.

I really have to wonder at all the believers who are so willing to say to many things which are contrary to observed fact.

What matters for land temperatures is humidity, altitude and distance from the ocean. Hold those equal and the equator does not get any hotter than the US in summer. The only difference is in the tropics it is warm all year instead of seasonally.

It is also trivial to observe temperature cannot be increased without increasing the heat input.

It has also been my experience treehuggers do not know the difference between heat and temperature and thus it is impossible for them to have an informed opinion on this subject.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

first off Siberia would be a mud bog not a bread basket

Second distance from the ocean? talk to the folks in Saharan Africa or better yet Saudi arabia. Both seem to be surrounded by oceans but are clearly Not lush with vegetation. What you miss in all this is wind, rain and basic knowledge of science. seriously this is getting difficult to discuss and argue when ones counter arguments are based in childlike fantasy.

I watched a nifty show on How the Saharan desert came about. It seems that their was a shift in weather patterns that began about 7000 years ago. Some think this occurred because of the retreating ice sheets, others see it as a shift in weather patterns. it took about 100 years for the majority of what is currently the Sahara desert to turn from lush vegetation to desert. there is evidence of lakes, rivers, jungles, human villages, a multitude of animals all living there. 100 years was all it took to change it. I'd hope that we'd learn something about our planet and how it doesnt need us. we need it. to foolishly think of siberia being a bread basket when the majority of the united states would be turned back into the dust bowl is just that fantasy. What is missing in your imagination is the big picture. while it might be great to thaw the permafrost in Siberia. a task that might take 1000 years. you'd only wind up damaging the rest of the world to achieve it.

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

first off Siberia would be a mud bog not a bread basket

Today it is. Pray for warming to the god of your choice.

Second distance from the ocean? talk to the folks in Saharan Africa or better yet Saudi arabia. Both seem to be surrounded by oceans but are clearly Not lush with vegetation. What you miss in all this is wind, rain and basic knowledge of science. seriously this is getting difficult to discuss and argue when ones counter arguments are based in childlike fantasy.

I gave the three basic criteria. The Sahara and Arabia lack humidity. The Sahara was grassland and forests only 6000 years ago until the humidity when away. You can find the latitude of the Hawaiians or the tropical Island of your choice and find the temperature is that of the sea barely increased by the land mass. In Florida daily temperature extremes can vary at much as fifteen degrees from coast to the centerline of the state. From Wash, DC to Cincinnati, Ohio both roughly at the same latitude the summer and winter highs and lows by ten degrees. I believe I have correctly identified the factors and have the evidence to support them.

I watched a nifty show on How the Saharan desert came about. It seems that their was a shift in weather patterns that began about 7000 years ago. Some think this occurred because of the retreating ice sheets, others see it as a shift in weather patterns. it took about 100 years for the majority of what is currently the Sahara desert to turn from lush vegetation to desert. there is evidence of lakes, rivers, jungles, human villages, a multitude of animals all living there. 100 years was all it took to change it. I'd hope that we'd learn something about our planet and how it doesnt need us. we need it. to foolishly think of siberia being a bread basket when the majority of the united states would be turned back into the dust bowl is just that fantasy. What is missing in your imagination is the big picture. while it might be great to thaw the permafrost in Siberia. a task that might take 1000 years. you'd only wind up damaging the rest of the world to achieve it.

I have to wonder how people can go from the still hypothetical causes of the change of the Sahara to CO2 will cause a dust bowl in the US without the least scientific fact or credible evidence in between. That is apocalyptic talk not science, fear mongering not reason.

There is clearly NO connection between the latitude of the Sahara and the climate in those latitudes as South and Central America and the monsoons of India should make painfully obvious. Ancient tropical rainforests in Britain should inform the educated. The rapid change of the American Southwest to arid over barely a century around 1200 years ago cannot be attributed to CO2 from campfires.

I joked about Siberia because of the apocalyptic prophesies (not predictions by any stretch of the imagination) regarding the consequences of any change. It is always a disaster regardless of the change. These prophecies are as absurd as any found in the bible and have no better foundation. There is zero science in any of them.

As I have noted the prophets do not understand the difference between heat and temperature. Temperature cannot change unless the heat input or the thermal capacity changes. Greenhouses do not work the way the prophets demand. It is not like any of this is disputed.

I can also add from years of experience developing computer models one other very relevant and very unpleasant fact from that experience. If a model makes a prediction that is clearly false, shitcan it and start over. It is worthless and you wasted the money. There is no such thing as almost right in a false prediction.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

first off Siberia would be a mud bog not a bread basket

Today it is. Pray for warming to the god of your choice. ...

I can also add from years of experience developing computer models one other very relevant and very unpleasant fact from that experience. If a model makes a prediction that is clearly false, shitcan it and start over. It is worthless and you wasted the money. There is no such thing as almost right in a false prediction.

Matt, your skewed blinkeredness is stretched too far to not believe that you're just simply trolling.


To kill an earlier misinformation poke/jibe from you regarding the greenhouse effect:

Considering the case as a scientist:

The solar warming "greenhouse effect" of a garden greenhouse is simply that air convection is constrained to within the greenhouse enclosure. The dominant heating is that of the items within the greenhouse being warmed by the solar radiation. The greenhouse glass merely allows the solar radiation in and then also traps in the warm air so that the inside isn't cooled by air convection;

The solar warming "greenhouse effect" of a planet is from a combination of 'greenhouse gasses' absorbing a proportion of solar radiation as that shines through a few kilometres of atmosphere. There are additional effects of cloud cover trapping heat from lower down, and of the greenhouse gasses enhancing reabsorption of radiated heat from the surface.


Considering the case as a "lay person on the street":

The "greenhouse analogy" is just a "lie to children" to let them grasp the idea that we are shrouding our planet with something that keeps us overly warm from the harsh cold of space.


As for how much greenhouse gasses you want, take your pick from Mars, Earth, and Venus.

The right level of greenhouse gasses keeps us at a comfortable temperature. Change that concentration and the equilibrium temperature will be influenced.


Unlike you, the world of science considers the present imbalance means relatively rapid changes are being forced to the climate and weather of our entire planet.

It's just a question of the consequences of that.

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

first off Siberia would be a mud bog not a bread basket

Today it is. Pray for warming to the god of your choice. ...

I can also add from years of experience developing computer models one other very relevant and very unpleasant fact from that experience. If a model makes a prediction that is clearly false, shitcan it and start over. It is worthless and you wasted the money. There is no such thing as almost right in a false prediction.

Matt, your skewed blinkeredness is stretched too far to not believe that you're just simply trolling.

What you choose to believe is your business.

To kill an earlier misinformation poke/jibe from you regarding the greenhouse effect:

Considering the case as a scientist:

As I am a scientist, physicist specifically, I know of no other way to consider the matter. What you choose to believe is trolling is in fact understanding the matters being discussed. I have no control over the misapprehensions of others.

The solar warming "greenhouse effect" of a garden greenhouse is simply that air convection is constrained to within the greenhouse enclosure. The dominant heating is that of the items within the greenhouse being warmed by the solar radiation. The greenhouse glass merely allows the solar radiation in and then also traps in the warm air so that the inside isn't cooled by air convection;

The solar warming "greenhouse effect" of a planet is from a combination of 'greenhouse gasses' absorbing a proportion of solar radiation as that shines through a few kilometres of atmosphere. There are additional effects of cloud cover trapping heat from lower down, and of the greenhouse gasses enhancing reabsorption of radiated heat from the surface.

As a scientist you know any extra heat absorbed is also radiated. A warmer atmosphere expands increasing the radiating surface. There is a difference between temperature and heat. So far the melters do not appear to know there is a difference much less understand the difference. I have even come across melters who did not know all measurements of temperature have to be referenced to absolute zero.

Trapping is a rather meaningless word. Retarding re-radiation is proper description. The mean free path for re-radiation is very large. The small fraction of CO2 cannot cause significant retardation.

Considering the case as a "lay person on the street":

The "greenhouse analogy" is just a "lie to children" to let them grasp the idea that we are shrouding our planet with something that keeps us overly warm from the harsh cold of space.

Why not tell me how it really works instead of defening what you agree is a lie?

As for how much greenhouse gasses you want, take your pick from Mars, Earth, and Venus.

You just said it was a lie. What exactly is it you wish to discuss?

How about starting by telling me the mean temperature of the earth with no CO2. There must be a degree per part per million CO2 equation in order to declare it matters. How about just the equation?

The right level of greenhouse gasses keeps us at a comfortable temperature. Change that concentration and the equilibrium temperature will be influenced.

So you are telling me there was a huge drop in CO2 which brought on the ice ages, right? Or are you going to give me a credible reason why CO2 has suddenly become THE dominant factor in global temperature? This will be a good place for you to you to introduce the equation that relates temperature to CO2.

Unlike you, the world of science considers the present imbalance means relatively rapid changes are being forced to the climate and weather of our entire planet.

Exactly what imbalance are you talking about? What might these rapid changes be and where are the disastrous consequences being reported?

It's just a question of the consequences of that.

Regards,
Martin

What consequences are you talking about? Change is change not an apocalypse. It medieval nonsense to say this is the best of all possible worlds.

Besides I have been following this since it was a coming ice age. Ever since the late 1980s the "experts" have been saying there are only ten years to change else there is no hope. That deadline was passed without change ten years ago.

So why all this continued yammering about something that has been unavoidable and inevitable for over ten years? Were they lying then or are they lying now?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

So the real question is, are you sure enough of the data that you are willing to bet 5/6 of the human population on it?

Yep. Count me in.

Looks like someone has started. Although for a different reason.

---

ML1 has a short memory. CO2 has given us about all the warming it can. For the amount of effect CO2 can have on us, look here.

---

I give up. Denialists will continue to attempt to pull rabbits from a non-existent hat. As pointed out if you think more CO2 wont harm us. take a gander at how CO2 works on Venus. case closed.

I'm not wasting another minute or ounce of energy replying to the same lame stretches of reality. I just can't do it anymore.

this is what we have here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l693NzVcPyg

---

In a rich man's house there is no place to spit but his face.
Diogenes Of Sinope

For a fresh start, you might take a look here:

http://www.gregcraven.org/

I read about it (him) in a Newsweek review.

Martin

I give up. Denialists will continue to attempt to pull rabbits from a non-existent hat. As pointed out if you think more CO2 wont harm us. take a gander at how CO2 works on Venus. case closed.

It is rather unfortunate the anti-scientific apocalyptics have to pretend the sole reason for the higher than expected temperature of Venus has nothing to do with having 93+ times more gas by mass as atmosphere and is solely due to CO2. The mind boggles at such erudite exposition of planetary atmospheres. One wishes in vain such theophoric insight would be properly published to the acclaim it deserves.

I'm not wasting another minute or ounce of energy replying to the same lame stretches of reality. I just can't do it anymore.

It is a wise man who knows his limitations.

[quote]this is what we have here. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l693NzVcPyg[/quot]

Whatever it might be how about putting it in your own idiom.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

ML1 has a short memory. CO2 has given us about all the warming it can. For the amount of effect CO2 can have on us, look here.

Nope. We've thrashed this in an earlier cycle of whimsical denials...

So... Without changing the goalposts or exclaiming "it just can't be so" and such...

Can yourself and Matt deny that the following scientific paper is true and accurate?

On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connection of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction

Tyndall, John, 1861. 'Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, vol. 22, 169–94, 273–85.

... Tyndall's carefully executed laboratory experiments clearly demonstrated that trace atmospheric constituents were active absorbers of heat radiation. These results kept alive what was called the "hot-house theory," and they suggested to Arrhenius, Callendar, and others that the Earth's heat budget could be controlled by changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.


Or can you otherwise conclusively refute that paper?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

ML1 has a short memory. CO2 has given us about all the warming it can. For the amount of effect CO2 can have on us, look here.

Nope. We've thrashed this in an earlier cycle of whimsical denials...

So... Without changing the goalposts or exclaiming "it just can't be so" and such...

Can yourself and Matt deny that the following scientific paper is true and accurate?

I have not read it. Please summarize it from memory and show how it is relevant to the end of the world as we know it. But of course you have not read the paper.

On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connection of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction

Leaves out convection and circulation as the two dominant factors in atmospheric temperature for openers but it was pioneering paper certainly never expected to be definitive. In 1861 weather patterns were only beginning to be understood -- it required large telegraph networks for that to begin to happen.

Tyndall, John, 1861. 'Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, vol. 22, 169–94, 273–85.

... Tyndall's carefully executed laboratory experiments clearly demonstrated that trace atmospheric constituents were active absorbers of heat radiation. These results kept alive what was called the "hot-house theory," and they suggested to Arrhenius, Callendar, and others that the Earth's heat budget could be controlled by changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

I have a problem here. What point are you trying to make with a quote that says "COULD be controlled" rather than IS controlled? If you wish to plead the author used poor English that is fine with me but please do not expect anyone to make a case based upon either poor usage of English or upon the expression of a possibility rather than a fact.

Are we to assume, most likely correctly, the melters are still 150 years behind the times? Obviously since they have not noticed convection and circulation are dominant.

Or can you otherwise conclusively refute that paper?

Regards,
Martin

I am still waiting for the equation which directly relates CO2 to earth's temperature.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

My posting was so good you had to quote it twice? (Mods: Duplicate post removal?)

Can yourself and Matt deny that the following scientific paper is true and accurate?

I have not read it. Please summarize it from memory and show how it is relevant to the end of the world as we know it. But of course you have not read the paper.

So your approach is to be both lazy and disparaging?

The relevance is the connection between our atmosphere, solar radiation, temperature equilibrium, directly measurable rapid change to that atmosphere, and life as we comfortably know it on earth.

If you care to even read the summary, the paper highlights a significant effect in our atmosphere affecting temperature.

On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connection of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction

Leaves out convection and circulation as the two dominant factors in atmospheric temperature for openers but it was pioneering paper certainly never expected to be definitive. In 1861 weather patterns were only beginning to be understood -- it required large telegraph networks for that to begin to happen.

Those effects are very deliberately not included. Great care was taken to ensure they did not confuse the results. They are not what the paper is about. Just as the paper is very deliberately not about anything else. It is one important part of the start of the story of our modern world. Hence why I raise it first.

Tyndall, John, 1861. 'Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, vol. 22, 169–94, 273–85.

... Tyndall's carefully executed laboratory experiments clearly demonstrated that trace atmospheric constituents were active absorbers of heat radiation. These results kept alive what was called the "hot-house theory," and they suggested to Arrhenius, Callendar, and others that the Earth's heat budget could be controlled by changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

I have a problem here. What point are you trying to make with a quote that says "COULD be controlled" rather than IS controlled? If you wish to plead the author used poor English that is fine with me but please do not expect anyone to make a case based upon either poor usage of English or upon the expression of a possibility rather than a fact.

The use of English is good and precise and as accurate as is possible for the time.

"COULD be controlled" rather than IS controlled?

That is written as a scientist allowing for as far as is possible all possible unknowns. For a non-scientific 'lay person', a reasonable yet still scientifically cautious present day translation is "IS significantly affected and influenced".

Are we to assume, most likely correctly, the melters are still 150 years behind the times? Obviously since they have not noticed convection and circulation are dominant.

Are we to assume that the flat-earthers are unconcerned because the sea level is maintained just fine by all that excess melt-water just having to run off the edge a little faster? Is that also why the fish are disappearing because they cannot swim fast enough?

Or can you otherwise conclusively refute that paper?

I am still waiting for the equation which directly relates CO2 to earth's temperature.

That paper gives the first part of the equation.

So...

Do you agree that paper is accurate, or can you refute it?


Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

My posting was so good you had to quote it twice? (Mods: Duplicate post removal?)

I can neither control the earth's climate with engine exhaust nor can I control the vagaries of the behavior of this software with a computer model saying it will not happen. In the mean time consider your posts in the same category as New York, New York. Some day someone may even set them to music.

Can yourself and Matt deny that the following scientific paper is true and accurate?

I have not read it. Please summarize it from memory and show how it is relevant to the end of the world as we know it. But of course you have not read the paper.

So your approach is to be both lazy and disparaging?

You have not read it. You obviously did not even read the "quote" to see it used COULD instead of IS. What is your point?

The relevance is the connection between our atmosphere, solar radiation, temperature equilibrium, directly measurable rapid change to that atmosphere, and life as we comfortably know it on earth.

Without convection and circulation there is no weather at all. Air heated by the warmed land and seas does not rise. Without that rise the warm air does not radiate its heat into space. Without the rotation of the earth giving rise to circulation the cooled air no longer flows back to the equator.

What are you asserting about "comfortable" when you have not addressed the climate at all?

Tell me the exact cause in correct scientific terms which will result in discomfort. Do you understand any physics?

If you care to even read the summary, the paper highlights a significant effect in our atmosphere affecting temperature.

It only says could not does. It is not rational to expect to find definitive science on the matter in a 150 year old paper.

On the Absorption and Radiation of Heat by Gases and Vapours, and on the Physical Connection of Radiation, Absorption, and Conduction

Leaves out convection and circulation as the two dominant factors in atmospheric temperature for openers but it was pioneering paper certainly never expected to be definitive. In 1861 weather patterns were only beginning to be understood -- it required large telegraph networks for that to begin to happen.

Those effects are very deliberately not included. Great care was taken to ensure they did not confuse the results. They are not what the paper is about. Just as the paper is very deliberately not about anything else. It is one important part of the start of the story of our modern world. Hence why I raise it first.

You can of course produce the words of the author where he did in fact say that. Unless you can do that I cannot distinguish fact from your spur of the moment invention. I might even come to think you actually believe the things you make up and expect others to believe your inventions should be unable to present the author's explanation of his intent. Were I to have to settle for that I would have to be very careful in my reply to avoid moderation for being impolite with extreme prejudice.

Tyndall, John, 1861. 'Philosophical Magazine ser. 4, vol. 22, 169–94, 273–85.

... Tyndall's carefully executed laboratory experiments clearly demonstrated that trace atmospheric constituents were active absorbers of heat radiation. These results kept alive what was called the "hot-house theory," and they suggested to Arrhenius, Callendar, and others that the Earth's heat budget could be controlled by changes in the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere.

I have a problem here. What point are you trying to make with a quote that says "COULD be controlled" rather than IS controlled? If you wish to plead the author used poor English that is fine with me but please do not expect anyone to make a case based upon either poor usage of English or upon the expression of a possibility rather than a fact.

The use of English is good and precise and as accurate as is possible for the time.

If you have no problem with the English then there is nothing in it supporting global melting. Why did you bother to post it?

"COULD be controlled" rather than IS controlled?

That is written as a scientist allowing for as far as is possible all possible unknowns. For a non-scientific 'lay person', a reasonable yet still scientifically cautious present day translation is "IS significantly affected and influenced".

I have read hundreds of scientific papers and reports in my time. What you are saying is simply untrue. But you would change his meaning to suit your belief. That is not a credible approach to reading a scientific paper. I cannot accept you have any familiarity with science after this claim. (I feel a bout of extreme prejudice coming on.)

Are we to assume, most likely correctly, the melters are still 150 years behind the times? Obviously since they have not noticed convection and circulation are dominant.

Are we to assume that the flat-earthers are unconcerned because the sea level is maintained just fine by all that excess melt-water just having to run off the edge a little faster? Is that also why the fish are disappearing because they cannot swim fast enough?

The average depth of the oceans is about 3 miles, That is some 19,000 inches. A few days ago I was warned that the sea level would increase by 4 inches over the next century. That is 0,0021 percent.

Would you care to explain how such a trivial change results in your apocalyptic pronunciomentos? (That is Pope talk although it might be cia instead of cio.) Do you wonder why you folks are considered hysterics and not to be taken seriously?

Or can you otherwise conclusively refute that paper?

I have no idea how to refute the assertion of a possibility. Perhaps you could make some suggestions. I am quite able to refute your claim it means other than what it says. Refutation: You are making it up.

I am still waiting for the equation which directly relates CO2 to earth's temperature.

That paper gives the first part of the equation.

So...

Do you agree that paper is accurate, or can you refute it?

Regards,
Martin

I have no use for your fantasy that you can divine what a dead man meant to convey.

I have no problem with taking your post as further evidence the entire melters' mythology is based upon changing what is written to what they want it to mean.

You have NOT read the paper. You have no possible way to know the author meant other than he wrote.

You obviously do not know the difference between heat and temperature.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

My posting was so good you had to quote it twice? (Mods: Duplicate post removal?)

I can neither control the earth's climate with engine exhaust nor can I control the vagaries of the behavior of this software with a computer model saying it will not happen. In the mean time consider your posts in the same category as New York, New York. Some day someone may even set them to music.

Good that we can both agree on the same puns.


Great shame that the rest of your posting is just a very lame attempt at playing word games and number games to 'prove' anything you want for yourself.


So... Has the physics in our universe changed in the last 150 years? Or is it that our understanding of physics has changed since then?

The paper I've quoted still stands as accurate for its observations.

Note that the paper says nothing about whether the weather will rain or shine tomorrow. Instead, it shows something very important that then leads on to describing the climate and weather we see now.


Can you discuss science and understanding?

Or are you just a Bible conspiracist ready to quote any biblical sentence as your final proof of reality and of the world around you?


Sorry, I've no time to play futile school-yard word play with you.


Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation?

Regards,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

My posting was so good you had to quote it twice? (Mods: Duplicate post removal?)

I can neither control the earth's climate with engine exhaust nor can I control the vagaries of the behavior of this software with a computer model saying it will not happen. In the mean time consider your posts in the same category as New York, New York. Some day someone may even set them to music.

Good that we can both agree on the same puns.

Great shame that the rest of your posting is just a very lame attempt at playing word games and number games to 'prove' anything you want for yourself.

It is not easy dealing with people like yourself who have no concept of science and likely would fail a pop quiz by Louie Nye.

So... Has the physics in our universe changed in the last 150 years? Or is it that our understanding of physics has changed since then?

The paper I've quoted still stands as accurate for its observations.

Note that the paper says nothing about whether the weather will rain or shine tomorrow. Instead, it shows something very important that then leads on to describing the climate and weather we see now.

It says nothing about weather or climate. What you quote has a relation to both but is not about either.

Can you discuss science and understanding?

When are you going to raise an issue related to science?

Or are you just a Bible conspiracist ready to quote any biblical sentence as your final proof of reality and of the world around you?

Where do you think I quoted the bible? Is that as a clever a jab as you can remember?

Sorry, I've no time to play futile school-yard word play with you.

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation?

Regards,
Martin

All gasses (and solids, liquids, and plasmas as well as sub-atomic particulates and other things) both absorb AND radiate all forms of electromagnetic radiation. That is elementary physics.

Where are you going with such a statement of the obvious?

Have you at least googled the difference between heat and temperature?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

All gasses (and solids, liquids, and plasmas as well as sub-atomic particulates and other things) both absorb AND radiate all forms of electromagnetic radiation.

What's this claptrap about "all forms" of electromagnetic radiation?

Were you trying to say frequency?

---