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?

So far as I am aware it is still quite legitimate to refer to types of EM radiation such as RF, IR, visible, UV, and X, Gamma and Cosmic rays. The latter three are rarely referred to in terms of frequency and when done mainly in terms of wavelength to show the equivalence of ev to wavelength not frequency. I am sure you can come up with a few dozen examples on your own using only Amazon.

Are you trying to say the enunciation of a well known fact means we are melting?

I have been emphasizing the scientific ignorance of the melters http://www.giwersworld.org/environment/aehb.phtml for 20 years now. Nothing on the melters' side has improved in the last twenty years. They have not answered a single fundamental issue that existed in 1989. The models have gotten bigger and the computers faster but there is still not a single validated climate model.

The only milestone we have achieved was in 2000 when ten years passed since the warning in 1989 that if nothing was done in ten years disaster was inevitable. It has been inevitable for ten years now. It is not clear why people keep making an issue of it when they know nothing can be done to stop the apocalypse. Or were they lying in 1989? Or are they lying now? Why is it the deadline for action is always ten years in the future?

[/url]

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

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.

Isn't that what I've just said?... Or is that lost in the American English <--> UK English translation?

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation?

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.

Sorry, I can't agree with your extravagant vague fuzzy all-sweeping generality. But I'll take it that you agree with my modest statement.

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

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation and do not always reradiate that energy?


Regards,
Martin

---

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

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation and do not always reradiate that energy?

You can't build perpetual motion machines.

---

I know I said I wouldnt reply but reradiating radiation a much slower rate than the radiation was being taken in is probably more accurate

---

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

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.

Isn't that what I've just said?... Or is that lost in the American English <--> UK English translation?

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation?

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.

Sorry, I can't agree with your extravagant vague fuzzy all-sweeping generality. But I'll take it that you agree with my modest statement.

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

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation and do not always reradiate that energy?


Regards,
Martin

How does one suspend the third law of Thermodynamics and prevent reradiation?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation?

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.

Sorry, I can't agree with your extravagant vague fuzzy all-sweeping generality. But I'll take it that you agree with my modest statement.

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

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation and do not always reradiate that energy?

How does one suspend the third law of Thermodynamics and prevent reradiation?

Think further... I choose my words carefully.

As a hint, you can make use of two highly favoured words of yours...

Regards,
Martin

---

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

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation?

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.

Sorry, I can't agree with your extravagant vague fuzzy all-sweeping generality. But I'll take it that you agree with my modest statement.

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

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation and do not always reradiate that energy?

How does one suspend the third law of Thermodynamics and prevent reradiation?

Think further... I choose my words carefully.

As a hint, you can make use of two highly favoured words of yours...

Regards,
Martin

I give up. Tell me how to suspend the 3rd law.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I know I said I wouldnt reply but reradiating radiation a much slower rate than the radiation was being taken in is probably more accurate

Still wrong.

Something else entirely is going on.

Think of dyes.

---

While awaiting a means to suspend entropy let me post some facts on CO2.

[li]CO2 comprises 0.03% of the atmosphere by weight.

[li]total atmospheric CO2 750-830 GigaTons

[li][li]uncertainty 80GT about +/-5% +/-40GT

[li] The human CO2 contribution is 3 GT per year.

[li]The human contribution is only 3/80ths of the uncertainty. That is what people call "in the noise."

[li]Known non-human emissions are 210 GT/yr. The amount from the 1000+ active undersea volcanoes is unknown.

[li]1/3 of CO2 cycle is unknown. There are some active avenues of investigation but there is nothing considered a serious candidate to explain the missing 1/3.

[li]In ALL core samples CO2 increases AFTER temperature increases. The earth's temperature is still increasing from the last ice age. Of course we expect CO2 to be rising now.

[li]The Sahara desert started to appear about 4500 years ago.

[li]The Sahara reached its current extent about 3000 years ago.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

The reason for this year’s warmer and drier winter is El Nino, a shift in the winds and ocean currents in the Pacific, Phillips said.

But what’s also at play, Phillips said, is the thinning of the polar ice cap.

Which is it? Or is this the I have to create doom and gloom so I get paid.

“In the last three to four years the ice in the Arctic has thinned,” he said. “And that means the refrigeration at the top of the world is not cooling like it did in the past.”

Isn't that statement ass backwards? Doesn't something have to cool the pole so the ice will form?

---

read a 1 page blurb in the latest discover magazine. using Kayaks to measure ice melt on Petermann Glacier have confirmed that the Glacier is melting 20X faster from the bottom than the top.

I can only assume that since a warmer liquid will melt ice faster than warmer air, that indeed the oceans waters are warming and melting polar ice

---

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

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation and do not always reradiate that energy?

How does one suspend the third law of Thermodynamics and prevent reradiation?

Think further... I choose my words carefully.

As a hint, you can make use of two highly favoured words of yours...

I give up. Tell me how to suspend the 3rd law.

You don't.

And for a scientist, you do give up awfully easily.


So, what are the things that can happen to an atom or a molecule when it absorbs a single quanta of solar radiation (a photon)?

Regards,
Martin

---

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

While awaiting a means to suspend entropy let me post some facts on CO2. ...

Sorry, but you're going to have to give some references for the source of your numbers and also a brief comment as to why/how they might be significant.

Sorry, as presented, they are just random numbers and random comments, from which any random meaning can be twisted.

Regards,
Martin

---

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

The reason for this year’s warmer and drier winter is El Nino, a shift in the winds and ocean currents in the Pacific, Phillips said.

But what’s also at play, Phillips said, is the thinning of the polar ice cap.

Which is it? Or is this the I have to create doom and gloom so I get paid.

“In the last three to four years the ice in the Arctic has thinned,” he said. “And that means the refrigeration at the top of the world is not cooling like it did in the past.”

Isn't that statement ass backwards? Doesn't something have to cool the pole so the ice will form?

ever put an ice cube on a hot plate thats whats happening. warmer weather patterns are pushing north preventing the normal freezing to occur

---

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

read a 1 page blurb in the latest discover magazine. using Kayaks to measure ice melt on Petermann Glacier have confirmed that the Glacier is melting 20X faster from the bottom than the top.

I can only assume that since a warmer liquid will melt ice faster than warmer air, that indeed the oceans waters are warming and melting polar ice

Glaciers are on land. So you have discovered a volcano under Greenland.

---

you might want to rethink that one. Glaciers like the kind found in Antarctica and Greenland typically end in the ocean. Also of note. the mass of Ice that is the glaciers of Greenland have sunk or ground away most of the central land mass on Greenland. The glaciers are being exposed to warmer oceanic water which in turn speeds them up decreasing their thinkness and length. think of warmer water as the Glaciers anti-Extenze

---

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

read a 1 page blurb in the latest discover magazine. using Kayaks to measure ice melt on Petermann Glacier have confirmed that the Glacier is melting 20X faster from the bottom than the top.

I can only assume that since a warmer liquid will melt ice faster than warmer air, that indeed the oceans waters are warming and melting polar ice

Glaciers are on land. So you have discovered a volcano under Greenland.

you might want to rethink that one. Glaciers like the kind found in Antarctica and Greenland typically end in the ocean. Also of note. the mass of Ice that is the glaciers of Greenland have sunk or ground away most of the central land mass on Greenland. The glaciers are being exposed to warmer oceanic water which in turn speeds them up decreasing their thinkness and length. think of warmer water as the Glaciers anti-Extenze

Literally amazing the stuff that gets posted here.

dude, how much of an ice cube floats above the water line? dude how much of an ice cube is above the ground when you set it there? dude what do you think happens to a hunk of ice when it finally starts to hang over the edge of the coast line? Look up calving. dude it should be obvious to you that only the last tiny fraction of the glacier can be in the ocean. dude look up the word glacier. It says river of ice. Last I checked you can't have rivers in an ocean.

Just admit your reasoning for the observation is wrong.

[edi]I'm not claiming that volcanos under Greenland are correct either.

---

Can you accept that some gasses absorb solar radiation and do not always reradiate that energy?

How does one suspend the third law of Thermodynamics and prevent reradiation?

Think further... I choose my words carefully.

As a hint, you can make use of two highly favoured words of yours...

I give up. Tell me how to suspend the 3rd law.

You don't.

And for a scientist, you do give up awfully easily.

What is there about scientist that makes you think there is an interest in stupid guessing games based upon the exact wording of your statement?

So, what are the things that can happen to an atom or a molecule when it absorbs a single quanta of solar radiation (a photon)?

Regards,
Martin

When it absorbs a single quantum (the singular as in quantum physics, for the record, Quantas is an airline) the molecule increases its rate of vibration and rotation. I would have to look it up to see if the length of the bonds increases. I would rather not bother as you playing a very silly game and are so far from addressing the aggregate effect on a gas that at the present rate it might be another week or two before you say something relevant to the claims of melters.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

I am certain most have seen the iconic picture of the polar bear with no ice in sight. It is proof positive the north polar ice cap is melting.

What is wrong with that picture?

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

The problem with the picture is the picture itself.

If you can see the polar bear then the sun is up and it is summer and the ice cap is supposed to melt.

Trick answer?

Polar bears survive every summer every year. That is why there are polar bears. So we know that polar bears can survive at the peak of the melt in summer.

So what is the problem?

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult

The reason for this year’s warmer and drier winter is El Nino, a shift in the winds and ocean currents in the Pacific, Phillips said.

But what’s also at play, Phillips said, is the thinning of the polar ice cap.

Which is it? Or is this the I have to create doom and gloom so I get paid.

“In the last three to four years the ice in the Arctic has thinned,” he said. “And that means the refrigeration at the top of the world is not cooling like it did in the past.”

Isn't that statement ass backwards? Doesn't something have to cool the pole so the ice will form?

ever put an ice cube on a hot plate thats whats happening. warmer weather patterns are pushing north preventing the normal freezing to occur

Why is freezing good? Please be specific in your answer. Different is not bad per se.

---

Unvarnished
Haaretz
Jerusalem Post
The origin of the Yahweh Cult