Remember me
▼ Content

More stuff in the water


More stuff in the water17-02-2017 03:52
Commonsense
☆☆☆☆☆
(16)
This is a funny on that we have even thought about. Piers and Bridges also Docks in the ocean Check out google images All have some kind piling or concrete Here are a few Australia 8, Belgium 3, Canada 21, China 50, Colmbia 6, Cote d' Ivire 1, Denmark 3, Inda 6, Japan 6, lithuania 2, Netherlands 2, New Zealand 12, Poland 20, Singapore 20, United Kingdom 10, Costa Pires England 50, scottland 3, Wales 8, Island London 21. Not including United States, Russia, Afarica ETC... Has to be a few Hundred Million cubic feet on the short side of displacment. WAIT I FORGOT BRIDGES here is a fe the are long Jiaozhou Bay Bridge 26 miles long concreate 2 pilers every 200', Amazing check Longest bridges and short bridge images , So Many more Cubic it would take bridge personal and his Hobby counting piller and concreate bases, All these bridges are cubic water displacment, we are truly our worst enemys Who in the hell approves these Projects There need to be a peir pole TAX . THE WATER IS RISING, Add All I have in these post togeather
17-02-2017 19:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Commonsense wrote:
This is a funny on that we have even thought about. Piers and Bridges also Docks in the ocean Check out google images All have some kind piling or concrete Here are a few Australia 8, Belgium 3, Canada 21, China 50, Colmbia 6, Cote d' Ivire 1, Denmark 3, Inda 6, Japan 6, lithuania 2, Netherlands 2, New Zealand 12, Poland 20, Singapore 20, United Kingdom 10, Costa Pires England 50, scottland 3, Wales 8, Island London 21. Not including United States, Russia, Afarica ETC... Has to be a few Hundred Million cubic feet on the short side of displacment. WAIT I FORGOT BRIDGES here is a fe the are long Jiaozhou Bay Bridge 26 miles long concreate 2 pilers every 200', Amazing check Longest bridges and short bridge images , So Many more Cubic it would take bridge personal and his Hobby counting piller and concreate bases, All these bridges are cubic water displacment, we are truly our worst enemys Who in the hell approves these Projects There need to be a peir pole TAX . THE WATER IS RISING, Add All I have in these post togeather


Do you have ANY idea of scale at all? There are some 510 MILLION square miles of ocean covering the Earth. With a total volume of 322.3 MILLION cu mi. If you were to take EVERY man-made structure on every ocean in the world if could possibly cover 2 square miles and displace one quarter of a cubic mile of water.

So where exactly are you getting these hare-brained ideas?

If you HAD an idea like this why wouldn't you look things up before writing them down?
17-02-2017 21:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Argument from randU is what the Church of Global Warming does. It has no real data, it has to manufacture it. The more impressive the number the better according to some opinions.

Some of the Faithful just chant their mantras of made up numbers, like Chief Litebeer. Others just want to ignore any sense of proportion, such as the radical effects of a gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.
17-02-2017 22:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU is what the Church of Global Warming does. It has no real data, it has to manufacture it. The more impressive the number the better according to some opinions.

Some of the Faithful just chant their mantras of made up numbers, like Chief Litebeer. Others just want to ignore any sense of proportion, such as the radical effects of a gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.


Commonsense has been sending me emails that make no sense at all. He thinks that moderately active volcanoes over time can raise sea levels. This is more than a sense of proportion since he can't even understand that ALL of this deposition in Lake Superior over the period of a hundred years would raise the levels of that lake perhaps 2".

Using terms like "ring of fire" without the knowledge that most volcanoes are known because they have already built their bases and that lava flows do not even enter the oceans any more is pretty dense.

That like man's supposed contributions to the CO2 load in the atmosphere that it is almost immeasurable. (280 ppm to 406 ppm or an addition of .000126%) at what point does anyone get practical?
18-02-2017 02:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU is what the Church of Global Warming does. It has no real data, it has to manufacture it. The more impressive the number the better according to some opinions.

Some of the Faithful just chant their mantras of made up numbers, like Chief Litebeer. Others just want to ignore any sense of proportion, such as the radical effects of a gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.


Commonsense has been sending me emails that make no sense at all. He thinks that moderately active volcanoes over time can raise sea levels. This is more than a sense of proportion since he can't even understand that ALL of this deposition in Lake Superior over the period of a hundred years would raise the levels of that lake perhaps 2".

Using terms like "ring of fire" without the knowledge that most volcanoes are known because they have already built their bases and that lava flows do not even enter the oceans any more is pretty dense.

That like man's supposed contributions to the CO2 load in the atmosphere that it is almost immeasurable. (280 ppm to 406 ppm or an addition of .000126%) at what point does anyone get practical?


You not find much practical about the Church of Global Warming.



The Parrot Killer
18-02-2017 03:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU is what the Church of Global Warming does. It has no real data, it has to manufacture it. The more impressive the number the better according to some opinions.

Some of the Faithful just chant their mantras of made up numbers, like Chief Litebeer. Others just want to ignore any sense of proportion, such as the radical effects of a gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.


Commonsense has been sending me emails that make no sense at all. He thinks that moderately active volcanoes over time can raise sea levels. This is more than a sense of proportion since he can't even understand that ALL of this deposition in Lake Superior over the period of a hundred years would raise the levels of that lake perhaps 2".

Using terms like "ring of fire" without the knowledge that most volcanoes are known because they have already built their bases and that lava flows do not even enter the oceans any more is pretty dense.

That like man's supposed contributions to the CO2 load in the atmosphere that it is almost immeasurable. (280 ppm to 406 ppm or an addition of .000126%) at what point does anyone get practical?

It's funny how crap you are at math. 280 ppm to 406 ppm is an addition of 126 ppm, or 0.000126, or 0.0126% of the total atmosphere. You've already made this mistake once. We all make mistakes, but fools are they who fail to learn by their mistakes.
18-02-2017 10:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU is what the Church of Global Warming does. It has no real data, it has to manufacture it. The more impressive the number the better according to some opinions.

Some of the Faithful just chant their mantras of made up numbers, like Chief Litebeer. Others just want to ignore any sense of proportion, such as the radical effects of a gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.


Commonsense has been sending me emails that make no sense at all. He thinks that moderately active volcanoes over time can raise sea levels. This is more than a sense of proportion since he can't even understand that ALL of this deposition in Lake Superior over the period of a hundred years would raise the levels of that lake perhaps 2".

Using terms like "ring of fire" without the knowledge that most volcanoes are known because they have already built their bases and that lava flows do not even enter the oceans any more is pretty dense.

That like man's supposed contributions to the CO2 load in the atmosphere that it is almost immeasurable. (280 ppm to 406 ppm or an addition of .000126%) at what point does anyone get practical?

It's funny how crap you are at math. 280 ppm to 406 ppm is an addition of 126 ppm, or 0.000126, or 0.0126% of the total atmosphere. You've already made this mistake once. We all make mistakes, but fools are they who fail to learn by their mistakes.


100 * almost nothing is still almost nothing.


The Parrot Killer
18-02-2017 11:18
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument from randU is what the Church of Global Warming does. It has no real data, it has to manufacture it. The more impressive the number the better according to some opinions.

Some of the Faithful just chant their mantras of made up numbers, like Chief Litebeer. Others just want to ignore any sense of proportion, such as the radical effects of a gas that comprises 0.04% of the atmosphere.


Commonsense has been sending me emails that make no sense at all. He thinks that moderately active volcanoes over time can raise sea levels. This is more than a sense of proportion since he can't even understand that ALL of this deposition in Lake Superior over the period of a hundred years would raise the levels of that lake perhaps 2".

Using terms like "ring of fire" without the knowledge that most volcanoes are known because they have already built their bases and that lava flows do not even enter the oceans any more is pretty dense.

That like man's supposed contributions to the CO2 load in the atmosphere that it is almost immeasurable. (280 ppm to 406 ppm or an addition of .000126%) at what point does anyone get practical?

It's funny how crap you are at math. 280 ppm to 406 ppm is an addition of 126 ppm, or 0.000126, or 0.0126% of the total atmosphere. You've already made this mistake once. We all make mistakes, but fools are they who fail to learn by their mistakes.


100 * almost nothing is still almost nothing.


tell that to a pharmacist.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-02-2017 22:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.


When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?
18-02-2017 23:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.


When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?

Point missed entirely. No surprises there.
19-02-2017 01:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.


When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?


I said I have no qualifications in climate science but medical gasses is something I do know about and CO2 is used in clinical settings.

O2 therapy is precscribed funny enough.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
19-02-2017 19:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.


When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?


I said I have no qualifications in climate science but medical gasses is something I do know about and CO2 is used in clinical settings.

O2 therapy is precscribed funny enough.


CO2 is used in operating rooms to inflate areas of the body so that they can gain access for operations more easily. So of what importance is that to the conversation?

O2 "therapy is hardly prescribed. It is necessary for people with lung problems such as cancer and emphysema so that they can gain enough oxygen to live.

Again - the conversation was that the growth in CO2 was TINY, that this is hardly the sort of increase that anyone short of some sort of wild-eyed fanatic would claim to be important.

We have discussed how CO2 ONLY absorbs in very limited bands and that those bands absorb ALL of the available energy at extremely low values of atmospheric CO2.

CO2 can STILL absorb energy directly from transfer from other molecules but it is FAR less efficient in this manner than O2 of N2 which compose the majority of atmospheric gases. I have even provided the chemical charts that say so.

Why so you and Surface Decals continue to argue otherwise? Why do you make the same claims over and over even when the NASA papers themselves contradict you?
19-02-2017 20:10
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.


When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?


I said I have no qualifications in climate science but medical gasses is something I do know about and CO2 is used in clinical settings.

O2 therapy is precscribed funny enough.


CO2 is used in operating rooms to inflate areas of the body so that they can gain access for operations more easily. So of what importance is that to the conversation?

O2 "therapy is hardly prescribed. It is necessary for people with lung problems such as cancer and emphysema so that they can gain enough oxygen to live.

Again - the conversation was that the growth in CO2 was TINY, that this is hardly the sort of increase that anyone short of some sort of wild-eyed fanatic would claim to be important.

We have discussed how CO2 ONLY absorbs in very limited bands and that those bands absorb ALL of the available energy at extremely low values of atmospheric CO2.

CO2 can STILL absorb energy directly from transfer from other molecules but it is FAR less efficient in this manner than O2 of N2 which compose the majority of atmospheric gases. I have even provided the chemical charts that say so.

Why so you and Surface Decals continue to argue otherwise? Why do you make the same claims over and over even when the NASA papers themselves contradict you?

They don't contradict us; they contradict you. You're just too thick to understand them which, I guess, isn't surprising, given that you're too thick to even calculate percentages correctly.
19-02-2017 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.


When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?

Point missed entirely. No surprises there.


It sure was. 100 * almost nothing is still almost nothing.

I saw you wanted to delete the actual point.


The Parrot Killer
19-02-2017 21:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: They don't contradict us; they contradict you. You're just too thick to understand them which, I guess, isn't surprising, given that you're too thick to even calculate percentages correctly.


With references like that who could argue with you? Again your IQ falls another 20 points in my estimation.
20-02-2017 00:21
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: They don't contradict us; they contradict you. You're just too thick to understand them which, I guess, isn't surprising, given that you're too thick to even calculate percentages correctly.


With references like that who could argue with you? Again your IQ falls another 20 points in my estimation.

Why would I care what some idiot who can't work out percentages thinks?
20-02-2017 00:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.


When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?

Point missed entirely. No surprises there.


It sure was. 100 * almost nothing is still almost nothing.

I saw you wanted to delete the actual point.


The point is small amounts of things can have major effects. The argument that an amount is insignificant is meaningless without further context.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
20-02-2017 17:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]spot wrote: The point is small amounts of things can have major effects. The argument that an amount is insignificant is meaningless without further context.


The point is that CO2 is NOT one of those things. We have shown that CO2 long ago NATURALLY exceeded the levels in which the entire bands of absorption absorbed the entire spectrum available to it.

There is STILL the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy through simple transmission from adjoining molecules but O2 and N are FAR more efficient at that and CO2 is not.

So CO2 is not a problem now or ever. Moreover even the scientists involved in these things are blowing the whistle that they are having their data and even their conclusions doctored.

People without the scientific knowledge to understand these subtleties are being used as tools. And I would like to know why you are allowing that to happen.

Again - tell me ONE alternative to civilization as it is? In fact, what the environmentalists are proposing is death of the lower classes on a massive scale. And you can't even see that.
20-02-2017 17:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
There is STILL the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy through simple transmission from adjoining molecules but O2 and N are FAR more efficient at that and CO2 is not.

Back to school granddad:

Non-greenhouse gases

The major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and monatomic molecules such as argon (Ar) have no net change in the distribution of their electrical charges when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation.
20-02-2017 20:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: They don't contradict us; they contradict you. You're just too thick to understand them which, I guess, isn't surprising, given that you're too thick to even calculate percentages correctly.


With references like that who could argue with you? Again your IQ falls another 20 points in my estimation.

Why would I care what some idiot who can't work out percentages thinks?


Why would anyone care about your fixation on trivial things like that?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 20-02-2017 20:19
20-02-2017 20:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Surface Detail wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:
There is STILL the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy through simple transmission from adjoining molecules but O2 and N are FAR more efficient at that and CO2 is not.

Back to school granddad:

...deleted irrelevant link...
/quote]
Link War! You apparently don't have the ability to understand the way heat works. There are more paths than just radiated heat, idiot.


The Parrot Killer
20-02-2017 20:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is STILL the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy through simple transmission from adjoining molecules but O2 and N are FAR more efficient at that and CO2 is not.

Back to school granddad:

Non-greenhouse gases

The major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and monatomic molecules such as argon (Ar) have no net change in the distribution of their electrical charges when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation.


Too bad that at no point in your life will you ever learn to read and comprehend.

Heat transfer from molecule to molecule in the air is not via infrared. But continue to be the "Duhhhhhhh" champion of the board.
20-02-2017 20:48
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is STILL the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy through simple transmission from adjoining molecules but O2 and N are FAR more efficient at that and CO2 is not.

Back to school granddad:

Non-greenhouse gases

The major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and monatomic molecules such as argon (Ar) have no net change in the distribution of their electrical charges when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation.


Too bad that at no point in your life will you ever learn to read and comprehend.

Heat transfer from molecule to molecule in the air is not via infrared. But continue to be the "Duhhhhhhh" champion of the board.

I take it, then, that you now accept that greenhouse gases are fundamentally different from non-greenhouse gases in their ability to absorb IR radiation. Why, then, are you going on about O2 and N2? Their presence has no effect on the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere.
20-02-2017 21:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is STILL the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy through simple transmission from adjoining molecules but O2 and N are FAR more efficient at that and CO2 is not.

Back to school granddad:

Non-greenhouse gases

The major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and monatomic molecules such as argon (Ar) have no net change in the distribution of their electrical charges when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation.


Too bad that at no point in your life will you ever learn to read and comprehend.

Heat transfer from molecule to molecule in the air is not via infrared. But continue to be the "Duhhhhhhh" champion of the board.

I take it, then, that you now accept that greenhouse gases are fundamentally different from non-greenhouse gases in their ability to absorb IR radiation. Why, then, are you going on about O2 and N2? Their presence has no effect on the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere.


Again and again you demonstrate an ignorance of what you're talking about and you refuse to bother to learn the slightest thing. I don't believe we have anything else to say since there is NO communication here because you do not wish to communicate.
21-02-2017 00:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
There is STILL the excess CO2 in the atmosphere can absorb energy through simple transmission from adjoining molecules but O2 and N are FAR more efficient at that and CO2 is not.

Back to school granddad:

Non-greenhouse gases

The major atmospheric constituents, nitrogen (N2), oxygen (O2), and argon (Ar), are not greenhouse gases because molecules containing two atoms of the same element such as N2 and O2 and monatomic molecules such as argon (Ar) have no net change in the distribution of their electrical charges when they vibrate and hence are almost totally unaffected by infrared radiation.


Too bad that at no point in your life will you ever learn to read and comprehend.

Heat transfer from molecule to molecule in the air is not via infrared. But continue to be the "Duhhhhhhh" champion of the board.

I take it, then, that you now accept that greenhouse gases are fundamentally different from non-greenhouse gases in their ability to absorb IR radiation. Why, then, are you going on about O2 and N2? Their presence has no effect on the transmission of IR radiation through the atmosphere.


Again and again you demonstrate an ignorance of what you're talking about and you refuse to bother to learn the slightest thing. I don't believe we have anything else to say since there is NO communication here because you do not wish to communicate.

Let's just say that you're not the most reliable source of knowledge.

What gems have we had so far? Off the top of my head:

The sun has shone with roughly the same output since shortly after the Earth formed.
Venus is cooled by its atmosphere.
The surface of Venus and Mercury is "essentially lava".
Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.

Those are the more memorable ones, but I'm sure I could find plenty more howlers if I look back at your posts!
21-02-2017 06:50
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:
Let's just say that you're not the most reliable source of knowledge.

What gems have we had so far? Off the top of my head:

The sun has shone with roughly the same output since shortly after the Earth formed.
Venus is cooled by its atmosphere.
The surface of Venus and Mercury is "essentially lava".
Stephen Hawking developed the Standard Model.

Those are the more memorable ones, but I'm sure I could find plenty more howlers if I look back at your posts!


I wonder if you really think I care what you can throw at me?

After I said that the TEMPERATURE of the sun was about the same you through up a chart that plainly showed I was correct and then cried that it was REALLY luminosity that I had actually mean. Even though from your stupid chart and the actual temperature record from geological sources they differ.

Now you tell us that Venus is heated by it's atmosphere and not by the Sun. My how clever of you. Apparently you are unaware that the year and day on Venus are the same and that the daylight side is cooled by the hurricane force winds rotating around the globe from the differential temperature gradient.

As ALL"standard models" it was a group effort in which Stephen Hawking played a pivotal roll but since you don't understand the mathematics of infinity you wouldn't know that would you? You don't even understand the mathematics of everyday events.

But looking at your posts all we can say is that once a fool always a fool. Congratulations, you made the grade.
21-02-2017 13:22
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
After I said that the TEMPERATURE of the sun was about the same you through up a chart that plainly showed I was correct and then cried that it was REALLY luminosity that I had actually mean. Even though from your stupid chart and the actual temperature record from geological sources they differ.

Let's have a look back, shall we? You wrote:

Main sequence starts indeed sputter to life but by the time that Earth had life on it, it had been a long time in hydrostatic equilibrium. For the uneducated, that means that over the majority of the Earth's life the emissions from the Sun have remained THE SAME. Before life was formed on the Earth this equilibrium had formed.

So no, you wrote "emissions", not "temperature". By "emissions", one would assume that you meant luminosity since that is what dictates the amount of solar energy arriving at the Earth. You only started claiming that you meant temperature after I posted graphs of solar luminosity and temperature. Don't worry, though, I'll forgive an old man a lapse of memory.

Now you tell us that Venus is heated by it's atmosphere and not by the Sun. My how clever of you. Apparently you are unaware that the year and day on Venus are the same and that the daylight side is cooled by the hurricane force winds rotating around the globe from the differential temperature gradient.

I said that Venus is not cooled (as you claimed), but warmed by its atmosphere. I never mentioned the sun; you made that up. The massive greenhouse effect resulting from its thick CO2 atmosphere gives rise to an enormous amount of back radiation. That's why Venus is hotter than Mercury. And no, the year and day on Venus are not the same. The year is 224.7 Earth days, while the period of rotation is −243.025 days, i.e. in a retrograde direction. This information is readily available on the internet. Why do you lie about such things?

As ALL"standard models" it was a group effort in which Stephen Hawking played a pivotal roll but since you don't understand the mathematics of infinity you wouldn't know that would you? You don't even understand the mathematics of everyday events.

The Standard Model was indeed a group effort, but Stephen Hawking did not play a pivotal role, let alone develop it! Why do you keep maintaining this? Stephen Hawking is a cosmologist, not a particle physicist. If you have any evidence of Hawking's supposed contribution to the development of the Standard Model, then please post it here.
21-02-2017 17:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]Surface Detail wrote:


It's getting pretty funny when you have to argue details such as a 20 day different day length.

And you know what? You still haven't proven AGW by arguing that emission is the same as luminessence after you've looked at a graph that was hugely exaggerated for explanatory effects. That MIGHT have occurred to you by looking at the Earth's temperature curve but you're too busy looking for ANY point to make that mere waving red flags are invisible to you.
21-02-2017 20:16
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
It's getting pretty funny when you have to argue details such as a 20 day different day length.

You claimed that Venus' day has the same length as its year. It doesn't. You lied.

And you know what? You still haven't proven AGW by arguing that emission is the same as luminessence after you've looked at a graph that was hugely exaggerated for explanatory effects. That MIGHT have occurred to you by looking at the Earth's temperature curve but you're too busy looking for ANY point to make that mere waving red flags are invisible to you.

Luminescence? What's luminescence got to do with it? That's something else completely. We were taking about luminosity. You do seem awfully confused.
21-02-2017 20:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Luminescence? What's luminescence got to do with it? That's something else completely. We were taking about luminosity. You do seem awfully confused.


So you're back to the length of a day on Venus are you? Typo's to you are lack of knowledge as is usual for those without any knowledge at all.
21-02-2017 20:30
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Luminescence? What's luminescence got to do with it? That's something else completely. We were taking about luminosity. You do seem awfully confused.


So you're back to the length of a day on Venus are you? Typo's to you are lack of knowledge as is usual for those without any knowledge at all.

It was you who seemed, for some reason, to think it important that the length of Venus' day is the same as that of its year, which it isn't. And confusing luminescence for luminosity isn't simply a typo - they are both scientific terms but mean completely different things. Science isn't simply a case of spouting technical-sounding words at random, you know. And, to cap it all, that's about 280 posts on this forum, and you still can't get the formatting correct.

Sorry, but you appear to be too stupid to be worth any more of my time.
21-02-2017 20:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Luminescence? What's luminescence got to do with it? That's something else completely. We were taking about luminosity. You do seem awfully confused.


So you're back to the length of a day on Venus are you? Typo's to you are lack of knowledge as is usual for those without any knowledge at all.

It was you who seemed, for some reason, to think it important that the length of Venus' day is the same as that of its year, which it isn't. And confusing luminescence for luminosity isn't simply a typo - they are both scientific terms but mean completely different things. Science isn't simply a case of spouting technical-sounding words at random, you know. And, to cap it all, that's about 280 posts on this forum, and you still can't get the formatting correct.

Sorry, but you appear to be too stupid to be worth any more of my time.


It is you who seems to believe that it is the CO2 which magically causes the heat on Venus when it is nothing more than the blanketing effect of a heavy atmosphere.

But I must say that you're always good for a laugh. A slight counter rotation of Venus should make a difference if it were not for the CO2 to you and yours.
21-02-2017 20:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9232)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Luminescence? What's luminescence got to do with it? That's something else completely. We were taking about luminosity. You do seem awfully confused.


So you're back to the length of a day on Venus are you? Typo's to you are lack of knowledge as is usual for those without any knowledge at all.

It was you who seemed, for some reason, to think it important that the length of Venus' day is the same as that of its year, which it isn't. And confusing luminescence for luminosity isn't simply a typo - they are both scientific terms but mean completely different things. Science isn't simply a case of spouting technical-sounding words at random, you know. And, to cap it all, that's about 280 posts on this forum, and you still can't get the formatting correct.

Sorry, but you appear to be too stupid to be worth any more of my time.


Sorry twit, but Wake has got you there. The rotation period of Venus and the orbital period of Venus are pretty close together.


The Parrot Killer
21-02-2017 21:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: Luminescence? What's luminescence got to do with it? That's something else completely. We were taking about luminosity. You do seem awfully confused.


So you're back to the length of a day on Venus are you? Typo's to you are lack of knowledge as is usual for those without any knowledge at all.

It was you who seemed, for some reason, to think it important that the length of Venus' day is the same as that of its year, which it isn't. And confusing luminescence for luminosity isn't simply a typo - they are both scientific terms but mean completely different things. Science isn't simply a case of spouting technical-sounding words at random, you know. And, to cap it all, that's about 280 posts on this forum, and you still can't get the formatting correct.

Sorry, but you appear to be too stupid to be worth any more of my time.


Hey dummy - I just got another call to go to work for a DoD contractor. But they are in Orlando. Maybe that's the sort of job you should be working - one that pays so much that they don't even have to tell you what it is. At least the HR guy at General Dynamics has the courtesy to choke when saying what the wage would be. When it's more in one year than he makes in three it's a real hard job to get it out.

Tell us again how you cannot use Chromatography to detect 14C. Tell us again that if you double the CO2 in the atmosphere without adding 14C that you cannot detect it.

http://nov79.com/gbwm/ntyg.html

Oh, wait, that isn't the place where they show surface temperatures of Venus at some 435 C being in the high IR - outside of the range of direct absorption of CO2.
06-10-2017 06:24
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick sillly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: I just got another call to go to work for a DoD contractor.

"don'T rump", a sexist, racist xenophobe, & subject by psychiatrists delineating his leave of sanity, is president.....
Similar scenarios .....




Join the debate More stuff in the water:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There is no evidence water vapor makes things hotter018-09-2019 21:34
CO2 saturated water409-08-2019 06:43
Flooding, climate change force Quebecers to rethink relationship with water Social Sharing019-04-2019 18:53
EPA chief says water issues a bigger crisis than climate change621-03-2019 21:01
US faces fresh water shortages due to climate change, research says405-03-2019 23:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact