More stuff in the water

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

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.

When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?

Wake wrote:

spot wrote: tell that to a pharmacist.

When was the last time you were prescribed CO2?

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.

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?

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.

[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.

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[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!

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.

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.

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.

[b]Surface Detail wrote:

Wake 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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.