 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » A Thermodynamically Valid Equation of Greenhouse... |
|
Page 1 of 14 Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| Claudius Denk... |
 Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics (particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
[/quote]
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:01 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics (particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
wow, thats some lame bs..... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp..googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics (particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wow, thats some lame bs.....
[/quote]
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Answer my question you evasive jackass. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| JohnM... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 6:50 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:12 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics (particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
[/quote]
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
> Answer my question you evasive jackass. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:32 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 9:50 am, JohnM <john_howard_mor... at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:12 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics (particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Did nobody explain to you that GHGs possess the properties they have
because of Quantum Mechanics.
[/quote]
Scientific phoneys always latch onto the most complicated thing they
can find to conceal the fact that they don't know what they are
talking about. Answer my question you evasive jackass: Isn't it true
that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically valid equation of
greenhouse properties?
Answer the question you evasive twit. And keep in mind that the rest
of us don't have access to your imagination.
[quote]Perhaps you should read up a bit -
[/quote]
References?
[quote]unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.[/quote] |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:35 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:01 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in
messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of
quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people
have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a
thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If
someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics
(particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but
they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound
scientific hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Answer my question you evasive jackass.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html
[/quote]
This is a perfect example of the amorphous nonsense that AGW
propagandist employ to divert attention. For example, There is
nothing on here that allows us to quantify how much of a greenhouse
gas nitrogen is. As you demonstrate, you about have to be retarded to
mistake this propaganda for valid science. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 7:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 9:32 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
Scientific phoneys always latch onto the most complicated thing"
<SNIP>
The question that you quoted was subjective in nature, i.e. what he
had seen, and prove him wrong, now you are picking up on that same
idiotic thought process. How about you and him show the known (NOT
WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN THAT IS KNOWN) properties of "green house gasses"
or gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared
energy (that includes and is not limited to their quantum properties,
molar heat capacities etc...) |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:12 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:49 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 9:32 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
Scientific phoneys always latch onto the most complicated thing"
SNIP
The question that you quoted was subjective in nature, i.e.
[/quote]
I knew you wouldn't answer the question. Because if you answered
honestly you would have confirmed my point. And if you lied and
pretended you were aware of such then I would ask you to supply it.
When you didn't it would have both confirmed my point and confirmed
that you are a liar.
[quote]what he
had seen, and prove him wrong, now you are picking up on that same
idiotic thought process. How about you and him show the known (NOT
WHAT YOU HAVE SEEN THAT IS KNOWN) properties of "green house gasses"
or gases that transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared
energy (that includes and is not limited to their quantum properties,
molar heat capacities etc...)
[/quote]
I can't make any sense of this. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 8:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:12 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net>
wrote:" I can't make any sense of this."
Show the known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that
transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that
includes and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat
capacities etc...), no excuses show the information you evasie twit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| richp... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:18 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics (particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)
where CO2_orig is the 1750 concentration (278 ppmv). |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| richp... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:35 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:01 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in
messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of
quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people
have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a
thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If
someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics
(particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but
they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound
scientific hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Answer my question you evasive jackass.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html
This is a perfect example of the amorphous nonsense that AGW
propagandist employ to divert attention. For example, There is
nothing on here that allows us to quantify how much of a greenhouse
gas nitrogen is. As you demonstrate, you about have to be retarded to
mistake this propaganda for valid science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
Hey fuckbrains nitrogen doesn't absorb much infrared you jackass |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| richp... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:22 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 10:59 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
[quote]Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:01 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in
messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of
quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people
have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a
thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If
someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics
(particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but
they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound
scientific hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Answer my question you evasive jackass.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html
This is a perfect example of the amorphous nonsense that AGW
propagandist employ to divert attention. For example, There is
nothing on here that allows us to quantify how much of a greenhouse
gas nitrogen is. As you demonstrate, you about have to be retarded to
mistake this propaganda for valid science.
As usual, the denialist just makes some shit up.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
He sure does what else do you expect |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:34 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 12:18 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 8:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp..googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics (particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound scientific
hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Total Forcing = 5.35 log(CO2_e/CO2_orig)
where CO2_orig is the 1750 concentration (278 ppmv).
[/quote]
Scientific phoneys always latch onto the most complicated thing they
can find to conceal the fact that they don't know what they are
talking about. Answer my question you evasive jackass: Isn't it true
that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically valid equation
of
greenhouse properties?
Answer the question you evasive twit. And keep in mind that the rest
of us don't have access to your imagination. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net>
wrote:""
Show the known properties of "green house gasses" or gases that
transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy (that
includes and is not limited to their quantum properties, molar heat
capacities etc...), no excuses show the information you evasie twit. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:44 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 29, 12:21 pm, richp <travelingman95... at (no spam) gmail.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 10:35 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 10:01 am, "Ouroboros Rex" <i... at (no spam) casual.com> wrote:
Claudius Denk wrote:
On Oct 29, 9:01 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 7:50 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 28, 1:39 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation"
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in
messagenews:9e8cd412-45f7-4031-a1d7-f85c77d5ca6b at (no spam) l31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 21, 8:37 am, "Timothy Casey"
sixth-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[SNIP]
.>Given the extensive science that has been done in the world of
quantum
mechanics, molar heat capacities, spectroscopy all since woods
experiment, don’t you think you are on thin ice by stating the
question in the manner you have.
.
You are never on thin ice by stating a question, unless people
have something
to hide.
.
None of the science I've seen adresses the question and a
thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties is non-existant. If
someone can
prove me wrong without violating the laws of thermodynamics
(particularly
Kirchhoff's Law), I'd be truly delighted.
AGW advocates have everything to hide. Not only do they refuse to
attempt to achieve a valid equation of greenhouse properties but
they
refuse to define what a greenhouse property is. By keeping it
informal and vague they can pretend that they have a sound
scientific hypothesis when really all they have is amorphous
nonsense.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
wow, thats some lame bs.....
Isn't it true that you yourself are unaware of a thermodynamically
valid equation of greenhouse properties?
Answer my question you evasive jackass.
http://www.lpl.arizona.edu/~showman/greenhouse.html
This is a perfect example of the amorphous nonsense that AGW
propagandist employ to divert attention. For example, There is
nothing on here that allows us to quantify how much of a greenhouse
gas nitrogen is. As you demonstrate, you about have to be retarded to
mistake this propaganda for valid science.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hey fuckbrains nitrogen doesn't absorb much infrared you jackass
[/quote]
Relevance? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Nov 28, 2009 6:16 pm
|
|