 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » A Thermodynamically Valid Equation of Greenhouse... |
|
Page 5 of 14 Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 12, 13, 14 Next |
|
| Author |
Message |
| James... |
 Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:02 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 11:54 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:48 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:42 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:""
Show the known properties of "green house gasses"
The term "green house gasses" is an amorphous term. It has no
scientifically valid definition.
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.
It's your delusion.
laughing, dont blame others because you are too lazy, now quit
squirming, or admit you have no place to call anybody a liar. Next
quit pretending like you have made any point other than to show how
stupid/lazyyou really are. So once again 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.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
So once again 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, just show the information.
[/quote]
Now the bot replies to hos own posts. lol |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:05 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 2:53 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:"
It's not my reponsibility to explain your delusions."
its your responsibility to act in a civil manner, you cut and snipped
this thread from another taking my words out of context, then made
some lame accusations, now you back out with a chicken manure reply,
you are joke. Maybe it is your responsiblity to shut up if your cant
put up, dont demand answers if you cant provide them yourself, and you
certainly dont have a place to call me delusional if you cant do a
little work. So get of your lazy *&% next time and do a little work
before you start making an idiot out of yourself....
[/quote]
What hypocracy. And you have yet to answer any questions. Pathetic. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| James... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:06 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
[quote]On Oct 30, 2:27 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 29, 6:19 pm, "James" <kingko... at (no spam) iglou.com> wrote:
columbiaaccidentinvestigation wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:34 pm, "I M at (no spam) good guy" <I... at (no spam) good.guy> wrote:" I
wish the one line nutcases would stop causing me to delete every
one line lunacy they post"
So, if one liners cause you to have a pavlovian response, and
then on top of that you find a need to blame others for your
lack of self control, i would say one line posts are the least
of your problems. Now to see how you respond to a two line
post, i would also ask you to stop calling yourself a nutcase...
Your logic shows you to be an idiot. Why is that?
really, maybe you need to make a statement like that to help him
out, as i used his own words against him, laughing.....
You used his words to make an ass of yourself as you always do. Tsk-
Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
but your opinion is not relevant, good luck convincing yourself
otherwise...
[/quote]
That was not an opinion. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:29 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 30, 12:29 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Oct 29, 11:48 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On Oct 29, 12:42 pm, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:34 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net
wrote:""
Show the known properties of "green house gasses"
The term "green house gasses" is an amorphous term. It has no
scientifically valid definition.
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.
It's your delusion.
So once again 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..- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
What do you think lurkers will think when they see how desperately you
struggle to avoid answering the question I posed at the beginning of
this thread.
You find out more about what people really think by the questions they
refuse to answer than by their responses to the questions they do
answer. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 7:38 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 9:29 pm, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net>
wrote:"What do you think lurkers will think"
When you dont show the known quantum properties & molar heat
capacities of properties of "green house gasses" or gases that
transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy, mmm, i
dont care what others think about you, or me, just put up or shut
up..... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sat Oct 31, 2009 9:00 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Oct 31, 10:27 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey"... and without the equation, you can't falsify
those greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific."
so you really had not question at all, it was a lame attempt to make a
point. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 1:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"JohnM" <john_howard_morgan at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:da6d337b-5f5f-4372-a46a-ff4723c233cc at (no spam) n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
[SNIP]
[quote]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. Perhaps you should read up a bit -
unless, of course, you are worried that it might change your willfully
ignorant mind.
..[/quote]
That might well be true. No doubt they have these properties because of the
values of the constants of the universe, because of the conservation of
matter and energy, and also because of thermodynamics; but that does not
answer the question does it?
..
This kind of answer is *not* an equation defining the "greenhouse"
properties of gases - and without the equation, you can't falsify those
greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific.
..
--
Timothy Casey - http://timothycasey.info, Email: 1011 at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://fieldcraft.biz; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Timothy Casey... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:42 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigation at (no spam) yahoo.com>
wrote in message
news:4318f270-c3de-4faa-beef-e58037479c35 at (no spam) r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:27 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey"... and without the equation, you can't falsify
those greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific."
..
[quote]so you really had not question at all, it was a lame attempt to make a
point.
..[/quote]
Not necessarily.
If I get what I ask for, I get something useful and my point is then one of
gratitude.
If I do not get what I ask for, there is obviously a point to be made about
the nature of science, considering the abundance of rather confident claims
that greenhouse "theory" is indeed scientific.
..
In this case:
1. I ask for the equation.
2. I get no equation.
3. Ergo, the associated theory is untestable,
4. and therefore the associated theory is unscientific.
Q.E.D.
..
This is a point well worth making if nobody is willing or able to give up
the equation. The requirement of Karl Popper's falsifiability is far from
lame. Science is based on it; so is engineering.
..
Everything useful is based on principles that can be tested in the real
world. Pretend sciences are based on things that cannot be tested in the
real world. Every fraud is based to some degree on pretend science and the
acceptance of untestable propositions. If you were an investigator, surely
you would understand this first principle of "Trust AND verify" - and the
fact that evidence speaks more truthfully than experts.
..
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-number at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software: http://software-1011.com; Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Security
http://web-design-1011.com http://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology: http://geologist-1011.com; http://geologist-1011.net |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 3:59 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 12:42 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:4318f270-c3de-4faa-beef-e58037479c35 at (no spam) r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:27 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey"... and without the equation, you can't falsify
those greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific."
.>so you really had not question at all, it was a lame attempt to make a
point.
.
Not necessarily.
If I get what I ask for, I get something useful and my point is then one of
gratitude.
If I do not get what I ask for, there is obviously a point to be made about
the nature of science, considering the abundance of rather confident claims
that greenhouse "theory" is indeed scientific.
.
In this case:
1. I ask for the equation.
2. I get no equation.
3. Ergo, the associated theory is untestable,
4. and therefore the associated theory is unscientific.
Q.E.D.
.
This is a point well worth making if nobody is willing or able to give up
the equation. The requirement of Karl Popper's falsifiability is far from
lame. Science is based on it; so is engineering.
.
Everything useful is based on principles that can be tested in the real
world. Pretend sciences are based on things that cannot be tested in the
real world. Every fraud is based to some degree on pretend science and the
acceptance of untestable propositions. If you were an investigator, surely
you would understand this first principle of "Trust AND verify" - and the
fact that evidence speaks more truthfully than experts.
.
--
Timothy Casey - Email: 6th-prime-num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info
Software:http://software-1011.com;Scientific IQ Test, Web Menus, Securityhttp://web-design-1011.comhttp://speed-reading-comprehension.com
Science & Geology:http://geologist-1011.com;http://geologist-1011.net
[/quote]
So you cited the woods experiment, so now why dont you catch up and
show the experiments that show the known quantum properties & molar
heat capacities of properties of "green house gasses" or gases that
transmit visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared energy. Asking
the question, does not excuse you from doing your own work... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:27 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 12:42 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
[quote]"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:4318f270-c3de-4faa-beef-e58037479c35 at (no spam) r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:27 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey"... and without the equation, you can't falsify
those greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific."
.>so you really had not question at all, it was a lame attempt to make a
point.
.
Not necessarily.
If I get what I ask for, I get something useful and my point is then one of
gratitude.
If I do not get what I ask for, there is obviously a point to be made about
the nature of science, considering the abundance of rather confident claims
that greenhouse "theory" is indeed scientific.
.
In this case:
1. I ask for the equation.
2. I get no equation.
3. Ergo, the associated theory is untestable,
4. and therefore the associated theory is unscientific.
Q.E.D.
.
This is a point well worth making if nobody is willing or able to give up
the equation. The requirement of Karl Popper's falsifiability is far from
lame. Science is based on it; so is engineering.
.
Everything useful is based on principles that can be tested in the real
world. Pretend sciences are based on things that cannot be tested in the
real world. Every fraud is based to some degree on pretend science and the
acceptance of untestable propositions. If you were an investigator, surely
you would understand this first principle of "Trust AND verify" - and the
fact that evidence speaks more truthfully than experts.
[/quote]
Very well stated.
As we have seen here, in the nether nether world in which greenhouse
theory exists belief trumps and replaces empiricism. It's embarassing
that the U.S. taxpayer has funded and continues to fund this kind of
Peter Pan science to the tune of 30 Billion dollars annually. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 7:53 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 9:27 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 12:42 am, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey.info> wrote:
"columbiaaccidentinvestigation" <columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com
wrote in messagenews:4318f270-c3de-4faa-beef-e58037479c35 at (no spam) r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 31, 10:27 pm, "Timothy Casey" <sixth-prime-
num... at (no spam) timothycasey"... and without the equation, you can't falsify
those greenhouse properties - which makes them unscientific."
.>so you really had not question at all, it was a lame attempt to make a
point.
.
Not necessarily.
If I get what I ask for, I get something useful and my point is then one of
gratitude.
If I do not get what I ask for, there is obviously a point to be made about
the nature of science, considering the abundance of rather confident claims
that greenhouse "theory" is indeed scientific.
.
In this case:
1. I ask for the equation.
2. I get no equation.
3. Ergo, the associated theory is untestable,
4. and therefore the associated theory is unscientific.
Q.E.D.
.
This is a point well worth making if nobody is willing or able to give up
the equation. The requirement of Karl Popper's falsifiability is far from
lame. Science is based on it; so is engineering.
.
Everything useful is based on principles that can be tested in the real
world. Pretend sciences are based on things that cannot be tested in the
real world. Every fraud is based to some degree on pretend science and the
acceptance of untestable propositions. If you were an investigator, surely
you would understand this first principle of "Trust AND verify" - and the
fact that evidence speaks more truthfully than experts.
Very well stated.
As we have seen here, in the nether nether world in which greenhouse
theory exists belief trumps and replaces empiricism. It's embarassing
that the U.S. taxpayer has funded and continues to fund this kind of
Peter Pan science to the tune of 30 Billion dollars annually.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
[/quote]
says the person who is too lazy to cure his own ignorance... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:00 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
| You are such a desperate retard you have to hide the subject line. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:00 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[quote]You are such a desperate retard you have to hide the subject line.
[/quote]
dude, you are so desperate that you had to cut and snip this thread
from another, taking my words out of context, all in an attempt to
excuse your idiocy. My changing of the title is a statement to you,
that you cant back up your own stuff, and instead of giving you the
respect of preserving your lousy cut/snip job, im saying that you dont
get what you dont give. Now once again 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 excuse show the
information... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| columbiaaccidentinvestigation... |
| Posted: Sun Nov 01, 2009 8:08 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:00 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net>
wrote:"" |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Claudius Denk... |
| Posted: Mon Nov 02, 2009 5:49 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On Nov 1, 10:08 am, columbiaaccidentinvestigation
<columbiaaccidentinvestigat... at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
[quote]On Nov 1, 10:00 am, Claudius Denk <claudiusd... at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote:
[/quote]
Claudius Denk:
You are such a desperate retard you have to hide the subject line.
Columbiawhackoinvestigation:
dude, you are so desperate that you had to cut and snip this thread
from another, taking my words out of context, all in an attempt to
excuse your idiocy.
Claudius Denk:
Really? What did I take out of context. Your behavior proves that
you have something to hide.
***** Repost *****
Columbiawhackoinvestigation:
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.
Timothy Casey
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.
Claudius Denk:
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 |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Fri Dec 11, 2009 2:55 pm
|
|