Connect with us

global tepid

Discussion in 'Electronic Design' started by RichD, Dec 21, 2012.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    It's a bit late for that. And the dumb-ass flippant remarks are the
    only appropriate response to your over-confident ignorance.
    Perfectly true. Some Ph.D.s are better than others. Mine was at least
    original, and still looks more or less competent. The electronics
    could have been better, but they weren't too bad, and they worked.
  2. Unum

    Unum Guest

    Aw so sweet, I wuv you too!
  3. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    I do, but less not try to run before we can walk.
    It's scarcely a "silly blunder" to offer a dimwit something that they
    might be able to manage, rather than suggesting that they go for broke
    with something that they'd never be able to manage.
    No, but it captures the interesting physics underlying greenhouse
    warming. It's got to be part of any vaguely realistic climate model.
    Since we've got idiots posting here about absorbtion saturation
    proving that the greenhouse effect can't work, getting a working ITRAN
    model of a static column of air would seem to be a necessary precursor
    to anything more realistic.
    Over short periods, yes.
    I don't have to. Even the hyper-careful wikipedia article makes it
    clear that the scientific community did that.
    Denialism is a growth industry in Australia. There are quite a few of
    them around to be identified as liars for hire. Obviously, this only
    applies to the anthropogenic global warming debate, and not every
    sceptic is a paid lackey of the denialist propaganda machine. Christy
    and Spencer at UAH are fundamentalist Christians, rather than liars
    for hire, but this doesn't make them any more reliable.
    There wasn't any. There was a robust response to a failure in the peer-
    review process, when a denialist-planted pseudo-paper got published,
    despite all four referees recommending rejection, but no fraud. Pity
    about your powers of discrimination. The Guardian journalist who wrote
    a book on the subject really didn't like the robust response, but he'd
    never been trained as a scientist and didn't appreciate that properly
    trained scientists take the peer-reviewed literature seriously.
    It predicts fine. It fails your strawman test, but that doesn't
    falsify the hypothesis,since the prediction is of a signal that was
    going to be swamped in noise, as it was.
    None that your feeble powers can recognise.
    Absolutely none.
    No fraud, but incompetence. Svensmark's theory didn't survive critical
    examination. The denialist web-sites still treat it as a valid
    alternative explanation, and ignore the responses that showed that it
    Absolutely not. Your opinion is based ignorant misapprehension, as
    your comments reveal all too frequently. You don't know what you are
    talking about. and you don't know enough to realise how little you
  4. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    I never said it was. It is an essential component of any comprehensive
    climate model
    I'll leave that to the IPCC. Their new report is due out any time now,
    and it will list the predicitive models they've reviewed.
    There are loads. All of them to complicated to be any use to you. If
    you want instant gratification, try the last IPCC report
    That's not what I said at all. Your - silly - claim was that there
    wasn't any, and all I needed to do to show you up an an ignorant fraud
    was to point this out.
    That's what I started out pointing out, with the additional
    observation that that bulge is at much shorter wavelengths than CO2
    absorbs - a point that seemed to have escaped you at the time.
    Obviously. It's perfectly credible as it stands. It might have had
    more rhetorical effect if I'd put more effort into depicting you as a
    self-deceiving ignoramus, but you do fine at that without any help.
  5. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    You've ignored the water vapour positive feedback.
    Weather is chaotic, climate isn't. John von Neumann understood this
    and a lot of less talented people have manged to grasp it since.
    clearly, you aren't that talented.

    As for poorly understood, I think you are confusing "complicated and
    difficult to model" with "poorly understood". Your opinion on the
    subject is clearly worthless. The work itself is valued by people
    better placed to assess it's real utility, otherwise it wouldn't still
    be going on.
    That "somehow" has now been worked out in quite some detail. New
    Scientist 3rd November 2012 pages 32-35 "The Great Thaw" picks up part
    of the story.
    We aren't running out of CO2. We, and our crop plants, are well
    adapted to the world as it is. Change the world enough, and we aren't.
  6. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    True. But his academic critics did a perfectly adult job, and it's not
    my place to steal their glory.
    I'm supposed to put any effort into responding to you?
  7. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    You can legitimately extend it back into the past - to 1958 anyway,
    when accurate CO2 measurements started.
    It has been discovered - the small temperature rise from the CO2
    raises the vapour pressure of water in the atmosphere. Water vapour is
    another greenhouse gas, rather more potent than CO2.

  8. Unum

    Unum Guest

    Marvin can't counter the facts and now he wants to argue about
    whether or not HITRAN is a climate model, lol.
    Why can't you just respond to all that info above about CO2 Marvin?
    This is where Marvin makes up your position for you and tries to
    get you to defend it.
    Its all about personal attacks at this point. Gets there pretty quick
    when Marvin runs out of ideas. This usually takes about two exchanges.
    Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands and the various
    radiation flows are not significant Marvin.
    Does it seem like Marvin has a little anger management problem?
  9. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    Marvin's not short of ideas. They are incomplete and incorrect, but
    there's no shortage.
    And a small "lack of precision" problem. If I'm defending a hypothesis
    that I'm totally ignorant of, how can I know what I'm defending?

    He then wants me to define it - which is a neat trick if I don't what
    it is - while ignoring the fact that I've already done it in this

    He's a waste of space, and reacting to him is a waste of bandwidth.
    The high incidence of stupid mistakes in his posts does make it
    tempting, but he's posted enough to absolve us from any obligation to
    point up any more.
  10. hda

    hda Guest


    Just answer the martian questions !

    OR stay with sound EE jobs and keep quiet about chemistry.
    Marvin's longsuit is that which is not yours or sam's, by far...
  11. Bill Sloman

    Bill Sloman Guest

    He's not exactly hot on stuff which a physical chemist ought to know.
  12. hda

    hda Guest

    The martian is very exact, not you, not hot like 4th rock from the sun
    unlike venus. AND all, true.

    Logic, how would you know ? You are evasive as well on the questions
    posed. Try some close-reading for a start.
  13. Wally W.

    Wally W. Guest

    Bare assertion.

    Credible cite needed.
    Where did von Neumann make this distinction between weather and
  14. Wally W.

    Wally W. Guest

    Calling someone a "denier" isn't a personal attack?
    That seems to be the point.

    Spewing words to further a political agenda differs from defending a
    Then it should be easy for you to copy and paste it.
    On the contrary, he has asked good questions which have not been
    answered, and he has debunked claims by the warmophobes who have not
    better comeback than to repeat the same claim because their
    programming compels it.
  15. tm

    tm Guest

    You mean like the "People of Wal-Mart"?

  16. Unum

    Unum Guest

    That's for sure. Its merely an accurate description.
    I don't recall him mentioning a 'political agenda'. Can you quote
    it Wally?
    Lol now Wally wants him to paste what he already wrote back
    into the thread. Look it up.
    Marvin's garbage gets regularly destroyed on
    and your crap does too Wally. Spell out for me what Marvin has
    'debunked' here and what that 'debunking' consisted of. I'm still
    waiting for him to "Explain to us exactly why the absorption bands
    and the various radiation flows are not significant".
  17. Guest

    Simulation == fact is all Slowman talks about.
    Hmm. Isn't that exactly what the AGW proponents have done? Good
    enough for Slowman.

    Why? Several here are following along. You're giving Slowman a good
    No way! Walmart greeters have to be helpful and nice to the
  18. Wally W.

    Wally W. Guest

    Linking the dismisal of your religion with the denial of the Holocaust
    is character assassination. How is that not personal?

    Of course he didn't mention it.

    But that is how the AGW scam persists.
    Have the weasels written it down?

    They tipped their hand here:
    1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with
    So you are also unable to demonstrate that he had "already done it."
    I don't accept the job of spoon-feeding you.

    Using your approach: Look it up.

    The burden of proof is on the AGW alarmists. If you think there is an
    error in Marvin's efforts to debunk your religion, point it out.
    First, your quotes seem to be misplaced. As written, it appears that
    "explain to us" is part of your request, not his statement.

    Since your ability to quote is in question, a cite is needed pursue
    this issue.
  19. Unum

    Unum Guest

    Lol, suddenly Wally develops a thin skin. There are many forms of
    denial aren't there. We didn't land on the moon, the earth isn't
    a sphere, there's no such thing as evolution, guns don't kill,
    there was no Holocaust, there's no global warming, etc. If you
    are a batshit crazy little fruitcake and somebody points it out,
    you needn't be offended. Its a large community.
    Guhaw! Of course he didn't mention it, Wally 'just knows' things. The
    voices whisper to him.
    The political agenda comes from the Georgia Guidestones. Lol, I
    learn something new on the internet every day! What kind of tinfoil
    do you use for your hat, the thin crinkly stuff or the industrial
    grade? Might want to consider the heavy duty.
    I'm demonstrating that you aren't smart enough to go look for yourself
    at everything that has appeared in the thread.
    So you've got absolutely nothing. You can't come up with
    a single thing.
    Already pointed out that Marvin lied about the 'no warming in
    16 years', what else are you looking for specifically? His pet
    little cosmic ray theory? There are at least a half-dozen papers
    blowing that out of the water. The CO2 came from dissolving coral?
    Which crackpot statement do you want to defend?
    That's exactly right. Marvin disputes the relevance of GHG's
    to global climate, stating "you were bringing up CO2 absorption
    bands that were in between the sun's black body curve, and the
    earths, and trying to argue they were significant". Not that
    the statement makes any sense at all.
  20. Wally W.

    Wally W. Guest

    You were talking about accurate descriptions.

    I gave you an accurate description and now *I* have a thin skin.


    When does a scammer lead with the declaration that they are trying to
    perpetrate a scam?

    Why do you think the AGW scam is different?
    So, no: The weasels haven't written it down.

    And yet, you haven't demonstrated that what you claim is in the thread
    actually exists.
    In the past, I have not found it worth the effort to expend much
    effort in detailing things for you.

    Your "Spell out for me" demand is over the top.

    Request denied.
    Your own side says there has not been warming in 16 years. Take it up
    with them.

    Remind them that they aren't helping "the cause."

    A half-dozen pal-reviewed papers. Nice.

    Are you saying *no* CO2 came from dissolving coral?

    Aren't the warmophobes complaining about the disappearance of coral?
    Where do you think it goes?

    So you don't even understand the statement, but you dispute it.

    We're dealing with a real genius here, folks.
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day