tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post6949021260739848677..comments2024-03-19T03:14:04.172-04:00Comments on Rabett Run: EliRabetthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comBlogger37125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-35374722387617492682014-11-25T18:38:50.278-05:002014-11-25T18:38:50.278-05:00Tank you so much. It spares me a lot of time deali...Tank you so much. It spares me a lot of time dealing with belivers...! SamuelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36362272552019467812012-11-30T04:21:20.187-05:002012-11-30T04:21:20.187-05:00Poe? Or genuine idiot? Poe? Or genuine idiot? billnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-24342595963130765602012-11-30T02:53:02.746-05:002012-11-30T02:53:02.746-05:00Ah ah ah, go back in your dilbert space, idiot!
Hi...Ah ah ah, go back in your dilbert space, idiot!<br />Hilbert is now vomiting in his grave, reading about a stupid who tried to take his name.<br />You are ridicolous, with your greenie stupid slogans: "delialist", you have no clue of physics, my dear asshole.<br />When you don't know how to reply, your only word is: "you're a denialist!", or "your paper is not peer-reviewed!" ahahahahh.<br />(By the way, Albert Einstein had just 1 peer-reviewed paper out of 300!)<br /><br />Ivar Giaever is a physicist and Nobel Prize (among more than 700 well known "deniers/scientists") and said that you GHE/AGW believers are the new believers a false religion and pseudoscience, as Richard Lindzen said too.<br /><br />Maybe your mother and father (is it possible to find who is your father? I don't think so) let you without affection in your childhood, so you desperately need to believe something, yesterday it was communism, today it is CO2-causing-warming, ahahahahahhhh!<br /><br />Dear asshole, before saying something about vectors and scalars, go back to primary school, so that maybe (maybe) you learn something about sums.<br />Maybe (maybe) you could start to know that our outer vacuum space is not at all "cold", because temperature (hot and cold) is a feature of MACROSCOPIC bodies, and so our atmosphere cannot be neither a "greenhouse" nor a "blanket", because there's no "cold gas" (as outside greenhouses or blankets) but just a vacuum devoid of matter (apart from rare atoms of hydrogen).<br />We have a warm surface of Earth (average 15° C) surrounded by a cold (average -18° C) gaseous fluid, and nothing else above.<br />Without atmosphere, our Earth would be very much hotter, like our Moon that reaches 117° C at the equator, and loses very slowly (in 14.75 terrestrial days) 290° C, because on the moon surface heat is being lost just by radiation and not by convection.<br />So, without atmosphere and convective gaseous masses our Earth would quickly reach very high temperatures, but without possibility (as on the Moon) to cool enough, due to the fast daily rotation.<br />YOU ARE THE TRUE DENIERS, because you ignore basic physics! Ignorants!!!<br /><br />CO2ishealthynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-79788592739646432312012-11-29T09:51:09.700-05:002012-11-29T09:51:09.700-05:00Oh dear. We have a greenhouse effect denialist, a...Oh dear. We have a greenhouse effect denialist, and one who thinks replying to a 3-year old post about 200-year-old established science, throwing around terms like "vector" and "scalar" (wrongly, as it turns out) and saying Bwahahahah... will hide the fact that he is an utter intellectual flyweight.<br /><br />Come, let us ridicule him in the style he deserves.a_ray_in_dilbert_spacenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-70906203406269564882012-11-29T07:41:11.702-05:002012-11-29T07:41:11.702-05:00Sorry for your stupidity, and lack of knowledge of...Sorry for your stupidity, and lack of knowledge of basic physics.<br />You CANNOT add a scalar (mean of Earth temperatures = 15° C) to a vector (LWIR = 235 W/m^2 = -18° C) and say that the difference (= 33° C) is the GHE ahahahahahahah!<br /><br />Go back to school stupids, GHE is good for greenies and post communists.<br />Even a child knows physics better than you, ahahahahahahah.<br />There people believing GHE effects, as there are people believing fairy tales <br /><br />CO2ishealthyco2ishealthynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60288715868842795162011-09-27T02:10:50.863-04:002011-09-27T02:10:50.863-04:00I think it should reflect only the anticipated cas...I think it should reflect only the anticipated cash flows from the assets currently on the balance.<br /><a href="http://www.howtospyoncellphone.com/" rel="nofollow">spy on cell phone</a><br /><a href="http://www.mobilephonespywarefree.com/" rel="nofollow">free mobile spyware</a><br /><a href="http://www.tracecellphonelocation.com/" rel="nofollow">trace phone location</a><br /><a href="http://www.androidgpssoftware.com/" rel="nofollow">gps software android</a><br /><a href="http://www.freecellphonespysoftware.com/" rel="nofollow">free spy software</a>harry potterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03232416930613018339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34199433405816031952011-09-24T08:43:37.918-04:002011-09-24T08:43:37.918-04:00There are issues that not to discussed in open,
fr...There are issues that not to discussed in open,<br /><a href="http://www.jumpdates.com" rel="nofollow">free online dating sites</a>FKHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11045203501717864561noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-36158285758737934442011-09-24T08:38:53.224-04:002011-09-24T08:38:53.224-04:00Both Author are sensible to keep the openness betw...Both Author are sensible to keep the openness between them here,<br /> <a href="http://www.jumpdates.com" rel="nofollow">free dating site</a>Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02202081670759151407noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77920048208268578752011-09-20T06:41:17.639-04:002011-09-20T06:41:17.639-04:00I would never find a better place to read as good ...I would never find a better place to read as good comments as this site never seen before.This site is very good.<br /><a href="http://www.gpstrackcellphone.com" rel="nofollow">track cell phone</a><br /><a href="http://www.gpstrackcellphone.com" rel="nofollow">gps track cell phone</a>James Williamshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15171573279839356691noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46380057116418544962011-04-27T02:04:59.791-04:002011-04-27T02:04:59.791-04:00As Arthur Smith points out their assumptions are s...As Arthur Smith points out their assumptions are simply just wrong and so his a conclusion are garbage. Of course Miskolczi digs his / her heels around and shouts GALILEO.internet datinghttp://www.sixsingles.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-51858066116256919302011-04-19T21:51:53.017-04:002011-04-19T21:51:53.017-04:00Heard nothing about the G&T paper in the denia...Heard nothing about the G&T paper in the denialosphere for months and then suddenly about a week ago I see denialists begin posting about it in blog comments, forums, etc, obviously from a source they have read (and conveniently they never say where they read it from)<br /><br />So what's the source? Who has injected the G&T tripe into the denial machine for another spin? Watts? Icecap? Inhofe? Genuine question if anyone knows, I am curious.auto insurance companieshttp://www.autoinsurancequoteseasy.com/companiesnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-11304368774466859692010-09-29T10:17:53.606-04:002010-09-29T10:17:53.606-04:00niceniceAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-91482046573170477842010-07-26T04:22:30.591-04:002010-07-26T04:22:30.591-04:00I would never find a better place to read as good ...I would never find a better place to read as good comments as this site never seen before.Its easy to find easy to understand, and it have serious comments not sick jokes as others, thanks and please keep like this.Send flowers to polandhttp://www.flowers2world.com/send_flowers_online/send_flowers_poland.aspnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5205088885836330802010-05-04T13:57:05.041-04:002010-05-04T13:57:05.041-04:00hello
Lei http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324 formal r...hello<br /><br />Lei http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324 formal response to ... it is extremely interesting that you post. great job ...<br /><br />Marilyn P. Romanautomotive hand toolshttp://www.automotive-hand-tools.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77027739367263529262010-04-06T23:39:26.722-04:002010-04-06T23:39:26.722-04:00Late but delicious!Late but delicious!EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-85536681333066360552010-04-06T20:40:43.368-04:002010-04-06T20:40:43.368-04:00Much later than everyone else - new article:
On t...Much later than everyone else - new article:<br /><br /><a href="http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/04/05/on-the-miseducation-of-the-uninformed-by-gerlich-and-scheuschner-2009" rel="nofollow">On the Miseducation of the Uninformed by Gerlich and Tscheuschner (2009) </a>ScienceofDoomhttp://scienceofdoom.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-34620192778703252832009-12-04T01:25:57.594-05:002009-12-04T01:25:57.594-05:00Well, he made another try a week or so ago, appare...Well, he made another try a week or so ago, apparently.<br /><br />Google's cache has the text, tho' not the figures.<br /><br />Search Results<br /><br /><br /> [0911.3735] The Greenhouse Effect Does Exist!<br /> Authors: Jochen Ebel. (Submitted on 19 Nov 2009) Comments: Removed by arXiv admin because of [excessive quoting]<br /> arxiv.org/list/physics.ao-ph/0911<br /><br />Somewhere, briefly, in something I couldn't find a few hours later, he said that when he had quoted briefly, they said he had misunderstood, but when he quoted less briefly, they said he was taking too much of their text.<br /><br />Apparently they won this round too.Hank Robertshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07521410755553979665noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-77650286929913990552009-03-21T20:52:00.000-04:002009-03-21T20:52:00.000-04:00Yes. It is now published.International Journal of ...Yes. It is now published.<BR/><BR/>International Journal of Modern Physics B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (30 January 2009), 275-364<BR/><BR/>It makes much more sense that the "traditional" IPCC view:<BR/><BR/>1. A warm body (the earth) radiates heat to a cool body (the atmosphere)<BR/>2. The cool body "back-radiates" (IPCC term) heat to the warm body.<BR/>3. This process continues perpetually, with heat flowing round and round in a continuous cycle.<BR/>4. The result of this perpetual process is that the warm body becomes warmer.<BR/><BR/>What is most amazing is that both alarmists and skeptic scientists have taken the above blatant 2nd Law of Thermodynamics violation at face value for so long. Many will shout that all bodies radiate ... yes they do but NETT heat flow is always from hot bodies to cool bodies (without the input of work), not the reverse. Note also that the 2nd Law does not care about the wavelength of radiant heat.<BR/><BR/>Atmospheric gases do absorb radiation from the sun and the earth. NETT radiation from the cool daytime atmosphere is to space. The Sahara desert in daytime has a very low "greenhouse gas" concentration above it, yet contrary to greenhouse theory, it is a hot place rather than a cool place.<BR/><BR/>Night time, rotation of the earth, convection, conduction, latent heat all add greatly to the complexity of climate. However the basic daytime atmospheric greenhouse model as presented by the IPCC and most school textbooks, is nonsense.<BR/><BR/>No greenhouse means no "greenhouse gases" ... just absorbers and emitters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-31636455586710119082009-03-09T13:55:00.000-04:002009-03-09T13:55:00.000-04:00I see G&T are to publish their paper on falsif...I see G&T are to publish their paper on falsification of the greenhouse effect in <I>International Journal of Modern Physics B</I> <B>23</B>(3): 275.<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-60253387141445460732008-11-23T09:47:00.000-05:002008-11-23T09:47:00.000-05:00Concerning your argument, as presented in your pap...Concerning your argument, as presented in your paper:<BR/><BR/>a/ What is the relevance of the "average temperature" computed the way you have done it, using a plain arithmetic spatial average? I could understand that if we were interested in heat, but not if it's temperature that is of interest.<BR/><BR/>b/ Are we, with respect to global warming, interested in the temperature of the atmosphere or that of the surface? There is a considerable difference. If it is the former, note that the heat capacitivity varies, indicating that an arithmetic average is not realistic.<BR/><BR/>c/ Why not include a time average? This question might at first sound silly; we all know that you are looking for the temperature in stationary conditions, but we are also highly aware that the average temperature on Earth has not been constant over time. Thus, when you refer to Earth's "average temperature," you are obviously referring to current conditions and disregarding long-time temperature changes, such as in ice ages.<BR/><BR/>d/ To sum up the questions above, don't you think that a heat distribution is more significant than an "average temperature?" And then, we'd be more interested in the average heat distribution, over TIME. <BR/><BR/>e/ Your assumption 3 ("no IR absorbing or reflecting layer") in your argument does not apply to Earth, but plays a central role in your "proof." That is, your proof only applies to a planet satisfying these assumption, which the Earth does not.<BR/><BR/>f/ Why do you, in pt 5 claim that the greenhouse effect is "at least" 33K? I can't see that your calculations represent a lower bound on the temperature difference. It could perfectly well be the other way around, especially since you don't account for time averages, and you base your calculations on conditions that are known to be false. <BR/><BR/>The fact is, I think, that you have no proof at all. You have much less: a convincing argument at best, but I'm not so sure it is convincing either, as some of your assumptions are false; some techniques are questionable; and some assertions of a spatial "average temperature" have very little relevance to Earth's climate.<BR/><BR/>Cheers,<BR/>GusAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-18385511776879636492008-06-17T11:15:00.000-04:002008-06-17T11:15:00.000-04:00The argument is bad because it assumes things that...The argument is bad because it assumes things that are not the case (see Arthur Smith's comments above) and basically Miskolczi falls into the habit of assert something in one place and then taking it as proven in another without proving the assertion (many of which are wrong) Folow the link below to <A HREF="http://sexsecond.blogspot.com/2008/03/dot-earth-discussion-of-sustainability.html" REL="nofollow"> Dot earth Discussion. . </A>EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-7059388248144957282008-06-17T10:08:00.000-04:002008-06-17T10:08:00.000-04:00Someone really needs to explain why it is so bad ?...Someone really needs to explain why it is so bad ? Raypierre also claims that, but refuses to go into detail after Miskolczi challenges him to do so.<BR/><BR/>So what's so wrong about it?sadunkalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-72517640071101763902008-06-17T09:48:00.000-04:002008-06-17T09:48:00.000-04:00sad, Miskolczi's paper is embarrassingly bad. As ...sad, Miskolczi's paper is embarrassingly bad. As Arthur Smith points out his assumptions are simply wrong and thus his conclusions are garbage. Of course Miskolczi digs his heels in and screams GALILEO.<BR/><BR/>When some fool comes up to you on the street and claims that he is made of green cheese, of course you take a chunk out of him.EliRabetthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07957002964638398767noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-46874026622232486892008-06-17T09:16:00.000-04:002008-06-17T09:16:00.000-04:00Miskolczi commented back:No 134, 136, 137, 138To b...Miskolczi commented back:<BR/><BR/>No 134, 136, 137, 138<BR/><BR/>To be honest I find raypierre's responses to him silly by the way...sadunkalhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05237465910243455615noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16612221.post-5509559325259499612008-03-27T11:18:00.000-04:002008-03-27T11:18:00.000-04:00Gavin and raypierre make comment on the subject of...Gavin and raypierre make comment on the subject of Miskolczi's paper at <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=538#comment-83167" REL="nofollow">#90</A> and <A HREF="http://www.realclimate.org/?comments_popup=538#comment-83173" REL="nofollow">#92</A>.<BR/><BR/><I>Cymraeg llygoden</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com