On Oct 26, 5:39*pm, " wrote:
On Oct 26, 3:09*am, Martin Brown



ROFL. If ever proof were needed that we are dealing here with a rabid
paranoid delusional nutcase this brain dump is clear evidence.

[snip long incoherent wingnut drooling]

' Note for others. KDeathRage is a well known NetKook.

I understated the extent of his sheer lunacy.

Regards,
Martin Brown-

Look Martin, very little of what I stated in my rant is of my own
interpretation. Here I have nearly literaly quoted from the works of
Max Born, on the kinetic theory of gases, Not his quantification of
the heat capacity as I have reiterated according to kinetic energy of
the spis of the molecules in values of R.

This is somewhere available for free online.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Ato...n/e/9780486659...
""Nobel Laureate's lucid treatment of kinetic theory of gases.....'''

And from another easily available book, by Linius Pauling, also a
Noble Lareate, from the 50's. Notice that in Pauling's book, NOWHERE
is the term, 'greenhouse gas' mentioned. Only at points does he refer
to the dark bands as 'absorption bands', but attempts no
quantification whatsoever.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Gen...s-Carl-Pauling...

This book is almost two books. The theoretical interpretation and
theory, and the simple chemistry. One can ignore the theory.

Pauling clearly had a vast and encompassing knowledge of chemistry and
it's teaching. I wonder why he never heard of the term 'greenhouse
gas', which according to your rendition of physics and chemistry, is
the most important Gdamn idea of science, and the only one the greenie
weenies need to know or have any interest in whatsoever.

Refer also his treatment of the kinetic theory of gases.

About the only thing which is my interpretation in my post, is the
idea the the 1/2 of the 3/2 of the heat capacity of monatomic and
other gases, is the elasticity of the collisions.

Notice clearly he states the work energy of the expansion of 1 mole of
gas is R, thus RT is extropolated to absolute zero, and if one divides
RT by the number of molecules in a mole, one has the average energy of
the individual molecule, kT. Average energy x number of molecules =
TOTAL energy of the mole.

This value of R, is also directly proportional to the increase of
pressure with increasing temperature.

This energy is the kinetic energy of the root mean velocity of the
molecules, and therefore the 'average' velocity is an inverse square
of the mass of the molecule.

The main principle of the kinetic theory of gases, is that heavier
molecules have lower mean velocity, lighter molecules have higher mean
velocity, and therefore have the same kinetic energy at the same
temperature, according to 1/2mv^2.

With partial pressures, no differentiation is given to gases at normal
temperatures and pressures, just the molar percentage of the gas, or
the percentage of the volume the gas would occupy by itself.

The concept of 'greenhouse gases' was discarded by modern chemistry,
and only revived in the 60's by purely theoretical thinkers.

There still is no laboratory science whatsoever to support this false
idea of 'greenhouse gases', from classical physics from before
Einstein.

Max Born was a contemporary of Einstein and Planck. When Heisenberg
left college, Heisenberg's influential academic daddy got him a job
working for Max Born. He certainly was in contact with all the
important points of the development of modern physics.

If you wish to insult Born for also for ignoring Arwheenieass's
concept of 'greenhouse gases', you have that right. Nowhere will you
find reference to your 'holy' understanding of the nature of gases.

That idiot that hates right wingers while he loves his little personal
image of a Baron or Count, (aristocrat), seems to think he can promote
his lie that this concept has always been a part of theoretical
science. Why does that dweeb hate himself so much???

Read em and weep, dogmatic, repetitive fool.
While you are at it, you should do some research into what the term,
'science', means.

HAHAHAHAHhahahahahHAHAHAHAHhHAHAHhahah

KD
The AGWBunnies,
Beating their little fake drum for their holy war against modern
society,,
They keep going,,, and going,,,

I think this bundle of reply threats would make a best seller book.

On Nov 13, 12:03*am, Sam Wormley wrote:

* *And warmer than normal here. What does a month of local
* *weather have to do with a 30 year climactic trend?

What's magic about a *30* year trend? Oh, that's right...that's just
about when temps started rising again after a *30 year* drop in temps.

Look he
https://www.cresis.ku.edu/education/...0Anomalies.GIF

Let's see various "30 year trends" (or so):

1850-1880 - temps on the rise (before the industrial revolution, mind
you)
1880-1910 - temps on the decline (with rising CO2 levels)
1910-1940 - temps on the rise (with rising CO2 levels)
1940-1975 - temps on the decline (with rising CO2 levels)
1975-2000 - temps on the rise (with rising CO2 levels)

Five chunks of time, each roughly 30 years long...what's the pattern
here? What's causing the pattern? If rising CO2 concentrations are
causing temperatures to rise (if X then Y), then how come:

(1) We see temps on the rise *before* CO2 begins to rise?
(2) We see two periods during/after the industrial revolution where
CO2 is on the rise but temps are *falling*?

In fact, in only *two* of these five 30-year periods do we see the
standard AGW story actually play out as it should. In 60% of the
periods, the AGW story looks rather silly.

On Nov 15, 8:34*pm, "I M @ good guy" wrote:
On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:31:07 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:



I M @ good guy wrote:
On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:41:17 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:
How long do you think you would you need to observe to rule out an 800
year delay? * The MWP might explain some of the current CO2 increase, as
it's within the error band for the delay.

* Bill, have you noted both CO2 concentration and temperature rising
* almost simultaneously, over the last 150 years? Have you noticed?

That is really getting slanted, other than the big change
in station locations used and UHI, there isn't any real evidence
in a proportional function between the two.

* Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
* *http://www.whrc.org/resources/online...ng_earth/scien...

* * * * Isn't it obvious that temperatures rose before CO2
concentration?

* * * * But what happened during the last few hundred
years, CO2 went up, where did temperatures go, the
graph doesn't show much resolution, it looks like
temperatures have a mind of their own.

Look at this graph: http://biocab.org/Global_Warmings_an...eval_Age.jp g

Now, what do we see? Notice that temps ranged all over the place -
both up and down - with nary a chance in CO2 levels...and this trend
happened for, what, a *thousand* years? (would be longer if the graph
extended further in the past...but 1000 yrs is enough to make the
point)

If CO2 drove temperature, then global temps should have remained
roughly the same for that thousand year period. Clearly, they
didn't.

If we focus on the time when CO2 levels increased substantially, we
might, at first blush, look at the rising temps and see that CO2 is
causing that (forgetting the lesson of the past 1000 years we just
learned). But let's look more closely at that:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg

Notice here that CO2 levels go up, but temps go up and down and up and
down....overall trending up, which is expected since we're coming out
of the little ice age. But still, up and down, not a steady climb.

And look at the past 7-8 years: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CRUMSUCO2June.jpg

The trend is just the *opposite* of what we'd expect. CO2 rising, but
temps falling.

In other words, there's just no compelling evidence to think that our
current rising CO2 concentrations are *causing* global warming. They
may be *contributing* to it, but they are not *causing*
it....something else is going on here.

On Nov 18, 4:08*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Agent Orange wrote:

* * * * But what happened during the last few hundred
years, CO2 went up, where did temperatures go, the
graph doesn't show much resolution, it looks like
temperatures have a mind of their own.

Look at this graph: *http://biocab.org/Global_Warmings_an...eval_Age.jp g

* *Surface, not troposphe
* * *http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...ace-temp-trend...

Nowhere can you get cohesive relation to supposed temperature caused
by CO2.

No match at all from ice core CO2 levels and temperatures, and present
supposed increase and present temperatures.

In US temperature statistics, temperatures of the 30's and present are
nearly the same, regardless of what the supposed 'world average' from
Hansen reads. No warming at all to attribute to increased CO2. This is
actually true of MOST regional areas. A general warming trend can be
expected for coming out of the little ice age. But the failure for
this warming to show in most regions cannot be explained by AGW
theory.

According to AGW, CO2 levels are about 1/3 greater than what should be
naturally. This can be contested, especially with the fraudulent
adjustement of the actual year of the ice cores.

The years are clearly evident due to the layering. There is no
scientific value to the adjustment. And no subsequent analysis to show
this adjustment of at least thirty years to be valid. In fact it is
impossible that the ice is permeable to the surface 30 layers down
with each layer about 1 meter.

It is calculated that natural CO2 causes 7.4degC of warming naturally.
If the CO2 is linear to temperature, than 1/3 of 7.4 is 2.4. Certainly
there is no level of warming of this extent.

The theory is that the CO2 stops outgoing radiation, and calculated
according to the IPCC that the effect of human CO2 is about 1.7Wm-2.

This is a quantity of energy supposedly being retained and not allowed
to leave the thermal system of the earth at the velocity of light.

It is not possible that this energy is being absorbed by the ocean and
that this is the reason it is undetectable.

Even this is absolute nonsense and proves that AGW and the IPCC are
working with invalid theory from classical physics from before
Einstein and PLanck, and do not observe the Law of the Conservation of
Energy.

1.7 Joules per second per sq meter, factored over the surface area of
the sphere of the earth, is the quantity of energy equivalent to the
heat capacity for 1 degC, for the mass of the atmosphere in 69 days.
Certainly this level of heat energy retention is not occuring, since
this would be 5degC per year.

According to Trenberth and simple calculations, the top 3.2 meters of
the ocean has the equivalent heat capacity of the entire atmosphere.
Impossible that the ocean is absorbing this quantity of heat through
this top 3.2 meters without it being possible to detect.

Must be time for the greenieweenieologists to invent more theory to
explain why their theory cannot be detected in real physical science.

Only false theoretical interpretations and false theoretical science
and mathmatics from an entirely false and corrupt field of study which
only the greatest of fools would beleive or accept their conclusions.

KD

On Nov 18, 5:02*pm, Sam Wormley wrote:
Agent Orange wrote:
Let's see various "30 year trends" (or so):

1850-1880 - temps on the rise (before the industrial revolution, mind
you)
1880-1910 - temps on the decline (with rising CO2 levels)
1910-1940 - temps on the rise (with rising CO2 levels)
1940-1975 - temps on the decline (with rising CO2 levels)
1975-2000 - temps on the rise (with rising CO2 levels)

Five chunks of time, each roughly 30 years long...what's the pattern
here? *What's causing the pattern? *If rising CO2 concentrations are
causing temperatures to rise (if X then Y), then how come:

* * *Global surface temperature 1845-2007:
* * * *http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...ace-temp-trend...

Thanks. That graph corroborates what I just said above. It's more
smoothed out than the graph I was looking at, but still, it's pretty
much the same.

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:56:13 -0600, Bill Ward wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:41:17 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

How long do you think you would you need to observe to rule out an 800
year delay? The MWP might explain some of the current CO2 increase,
as it's within the error band for the delay.



Bill, have you noted both CO2 concentration and temperature rising
almost simultaneously, over the last 150 years? Have you noticed?

Of course. Are you aware that correlation is not proof of causation?
That's especially true when the supposed "cause" has been shown to lag
the "effect" by 800 years.

You are aware that Sam's been told that hundreds of time before, yet his
argument is unchanged and he has no rational rebuttal. Press him, he
changes the subject.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:45:07 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:56:13 -0600, Bill Ward wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:41:17 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

How long do you think you would you need to observe to rule out an
800 year delay? The MWP might explain some of the current CO2
increase, as it's within the error band for the delay.



Bill, have you noted both CO2 concentration and temperature rising
almost simultaneously, over the last 150 years? Have you noticed?

Of course. Are you aware that correlation is not proof of causation?
That's especially true when the supposed "cause" has been shown to lag
the "effect" by 800 years.

You are aware that Sam's been told that hundreds of time before, yet his
argument is unchanged and he has no rational rebuttal. Press him, he
changes the subject.

Yeah, he's kind of a one trick pony, but still fun to annoy.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 10:23:44 -0600, Bill Ward wrote:

On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:45:07 -0600, Marvin the Martian wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 15:56:13 -0600, Bill Ward wrote:

On Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:41:17 +0000, Sam Wormley wrote:

Bill Ward wrote:

How long do you think you would you need to observe to rule out an
800 year delay? The MWP might explain some of the current CO2
increase, as it's within the error band for the delay.



Bill, have you noted both CO2 concentration and temperature rising
almost simultaneously, over the last 150 years? Have you noticed?

Of course. Are you aware that correlation is not proof of causation?
That's especially true when the supposed "cause" has been shown to lag
the "effect" by 800 years.

You are aware that Sam's been told that hundreds of time before, yet
his argument is unchanged and he has no rational rebuttal. Press him,
he changes the subject.

Yeah, he's kind of a one trick pony, but still fun to annoy.

I read on in this thread... and guess what! Sam tried to change the
subject.

He could be replaced with a bot, like an ALICE foundation bot.

On 10/30/09 9:45 AM, in article
, "Roger
Coppock" wrote:

[ . . . ]
old contain measurable amounts of 14C. The problem here is that vegetation
is not the only source of natural CO2 and volcanoes produce old CO2 with the
same 14C signature as fossil fuel emissions - notably zip. When you point

Volcano and fossil fuel CO2 has different O isotope
ratios from vegetation and animal CO2.

Ø So called "fossil fuels" have no relationship
with fossils, animals and/or vegetation.

On 6/12/10 4:58 PM, Leonard wrote:
So called "fossil fuels" have no relationship
with fossils, animals and/or vegetation.

Why is that?