In sci.physics Bill Snyder wrote:
....
They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.

****-bot pretends that positive feedback can never be replaced by
negative.
....

My take on this factoid is that climate instability is observed.
THere are 38 mn hits for the term on google.
They publish papers in Nature and Science all the time with the term
in the title and abstract.

But "instability" is one of those sciency terms, with lots of ifs
ands and buts. One of the qualifications is the timescale.
Just like water can appear solid at the right timescale,
climate may appear stable or unstable at different timescales.

If you look at the paleo climate record, e.g., it appears to flip
flop between iceball and hothouse in a more-or-less random walk.
The only thing that appears to get it out of "stuck" mode
(for sticking is a property of complex systems -- they call
in "lock in" some places) is an even greater disaster than the
sticking itself. E.g. a small asteroid or iceball meteor airburst.

As to whether the feedback is positive or negative. We kinda expect
positive because in a system with both the positive ones dominate.

And, finally, (and we should have done this to start with since it's
supposed to be sci.*) what is observed?

We know enough that even skeptics like Roy Spencer admit that
CO2 alone could account for around .7C warming in the doubling scenario.
Everyone agrees we've seen .75C already with only 40% more CO2.
I.e. there's a magnification factor of around 3 times.

If you look a little further you can break down the 3x into different
components. Obviousl the 1x is for the CO2. If you look at balloon
data you see for each 1 ppmv of added co2 over time there's been
around 2 ppmv of wv added over the last 50 years. So it seems that
wc accounts for 4 in the overall factor. So various other things
like changes in cloud cover or surface albedo sum to -2 to get us back to 3.

--
It's really a shame you can't understand anything yourself, and have to
depend on others who are equally clueless.
-- Bill Ward, 10 Apr 2012

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:49:48 -0500, Robert Grumbine
wrote:

In article , AGWFacts wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:58 -0500, Robert Grumbine
wrote:

In article , sanebow wrote:

[trim]

is more likely, as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all
the greenhouse gasses, was left out

Readers interested in the science may start with:

1965:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0495:EAAMAS%3E2.3.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0769:SCOAGC%3E2.3.CO%3B2

1969:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO%3B2

1974:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://mirabeli.meteo.furg.br/aulas/MC/SchneiderSH_DickinsonRE_%20Climate_modeling.pdf

1975:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7502.pdf

-- from a simple google scholar search on "climate model" "water vapor", and
limiting to those with material online.

There have been more recent papers on the topic. I'll let the reader investigate
as the notion strikes. The assertion of water vapor being 'left out' of all climate
models has not been true, and is readily verified to not be true, for well
over 40 years.

Thank you; a few weeks ago I listed a few similar links. These
clowns keep insisting climatologists have the wrong value for
water vapor forcing, and at the same time they insist
climatologists ignore water vapor.

After posting, I changed my search to 'general circulation model' from
"climate model". That gets far more hits in the earlier years, including
a 1961 model by Manabe. So, for over 50 years of computer-based climate
modeling water vapor has been included in the radiative transfer.

Even S.G. Callendar in the late 1930s included water vapor in his
projections (Section Two), though he had to infer globally what he
could only measure in a few regions.

http://www.rmets.org/pdf/qjcallender38.pdf

The assertion by denialists that water vapor is "left out" by
climatologists is just.... delusional.

Since I have a copy at hand, I also checked out L. F. Richardson's
1922 (90 years ago, 1922 is not a typo) book _Weather Prediction by
Numerical Means_. He, too, included water vapor effect on radiative
transfer.

Exactly so. Leaving out water vapor when studying climate and
weather would be like leaving out atoms when studying chemistry.
Denialists expect us to believe all of the scientists on the
planet who study climate just somehow *MISSED* the fact that they
need to include water vapor.

Not only is the claim that climate models ignore water vapor in
radiation not true now, it hasn't been true for at least 50 years,
and perhaps never was. Some weather models have ignored water
vapor on radiation -- but that was because they ignored radiation
entirely. (You can get away with that if your time scales are
short enough and your accuracy standard is low enough -- as it
was in the early days of numerical weather prediction.) But I've
yet to encounter a climate model which has ignored radiation,
or water vapor's effects on radiation.

Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.

Just one example will refute the absolute statement, and you have
done so. Well done. :-) F.E. Fowle in year 1918 (Smithson. Misc.
Goll., 63, No.8., given by Callendar) included water vapor in his
atmospheric studies.


--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:31:06 -0700 (PDT), Tunderbar
wrote:

On Apr 24, 11:24*am, Sam Wormley wrote:
Which is more likely...

* *[ ] that Marvin is right, that AWG is nothing more than
* * * *scientifically illiterate frauds

* *[ ] climatologists, related researchers and the published
* * * *research papers make a very compelling case for AGW,
* * * *and that Marvin simply doesn't understand the climate
* * * *science

"scientifically illiterate frauds"
Can you translate this into something that makes sense?

Just look in a mirror.


--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 08:49:48 -0500, Robert Grumbine wrote:

In article , AGWFacts wrote:
On Tue, 24 Apr 2012 12:49:58 -0500, Robert Grumbine
wrote:

In article , sanebow wrote:

[trim]
is more likely, as Water Vapor, the dominant component of all
the greenhouse gasses, was left out

Readers interested in the science may start with:

1965:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0495:EAAMAS%3E2.3.CO%3B2
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281965%29093%3C0769:SCOAGC%3E2.3.CO%3B2

1969:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0493%281969%29097%3C0739:CATOC%3E2.3.CO%3B2

1974:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469%281974%29031%3C0118%3AAPFTAO%3E2.0.CO%3B2
http://mirabeli.meteo.furg.br/aulas/MC/SchneiderSH_DickinsonRE_%20Climate_modeling.pdf

1975:
https://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/sm7502.pdf

-- from a simple google scholar search on "climate model" "water vapor", and
limiting to those with material online.

There have been more recent papers on the topic. I'll let the reader investigate
as the notion strikes. The assertion of water vapor being 'left out' of all climate
models has not been true, and is readily verified to not be true, for well
over 40 years.

Thank you; a few weeks ago I listed a few similar links. These
clowns keep insisting climatologists have the wrong value for
water vapor forcing, and at the same time they insist
climatologists ignore water vapor.

After posting, I changed my search to 'general circulation model' from
"climate model". That gets far more hits in the earlier years, including
a 1961 model by Manabe. So, for over 50 years of computer-based climate
modeling water vapor has been included in the radiative transfer.

Since I have a copy at hand, I also checked out L. F. Richardson's
1922 (90 years ago, 1922 is not a typo) book _Weather Prediction by
Numerical Means_. He, too, included water vapor effect on radiative
transfer.

Not only is the claim that climate models ignore water vapor in
radiation not true now, it hasn't been true for at least 50 years,
and perhaps never was. Some weather models have ignored water
vapor on radiation -- but that was because they ignored radiation
entirely. (You can get away with that if your time scales are
short enough and your accuracy standard is low enough -- as it
was in the early days of numerical weather prediction.) But I've
yet to encounter a climate model which has ignored radiation,
or water vapor's effects on radiation.

Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. Sometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. So I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. But to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.

Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.

No. Human understanding of physics change over time.

Why are you objecting to the increase in human knowledge?

"True" is simply what "experts"
say it is. So one day the "Theory of Uniformity" is "true" and he next
day it's "nonsense". Somehow I think you've missed something in how
science works. You've defined it as a religion with all the cardinals
deciding what is "true" and what is "not true". You are totally wrong in
this.

As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!

Fact is Alarmists have been claiming that CO2 is THE sole source of
global warming since the carbon push began and they CONTINUE to do so.
Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.

see
http://meteo.lcd.lu/globalwarming/Sc...ffect_2010.pdf

The major point here, Robert, is that for all the pretending this is a
SCIENTIFIC debate, it is not. It is a POLITICAL campaign. The very
wording of the discussion proves that beyond doubt. So to drag up some
1922 papers to "prove" something only proves that at one time climate
science was science. Now it's politics.


--
Denialism: "The employment of rhetorical arguments to give the appearance
of legitimate debate where there is none."

On Apr 27, 5:29*pm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:

* *Special category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. *Sometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. *So I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. *But to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.

Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.

That's what's called "science," ****-bot. *Newtonian physics had
to give way to the Einsteinian variety. *Deal with it. *Or don't;
nobody really cares.



They really should care because there is a difference between what is
true and what was fabricated to make it appear relativity replaced
Newton agenda.

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert Einstein

This would normally be a point of departure for explaining 1905
relativity and on towards the concepts of this era however it is not
true,Newton thoroughly rejected an aether which was the problem in the
mid 19th century when they could no longer bear the clockwork solar
system agenda -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton
Opticks 1704

There is almost desperation in the mid-19th century as they reached a
conceptual impasse yet couldn't reason their way out of it nor how
they got into it so 50 years later they fabricated an aether and
dumped it back on Newton,as anyone may see,the top right column
reflects Newton's rejection of an aether -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425

What happens is that a bloc acceptance of a person,theory or ideology
is symbolic of the direction the herd wishes to go rather than
individualistic achievement which stands on its own and is accepted on
it merits.When climategate broke,the herd mentality could isolate the
individuals who once represented the ideology as leaders up to then
and simply move on as if they didn't exist,same with Newton,when he
served his purpose they simply scavenged the parts which were useful
to their purpose and moved on.

It is extremely rare to encounter an individual willing to go back
into history and expose fabrications built on top of other
fabrications yet I did find a few people who faced the difference
between what is true and what is fabricated to be true and especially
Rouse Ball who admitted they couldn't trace the method or the
reasoning from hypothesis to conclusion -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908

In short,relativity did not replace Newton's agenda,it was fabricated
to make it appear that it replaced Newton's physics hence flexible
historical and technical details that a herd is prepared to ignore
just as you are doing now.Don't mistake this as contending with
relativity or Newton,it simply shows a clearer picture of what
actually happened rather than a fabricated history that exists only in
the imagination of those who adopted relativity.






--
Bill Snyder

On 4/27/2012 12:35 PM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
In , bjacoby wrote:

In science, our best understanding changes over time. If it
were religion, it need not. The IAU 1964 geoid had one shape for
the earth. Our knowledge of the shape of the earth improved over
time, so IAU 64 was replaced by WGS 84. And so forth.

You really don't get it, do you? You used the word "true". Words
actually have meanings in science, you know. It's quite different from
politics where words mean only what you SAY they mean... TRUE does not
change. "Best understanding" does change as does your assertions as to
what you said.

As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!

Which paper is that? Link please.

Go ask Wormley-bot. They are "his" links.


Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.

Its entirely possible to have an amplifying feedback without
instability. Every electronic device you use relies on that.

Obviously, you haven't any idea what you are talking about on this
subject. The above statement is totally and completely false. I suggest
taking a course on the stability of feedback systems. Feedback is not in
"every electronic device I use" and you don't even make the distinction
between positive and negative feedback.

Have your climate modelers supply us with the Nyquist plot for your
climatological feedback and we can discuss this idiot theory further.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:44:41, bjacoby wrote:

On 4/27/2012 12:35 PM, Robert Grumbine wrote:
In , bjacoby wrote:

In science, our best understanding changes over time. If it
were religion, it need not. The IAU 1964 geoid had one shape for
the earth. Our knowledge of the shape of the earth improved over
time, so IAU 64 was replaced by WGS 84. And so forth.

You really don't get it, do you? You used the word "true". Words
actually have meanings in science, you know. It's quite different from
politics where words mean only what you SAY they mean... TRUE does not
change. "Best understanding" does change as does your assertions as to
what you said.

As for ignoring water vapor, I wish I'd saved Wormley's standard links
on greenhouse gasses, for one of those papers he uses to "prove" that
CO2 causes global warming says right in the very first paragraph that
water vapor is going to be ignored. And when this was pointed out to
warmists, suddenly they never said such a thing!

Which paper is that? Link please.

Go ask Wormley-bot. They are "his" links.


Even the AGW apologists admit that CO2 is a MINOR effect compared to
water vapor. They try to excuse that by claiming some imaginary
"positive feedback" link between CO2 and water vapor in spite of no
evidence of the instability such a system would necessarily have.

Its entirely possible to have an amplifying feedback without
instability. Every electronic device you use relies on that.

Obviously, you haven't any idea what you are talking about on this
subject. The above statement is totally and completely false. I suggest
taking a course on the stability of feedback systems. Feedback is not in
"every electronic device I use" and you don't even make the distinction
between positive and negative feedback.

Have your climate modelers supply us with the Nyquist plot for your
climatological feedback and we can discuss this idiot theory further.

Caught another huh! If it is too small, throw it back to learn.
I would like to see his idea on how a glasshouse works to protect
young plants from the cold.

On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:04:38, oriel36
wrote:

On Apr 27, 5:29ÿpm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:

ÿ ÿSpecial category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. ÿSometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. ÿSo I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ÿBut to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.

Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.

That's what's called "science," ****-bot. ÿNewtonian physics had
to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ÿDeal with it. ÿOr don't;
nobody really cares.



They really should care because there is a difference between what is
true and what was fabricated to make it appear relativity replaced
Newton agenda.

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert Einstein

This would normally be a point of departure for explaining 1905
relativity and on towards the concepts of this era however it is not
true,Newton thoroughly rejected an aether which was the problem in the
mid 19th century when they could no longer bear the clockwork solar
system agenda -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton
Opticks 1704

There is almost desperation in the mid-19th century as they reached a
conceptual impasse yet couldn't reason their way out of it nor how
they got into it so 50 years later they fabricated an aether and
dumped it back on Newton,as anyone may see,the top right column
reflects Newton's rejection of an aether -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...54.33 6.x.425

What happens is that a bloc acceptance of a person,theory or ideology
is symbolic of the direction the herd wishes to go rather than
individualistic achievement which stands on its own and is accepted on
it merits.When climategate broke,the herd mentality could isolate the
individuals who once represented the ideology as leaders up to then
and simply move on as if they didn't exist,same with Newton,when he
served his purpose they simply scavenged the parts which were useful
to their purpose and moved on.

It is extremely rare to encounter an individual willing to go back
into history and expose fabrications built on top of other
fabrications yet I did find a few people who faced the difference
between what is true and what is fabricated to be true and especially
Rouse Ball who admitted they couldn't trace the method or the
reasoning from hypothesis to conclusion -

"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908

In short,relativity did not replace Newton's agenda,it was fabricated
to make it appear that it replaced Newton's physics hence flexible
historical and technical details that a herd is prepared to ignore
just as you are doing now.Don't mistake this as contending with
relativity or Newton,it simply shows a clearer picture of what
actually happened rather than a fabricated history that exists only in
the imagination of those who adopted relativity.



Is there some translation of that?
Some like Snyder, claim "Newtonian physics had to give way to the
Einsteinian variety."

Other,s View Einstein's Relativity as a necessary and useful (but
incomplete) extension of
Newtonian physics to areas not covered by Newton. Newtons's physics
still hold.

Most atmospheric moleclues are not relativistic WRTE. What has
history to do with it?

On 27/04/2012 22:54, Will Janoschka wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:04:38,
wrote:

On Apr 27, 5:29ÿpm, Bill wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400,
wrote:

On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:

ÿ ÿSpecial category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. ÿSometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. ÿSo I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ÿBut to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.

Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.

That's what's called "science," ****-bot. ÿNewtonian physics had
to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ÿDeal with it. ÿOr don't;
nobody really cares.

They really should care because there is a difference between what is
true and what was fabricated to make it appear relativity replaced
Newton agenda.

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
[very long snip]

In short,relativity did not replace Newton's agenda,it was fabricated
to make it appear that it replaced Newton's physics hence flexible
historical and technical details that a herd is prepared to ignore
just as you are doing now.Don't mistake this as contending with
relativity or Newton,it simply shows a clearer picture of what
actually happened rather than a fabricated history that exists only in
the imagination of those who adopted relativity.

Is there some translation of that?

Unlikely. Oriel36 is a well known netkook who doesn't do math and posts
more or less the same rant against modern science at every opportunity.
No chance he will ever learn anything so don't waste your time.

Feed to the Shannonizer and you will find it is almost invariant under
random rearrangement of the words - a sure sign of a netkook.

Some like Snyder, claim "Newtonian physics had to give way to the
Einsteinian variety."

It would be more accurate to say that at low velocities and in weak
gravitational fields Newtonian dynamics is the limiting case of of the
more complete theory of Einstein's relativity. Newtonian dynamics is a
lot easier to work with which is why we still teach it in schools first.

Other,s View Einstein's Relativity as a necessary and useful (but
incomplete) extension of
Newtonian physics to areas not covered by Newton. Newtons's physics
still hold.

At low speeds their predictions are pretty much indistinguishable.
Newtonian dynamics is subsumed by Einstein's relativity as a limiting
case when v c.

It is a lot easier to use Newtonian dynamics when they are applicable
and the accuracy of the answer it gives is adequate.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Apr 27, 10:54*pm, (Will Janoschka) wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 20:04:38, oriel36
wrote:









On Apr 27, 5:29ÿpm, Bill Snyder wrote:
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 12:11:43 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:

On 4/27/2012 9:49 AM, Robert Grumbine wrote:

ÿ ÿSpecial category of its own -- claims that are not only false
now, but which have always been false. ÿSometimes I make an error
in saying something I think is true, which _was_ true when I learned
it, but which more recent work has shown not to be. ÿSo I can
see making that error and have some sympathy for it. ÿBut to
claim something that has never been true ... that takes some
work.

Ah, I get it. Physics changes over time.

That's what's called "science," ****-bot. ÿNewtonian physics had
to give way to the Einsteinian variety. ÿDeal with it. ÿOr don't;
nobody really cares.

They really should care because there is a difference between what is
true and what was fabricated to make it appear relativity replaced
Newton agenda.

" In order to be able to look upon the rotation of the system, at
least formally, as something real, Newton objectivises space. Since he
classes his absolute space together with real things, for him rotation
relative to an absolute space is also something real. Newton might no
less well have called his absolute space ``Ether''; "Albert Einstein

This would normally be a point of departure for explaining 1905
relativity and on towards the concepts of this era however it is not
true,Newton thoroughly rejected an aether which was the problem in the
mid 19th century when they could no longer bear the clockwork solar
system agenda -

"The fictitious matter which is imagined as filling the whole of space
is of no use for explaining the phenomena of Nature, since the motions
of the planets and comets are better explained without it, by means of
gravity; and it has never yet been explained how this matter accounts
for gravity. The only thing which matter of this sort could do, would
be to interfere with and slow down the motions of those large
celestial bodies, and weaken the order of Nature; and in the
microscopic pores of bodies, it would put a stop to the vibrations of
their parts which their heat and all their active force consists in.
Further, since matter of this sort is not only completely useless, but
would actually interfere with the operations of Nature, and weaken
them, there is no solid reason why we should believe in any such
matter at all. Consequently, it is to be utterly rejected." Newton
Opticks 1704

There is almost desperation in the mid-19th century as they reached a
conceptual impasse yet couldn't reason their way out of it nor how
they got into it so 50 years later they fabricated an aether and
dumped it back on Newton,as anyone may see,the top right column
reflects Newton's rejection of an aether -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...age&seq9&size1...

What happens is that a bloc acceptance of a person,theory or ideology
is symbolic of the direction the herd wishes to go rather than
individualistic achievement which stands on its own and is accepted on
it merits.When climategate broke,the herd mentality could isolate the
individuals who once represented the ideology as leaders up to then
and simply move on as if they didn't exist,same with Newton,when he
served his purpose they simply scavenged the parts which were useful
to their purpose and moved on.

It is extremely rare to encounter an individual willing to go back
into history and expose fabrications built on top of other
fabrications yet I did find a few people who faced the difference
between what is true and what is fabricated to be true and especially
Rouse Ball who admitted they couldn't trace the method or the
reasoning from hypothesis to conclusion -

*"The demonstrations throughout the book [Principia] are geometrical,
but to readers of ordinary ability are rendered unnecessarily
difficult by the absence of illustrations and explanations, and by the
fact that no clue is given to the method by which Newton arrived at
his results." W.W.Rouse Ball 1908

In short,relativity did not replace Newton's agenda,it was fabricated
to make it appear that it replaced Newton's physics hence flexible
historical and technical details that a herd is prepared to ignore
just as you are doing now.Don't mistake this as contending with
relativity or Newton,it simply shows a clearer picture of what
actually happened rather than a fabricated history that exists only in
the imagination of those who adopted relativity.

Is there some translation of that?
Some like Snyder, claim "Newtonian physics had to give way to the
Einsteinian variety."

Other,s View Einstein's Relativity as a necessary and useful (but
incomplete) extension of
Newtonian *physics to areas not covered by Newton. * Newtons's physics
still hold.

Most atmospheric moleclues are not relativistic WRTE. * What has
history to do with it?

The commentary from the mid 19th century was actually killing two
birds with one stone and without knowing it,you are proving both of
these points .The herd mentality generally relies on maintaining a
conclusion front and center so that if global warming is linked to
carbon dioxide for a long enough period of time,people will be unable
to imagine anything other than their actions are causing global
warming,it is the same with relativity/Newton,the fabricated story is
so part of your thinking that it is impossible to imagine that Newton
rejected an aether and you simply ignore what Newton said and the
difficulties they had in the mid 19th century with it -

http://www.bodley.ox.ac.uk/cgi-bin/i...5 4.336.x.425

The astronomical equivalent of 2+2=4 is that the Earth turns once in
24 hours with all the effects experienced within that period
reflecting the daily motion of the Earth yet in this dystopian
society,and because their modeling require it,they argue against the
24 hour day keeping in step with daily rotation and while it is all
too easy to refer this to the fictional novel based on Nazi
doctrine,we most certainly live in an era where, astronomically, 2+2=5
and all that goes along with that dysfunctional correlation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_%2B_2_%3D_5

Global warming causes floods and droughts,global warming causes
heatwaves and severe cold snaps,if global warming is not happening
then it is climate change in which case global warming does happen and
that is why I felt Humboldt statement is important -

"This assemblage of imperfect dogmas bequeathed by one age to another—
this physical philosophy, which is composed of popular prejudices,—is
not only injurious because it perpetuates error with the obstinacy
engendered by the evidence of ill observed facts, but also because it
hinders the mind from attaining to higher views of nature. Instead of
seeking to discover the mean or medium point, around which oscillate,
in apparent independence of forces, all the phenomena of the external
world, this system delights in multiplying exceptions to the law, and
seeks, amid phenomena and in organic forms, for something beyond the
marvel of a regular succession, and an internal and progressive
development. Ever inclined to believe that the order of nature is
disturbed, it refuses to recognise in the present any analogy with the
past, and guided by its own varying hypotheses, seeks at hazard,
either in the interior of the globe or in the regions of space, for
the cause of these pretended perturbations. It is the special object
of the present work to combat those errors which derive their source
from a vicious empiricism and from imperfect inductions."
Homboldt ,Cosmos

The resolution of this myopic view which links climate to carbon
dioxide is always the same just as Humboldt realized,a widening of
perspectives and throwing the windows open to allow conceptual fresh
air in to the current opinions based on assertions and counter
assertions.It is how intelligent and reasonable people acted and
dearly required right now -

"When we wish to correct with advantage and to show another that he
errs, we must notice from what side he views the matter, for on that
side it is usually true, and admit that truth to him, but reveal to
him the side on which it is false. He is satisfied with that, for he
sees that he was not mistaken and that he only failed to see all
sides. Now, no one is offended at not seeing everything; but one does
not like to be mistaken, and that perhaps arises from the fact that
man naturally cannot see everything, and that naturally he cannot err
in the side he looks at, since the perceptions of our senses are
always true."

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3...a.html#SECTION
I

Pascal outlines most of what went wrong as mathematicians inserted
themselves in astronomy and terrestrial sciences.