Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Warming (Too Much Warming) Vs. Cooling (Too Much Cooling)


  • Please log in to reply
29 replies to this topic

#1 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 01:26 AM

[Admin note: this post was split from the topic Vibrational Frequency Co2 Global Warming as it was considered off-topic by several members]
[Author's note: the title of the thread of origin contains the words, "global warming." This thread will self-destruct in 10 minutes.]
[Author's note2: this thread has failed to self-destruct.]
[Author's note3: this thread will be locked, in time; Do you have a future? No, No, No Yeeeesss]
 

...
...it simply must reflect at visible (and higher) frequencies and therefore it would have a cooling effect, not warming, just like clouds of water vapor do.

To further clarify, high-energy light should be reflected away while only retaining low-energy IR light and therefore the overall effect is cooling. What am I missing? ...

.
Rut Roh...What you missed is the memo that the subject won't be determined by scientific methods.

While we're on the subject, which would you or anyone prefer?

1. A return to an "ice age"--the most recent being about 10,000 years ago; no offense to Young Earth Creationists;
2. Continued warming in a direction away from 1?

You chose. (There is no third option, "3. oscillation around some pleasant average temperature, a kind of stasis.")

Edited by scherado, 16 September 2017 - 06:31 PM.


#2 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 13 September 2017 - 04:58 AM

...
To further clarify, high-energy light should be reflected away while only retaining low-energy IR light and therefore the overall effect is cooling.
...

Dear BanterinBoson, would you be so kind as to explain the reason for the fourth and fifth words in your thread's title: Vibrational Frequency Co2 Global Warming?

Edited by scherado, 13 September 2017 - 06:25 PM.


#3 BanterinBoson

BanterinBoson

    Thinking

  • Members
  • 16 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 01:54 PM

While we're on the subject, which would you or anyone prefer?

1. A return to an "ice age"--the most recent being about 10,000 years ago; no offense to Young Earth Creationists;
2. Continued warming in a direction away from 1?

You chose. (There is no third option, "3. oscillation around some pleasant average temperature, a kind of stasis.")

 

If my choice is an ice age or runaway heating until the earth reaches the temp of the sun and beyond, then I suppose preferring an ice age is an obvious answer.

 

Dear BanterinBoson, would you be so kind as to explain the reason for the fourth and fifth words in your thread's title: Vibrational Frequency Co2 Global Warming?

 

Titles must be succinct.  I want to know about vibrational frequencies of atoms and molecules regarding transference of varying frequencies of solar radiation as it relates to the warming and/or cooling of planetary objects, but all that wouldn't fit.  Think of my title as a collection of "tags".



#4 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 11:18 PM

If my choice is an ice age or runaway heating until the earth reaches the temp of the sun and beyond, then I suppose preferring an ice age is an obvious answer.
...

.
Where I sit typing there would be a glacier on my head.

Wrong answer.
.
----Sarcastic content removed--------

Edited by scherado, 16 September 2017 - 01:38 AM.


#5 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8805 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 11:41 PM

That's just great. Where was the bleeping moderation team when needed?

Unbleeping believable.


May we be of service? What seems to be the problem?


I have served him from the hour of my nativity to this instant, :phones:
Buffy

#6 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 11:46 PM

------Response to response to sarcastic content removed...or something---------

Edited by scherado, 16 September 2017 - 01:39 AM.


#7 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8805 posts

Posted 14 September 2017 - 11:52 PM

.
ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!


Well, what is your complaint? Your response does nothing to assist in responding your request for moderation, and is unhelpful to say the least.


How you delight, my lords, I know not, :phones:
Buffy

#8 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • 1235 posts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 01:10 AM

.
Where I sit typing there would be a glacier on my head.

Wrong answer.
.
.
That's just great. Where was the bleeping moderation team when needed?

Unbleeping believable.

This is good. Bleeping Scherado asks a question (a bleeping silly one, admittedly) and then claims the answer supplied is "wrong"! So why bleeping ask, if the answer is already known?Unbleeping believable.

 

As for the call for moderation, why? The answer BanterinBoson gave about why he titled his thread as he did is obvious. He wants to understand better the chemistry and chemical physics behind the transmission, reflection and absorption of EM radiation in the atmosphere, because it is the crux of the science behind the issue of climate change. Anyone should understand that instantly. 

 

.....unless......could it possibly be that someone would like to hijack a thread about chemistry and turn it into a yet another tedious, politically motivated and unscientific rant about climate change denial? Unbleeping believable. 



#9 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 01:47 AM

If my choice is an ice age or runaway heating until the earth reaches the temp of the sun and beyond, then I suppose preferring an ice age is an obvious answer.
...

.

.
Where I sit typing there would be a glacier on my head.

Wrong answer.
.
----Sarcastic content removed--------

.

[Admin note: this post was split from the topic Vibrational Frequency Co2 Global Warming as it was considered off-topic by several members]

... which would you or anyone prefer?

1. A return to an "ice age"--the most recent being about 10,000 years ago; no offense to Young Earth Creationists;
2. Continued warming in a direction away from 1?

You chose. (There is no third option, "3. oscillation around some pleasant average temperature, a kind of stasis.")

.
"BanterinBoson" did not choose one of my options and, instead, invented an option that has no basis in Earth's history.

Do I have to state the obvious? Unfortunately, yes: there have been actual, factual ice-ages of various severity throughout what is believed to be Earth's long age--no offense to Young Earth Creationists.

#10 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8805 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 09:28 AM

... which would you or anyone prefer?

1. A return to an "ice age"--the most recent being about 10,000 years ago; no offense to Young Earth Creationists;
2. Continued warming in a direction away from 1?

You chose. (There is no third option, "3. oscillation around some pleasant average temperature, a kind of stasis.")

If my choice is an ice age or runaway heating until the earth reaches the temp of the sun and beyond, then I suppose preferring an ice age is an obvious answer.
...

"BanterinBoson" did not choose one of my options and, instead, invented an option that has no basis in Earth's history.
Do I have to state the obvious? Unfortunately, yes: there have been actual, factual ice-ages of various severity throughout what is believed to be Earth's long age


Actually, it's pretty clear that he chose your choice #1. It's true he embellished it with a "until the earth reaches the temperature of the sun," but your choice #3, is actually the only description that has a "basis in Earth's history," recognizing that you only specified a "pleasant average" not how broad the oscillation might be, which indeed might and has included ice ages. Since you said #3 was not an option, you clearly eliminated an answer that included "oscillation" or "stasis" thus meaning choices #1 and #2 were descriptions of monotonically increasing conditions, thus making his to "the temp of the sun" a quite obvious interpretation.

Not clear what you are complaining about here, but this is your thread, so you're welcome to take the discussion in a direction you'd like. That's one of the reasons it was broken off from the original thread.


The word that Mrs. Bronson is unable to put into the hot, still, sodden air is 'doomed,' because the people you've just seen have been handed a death sentence, :phones:
Buffy

#11 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 16 September 2017 - 06:18 PM

Actually, it's pretty clear that he chose your choice #1. It's true he embellished it with a "until the earth reaches the temperature of the sun," but your choice #3, is actually the only description that has a "basis in Earth's history," recognizing that you only specified a "pleasant average" not how broad the oscillation might be, which indeed might and has included ice ages. Since you said #3 was not an option, you clearly eliminated an answer that included "oscillation" or "stasis" thus meaning choices #1 and #2 were descriptions of monotonically increasing conditions, thus making his to "the temp of the sun" a quite obvious interpretation.

Not clear what you are complaining about here, but this is your thread, so you're welcome to take the discussion in a direction you'd like. That's one of the reasons it was broken off from the original thread.
...

.
You've got to be kidding me. The words Global and Warming were in the title, proximate.

I was right about you being dangerous.

And you locked the 9/11 thread when it was getting started. (separate issue)
.
But what's really breathtaking, in a bad way, is that you didn't comprehend this:
.

...
"BanterinBoson" did not choose one of my options and, instead, invented an option that has no basis in Earth's history.
...


Edited by scherado, 16 September 2017 - 06:21 PM.


#12 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8805 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 12:36 AM

You've got to be kidding me. The words Global and Warming were in the title, proximate.

I was right about you being dangerous.


With those two sentences proximate, one could come to the conclusion that you do not believe it is valid to use the words "Climate Change" in a title, but that makes little sense. Would you like to clarify why allowing the use of that two word term is "dangerous?"
 

And you locked the 9/11 thread when it was getting started. (separate issue)


You're welcome to open any new thread you like. You were asked over a dozen different questions in that thread by several different people and you did not respond coherently to any of them. It was the fact that you did not maintain any control of the thread and it diverged into a bunch of different topics that made it no longer useful as a thread.

Sorry! That's mostly your fault.


 

But what's really breathtaking, in a bad way, is that you didn't comprehend this:

...
"BanterinBoson" did not choose one of my options and, instead, invented an option that has no basis in Earth's history.
...


I told you my interpretation. You here respond here simply that my apparent misunderstanding--and I'm quite clear above that it's only an interpretation that could be wrong and asking you to clarify--is "breathtaking."

How does that further anyone's understanding of what you mean? You apparently think it's obvious, but as my 11th grade Honors English teacher always said "Restate! Restate! Restate!" You should never assume that your exposition is obvious, and indeed half of the reason you're so frustrating to interact with is that you refuse to say what you mean.

You should really try to spend less time hyperventilating and finding things unbelievable and more time explaining what you actually think.


Each scar's a cipher rimmed with old barbs and landmines, protecting its truth, :phones:
Buffy

#13 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 01:00 AM

...
I told you my interpretation. You here respond here simply that my apparent misunderstanding--and I'm quite clear above that it's only an interpretation that could be wrong and asking you to clarify--is "breathtaking."
...

.
You really don't understand this:
.

"BanterinBoson" did not choose one of my options and, instead, invented an option that has no basis in Earth's history.


Unbleeping believable.

#14 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8805 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 01:30 AM

.
You really don't understand this:

Unbleeping believable.


Again, completely unresponsive.

You obviously think I am an idiot. Humor us all: describe what you mean as if I am an idiot.


Every single person is a fool, insane, a failure, or a bad person to at least ten people, :phones:
Buffy

#15 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 01:44 AM

Please see the bold text below:
.

If my choice is an ice age or runaway heating until the earth reaches the temp of the sun and beyond, then I suppose preferring an ice age is an obvious answer.

.

"BanterinBoson" ... invented an option that has no basis in Earth's history.
...

.

...
I told you my interpretation. You here respond here simply that my apparent misunderstanding--and I'm quite clear above that it's only an interpretation that could be wrong and asking you to clarify--is "breathtaking."
...

.
Which of the bold in "BanterinBoson"'s sentence is invented and has no basis in Earth's history?

#16 Buffy

Buffy

    Resident Slayer

  • Administrators
  • 8805 posts

Posted 17 September 2017 - 02:06 AM

You're acting as if you did not read the "interpretation" that I am referring to, so I'll quote it.

 

Actually, it's pretty clear that he chose your choice #1. It's true he embellished it with a "until the earth reaches the temperature of the sun," but your choice #3, is actually the only description that has a "basis in Earth's history," recognizing that you only specified a "pleasant average" not how broad the oscillation might be, which indeed might and has included ice ages. Since you said #3 was not an option, you clearly eliminated an answer that included "oscillation" or "stasis" thus meaning choices #1 and #2 were descriptions of monotonically increasing conditions, thus making his to "the temp of the sun" a quite obvious interpretation.

 

The two parts in BanterinBoson's quote that you bolded are literally an interpretation of your two options, and therefore are not "invented," which is really my primary point, but you obviously don't think that's important or worth responding to. I state quite clearly hear that it appears that you yourself set up your two options as being monotonically increasing, and therefore the fact that they have "no basis in Earth's history" is your own fault, not Banter's. 

 

I'm not really sure what you're trying to accomplish here. I was sure you were mostly concerned about the reference to Climate Change, but apparently not. To the extent that you're finding fault with what Banter said, it seems to be mostly that you didn't understand that what you wrote could possibly be interpreted in a fashion different from what ever it is that you think is the only obvious interpretation.

 

I mean if your only goal is to say that Banter misinterpreted you, why should that be unbelievable? Why can't you just clarify instead of seeming to convey that you think that he and I are idiots? Do you think that's useful?

 

 

Strange that people are happy to adopt epithets they would fight to the death to throw off had they been imposed, :phones:

Buffy



#17 scherado

scherado

    Questioning

  • Banned
  • 207 posts

Posted 18 September 2017 - 01:20 AM

You're acting as if you did not read the "interpretation" that I am referring to, ...

.
Who's acting? You showed zero comprehension of my sentence that underlined and set into bold, italics, respectively, the key elements to aid in the comprehension--though I forgot to type slowly. I had no clue that you would have trouble with "invented." Who could have expected that?

"Necessity is the mother of invention." :nahnahbooboo:


Edited by scherado, 18 September 2017 - 01:31 AM.