RadioBanter - Water burns!

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Antenna (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/)

- - Water burns! (https://www.radiobanter.com/antenna/119868-water-burns.html)

art wrote:
On 16 Jun, 09:45, wrote:
Cecil Moore wrote:
wrote:
But what if the post gets cross posted to a group such as
sci.physics.research where there is a greater percentage of educated
readers than r.r.a.a and semantic game playing isn't allowed?
Sounds like you shouldn't bother trying to post there.

With topics like "Water burns" and "Gaussian antennas", I seldom do.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Jim,
you have posted 1000+ in newsgroups starting with "sci" and as with
this group
you have never met a person that you could like. Seems like the word
babble,idiot
a few swear words, moron,etc is what you base your posts around. It
does appear
to me that the aviation people took you at your word when you said
you wanted
to be buried in Chicago when you said you would not post in that
newsgroup again.
Now you have rissen from the dead where you can hurt as many people as
you can
in this newsgroup with your own style of babble. Why do you wake up in
the morning?
There surely something in the World where you could be happy instead
of hanging
around here. Find out where that place is and go there and this time
work on
building up some credability in your enunciations if your ideals are
to have a
sensible conversation instead of abusive one liners that you now
thrive upon.
To use a life like the way you are squandering yours is a very sad
thing to watch.

It's nice to see a babbler like you is so obsessed with what I may
have posted to USENET that you have spent the time to research me.

Now, if only you were able to read...

Actually, it was in sci.physics where I said:

"Personally, I'm going to be buried in Chicago because that's where the
dead rise from the grave every election day."

Since little you post has much of any relation to reality, it is not
surprising you botched this also.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Cecil Moore wrote in news:blSci.19753$C96.3758
@newssvr23.news.prodigy.net:

John Smith I wrote:
I would hold back just a bit on that "theory."

Quoted from: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=221

"Three scientific studies that have recently appeared may well
spell the beginning of the end of global warming theory:"
--
73, Cecil, w5dxp.com

As a group whose defined mission is "to dispel the myths of global
warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis", I
give them credit for not hiding what they have already decided.

But they are without a doubt a political organization.

Herre is Some info on them:

Formed in 1997, is currently hosted and financed by Consumer Alert,
member and organizer of the National Consumer Coalition. The Coalition
publishes the bi-weekly "Cooler Heads Newsletter" in conjunction with the
Competitve Enterprise Institute. Current members a 60 Plus
Association, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition
(junkscience.com), Alexis de Tocqueville Institution, Americans for Tax
Reform, Association of Concerned Taxpayers, Atlas Economic Research
Foundation, Capital Research Center, Citizens Against Government Waste,
Citizens for a Sound Economy, Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow,
Competitive Enterprise Institute, Consumer Alert, Defenders of Property
Rights, Foundation for American Liberty, Frontiers of Freedom, Fund for a
New Generation, The Heartland Institute, National Center for Policy
Analysis, National Center for Public Policy Research, Political Economy
Research Center, Public Interest Institute, Small Business Survival
Committee, United Seniors Association, and Women for Tax Reform.

Reading the articles was a little like reading Creationist
effluvia.

1. Decide your desired outcome.

2. Anything that appears to discredit your opponents position is
trotted out to do just that.

3. Pull out old research. The latest on this site was from 2001,
although there was stuff that was over 12 years old.

3. But for heavens sake, don't apply the same metric to yourself!

I've issued a challenge before (not that anyone would be paying
much attention to my challenges, but whatever.

Heat retention in an atmosphere will vary in relation to the percentage
of certain components of that atmosphere. This is an experimentally
proven fact. Not a theory nor hypothesis, but a fact.

These gases, which vary in the amount of heat retention they afford, are
collectively known as "greenhouse gases".

Given the above as a fact, (unless you wish to dispute the entire
concept) perform research that shows that the effect does not exist.

You fail if you call politics. All that is saying is that You are the one
with a political agenda. Note that the "you" in this is the group doing
the research, not you personally.

Hasn't happened yet. The political groups such as the Cooler Heads
Coalition just do the same as the Creationists and Intelligent Design
crowd. I'm expecting debate challenges soon. Everyone knows that we can
change scientific fact by debate! ;^)

BTW, a most interesting side effect of the Water Vapor feedback, the
report from 7 years ago that the CHC calls "new", brings up an
interesting dilemma. If the ocean temperature rises, the cloud cover
changes to allow more heat to escape. If this mechanism occurs, and
prevents temoeratures from rising, why would the oceans rise in
temperature at all? Seems like either the feeedback should keep land and
ocean temps pretty constant. But the temperature seem to rise, because
they know that a 1 deg C ocean temp rise causes clouds to compensate by
losing more heat. This cannot happen, because global warming doesn't
exist, right?

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

Cecil Moore wrote in news:edTci.14001$2v1.2035
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

John Smith I wrote:
I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope
science will prevail in the near future.

Here's probably all you need to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png

Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak
temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the
peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of
340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of
410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming
cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is
relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000
years ago indicating that we are already in the
next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-)

Cecil, we both know that temperature changes will affect different
areas differently. When people trot out specifics, I remember listening
to Rush Limbaugh spouting out "So much for Global Warming" during a brief
cold snap during one of the warmer winters recently.

Some places, such as Ireland (where palm trees grow in certain
places) and Great Britain, could become significantly colder if the Gulf
stream is diverted or dissapates due to warming effects.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

"Mike Coslo" wrote in message
36...
Cecil Moore wrote in news:edTci.14001$2v1.2035
@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

John Smith I wrote:
I draw no firm conclusions on global warming and have little hope
science will prevail in the near future.

Here's probably all you need to know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...emperature.png

Note the temperature today is ~6 deg *below* the peak
temperature of 130,000 years ago, ~3 deg below the
peak of 240,000 years ago, ~5 deg below the peak of
340,000 years ago, and ~2 degrees below the peak of
410,000 years ago. As far as natural global warming
cycle peak temperatures go, the present one is
relatively cool - plus the fact that it peaked 8000
years ago indicating that we are already in the
next ice age cycle. Just ask the folks in Denver. :-)

Cecil, we both know that temperature changes will affect different
areas differently. When people trot out specifics, I remember listening
to Rush Limbaugh spouting out "So much for Global Warming" during a brief
cold snap during one of the warmer winters recently.

Some places, such as Ireland (where palm trees grow in certain
places) and Great Britain, could become significantly colder if the Gulf
stream is diverted or dissapates due to warming effects.

- 73 de Mike KB3EIA -

The UK is currently enjoying record high temperatures and lots of fine
weather, when it isn't raining. If the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic Drift
disipate, we'll just have to go back to building coal fired power stations
to warm the place up a bit more. Hey, we're an island, we don't have to
worry about the rest of the world.

Mike G0ULI

Jim Kelley wrote:
It usually turns out that he used the one which allows whatever he
said to be true in some context.

You are the pot calling the kettle black, Jim.
Your narrow definitions from the field of physics
are not even accepted within the RF engineering
community.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Jim Higgins wrote:
One might make a pretty good case that since the
scientific method is inherent to science and to being a scientist that
those who abandon it are no longer scientists.

OTOH, one might make a pretty good case that those
who worship at the alter of the scientific method
have simply traded one religion for another and
are no longer scientists.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

Mike Kaliski wrote:

...
The UK is currently enjoying record high temperatures and lots of fine
weather, when it isn't raining. If the Gulf Stream or North Atlantic Drift
disipate, we'll just have to go back to building coal fired power stations
to warm the place up a bit more. Hey, we're an island, we don't have to
worry about the rest of the world.

Mike G0ULI

Ever study the dynamics of an ammonia refrigeration system?

These primitive refrigeration units are found in most travel trailers
and land yachts, you actually provide a propane flame to cool the
interior of your refrigerator ...

As parts of the world grow warmer, parts will grow much cooler as
earths' weather dynamics strive to maintain a balance, if you avg out
the warmed vs. the cooled, you will not even be able to note a
significant difference--however, if you live in one or the other, you
will notice it!

JS

Jim Higgins wrote:
In any case it strikes me that allowing The Law to be broken
pretty much wrecks literally everything else ...

The law of conservation of energy that my Dad was taught
was broken by the atomic bomb. Of course, the energy in
matter, that had been previously erroneously omitted, was
quickly added.
--
73, Cecil http://www.w5dxp.com

art wrote:

...
To use a life like the way you are squandering yours is a very sad
thing to watch.

Art:

You have an excellent approach to logic ...

JS