- 22 Nov 2019 21:23
#15050328
Let's add hero worship to your flaws. You think this man wasnt paid as an advisor and speaker by an organisation funded by the oil industry. The hypocrisy of claiming others are in it for money is clear.
He was a great researcher of hurricanes and discovered some important patterns throughout his career. However, his inability to cope with the information age is well documented. An old man in his seventies who couldn't get more research funding because his methods were outdated.
If you think Angstroms assistant could make more acturate measurements than today's scientists or even replicate the atmosphere at higher levels without the direct observations made in the 1950s then you really are deluded.
I've provided multiple papers that show evidence has moved understanding forwards since Angstrom. You are yet to counter any of them.
As promised, everytime you claim Angstrom has never been disproved I'll offer another paper showing his understand was incomplete and flawed..
Callendar, G.S. (1941). "Infra-Red Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, with Special Reference to Atmospheric Radiation."
He proved that there are gaps in the absorbtion bands of H2O where CO2 is strongly absorbant. Again something Angstrom was ignorant of and yet you still want to hang your hat on his work.
You even claimed his experiments had been recently replicated successfully multiple times and yet still you provide no evidence to support this.
It's truly pathetic that you can't recognise what a fool you are making of yourself by seeing one set of 100 year old research as fact when the world is full of later evidence that provides better understanding of what is happening in our atmosphere. You are stuck in your cherry picking world having to deny anything that doesn't fit rather than looking at why that might be the case. You are in a trap of your own making.
Still waiting for your proof that you have a more detailed understanding of the absorption spectrum of molecules than the spectroscopy measurements stored in the HITRAN database that you previously tried to claim distorted the facts.
Truth To Power wrote:Please provide evidence that this money went to Prof Gray.
Right. Same as the number on leprechaun climate change, and for the same reason: it is absurd nonsense beneath the notice of genuine climate scientists.
Because the question had already been settled by Angstrom, 100 before.
But little understanding of the underlying physics.
That is a despicable slander of a man whose shoes you are not fit to clean.
Because the question had already been settled by Angstrom, 100 before.
That is a despicable slander of a man whose shoes you are not fit to clean.
Let's add hero worship to your flaws. You think this man wasnt paid as an advisor and speaker by an organisation funded by the oil industry. The hypocrisy of claiming others are in it for money is clear.
He was a great researcher of hurricanes and discovered some important patterns throughout his career. However, his inability to cope with the information age is well documented. An old man in his seventies who couldn't get more research funding because his methods were outdated.
If you think Angstroms assistant could make more acturate measurements than today's scientists or even replicate the atmosphere at higher levels without the direct observations made in the 1950s then you really are deluded.
I've provided multiple papers that show evidence has moved understanding forwards since Angstrom. You are yet to counter any of them.
As promised, everytime you claim Angstrom has never been disproved I'll offer another paper showing his understand was incomplete and flawed..
Callendar, G.S. (1941). "Infra-Red Absorption by Carbon Dioxide, with Special Reference to Atmospheric Radiation."
He proved that there are gaps in the absorbtion bands of H2O where CO2 is strongly absorbant. Again something Angstrom was ignorant of and yet you still want to hang your hat on his work.
You even claimed his experiments had been recently replicated successfully multiple times and yet still you provide no evidence to support this.
It's truly pathetic that you can't recognise what a fool you are making of yourself by seeing one set of 100 year old research as fact when the world is full of later evidence that provides better understanding of what is happening in our atmosphere. You are stuck in your cherry picking world having to deny anything that doesn't fit rather than looking at why that might be the case. You are in a trap of your own making.
Still waiting for your proof that you have a more detailed understanding of the absorption spectrum of molecules than the spectroscopy measurements stored in the HITRAN database that you previously tried to claim distorted the facts.