Halo sahabat judi on line, di sini saya mempercakapkan seputar dunia perjudian on line, pada kesempatan yang menawan ini kami akan sedikit berbagi kepada anda tekait dengan beberapa hal yang berhubungan dengan judi domino99 Online. Pada dasarnya seluruh jenis permainan judi tersebut sama, keberuntungan menjadi salah satu tujuan penting di bermain judi online dalam internet. Jika kita membincangkan lebih dalam lagi terkait dengan beberapa panduan permainan judi tentu tak akan ada habisnya. Untuk kesempatan ini member akan sedikit mengulas kurang lebih informasi yang berhubunga dengan panduan bermain bandar betting di internet. Mungkin sepanjang ini anda sudah sedang paham apa itu bos online, jika masih belum terlalu jelas terkait beserta permainan judi ini akan kami jelaskan secara sempit.
Pengertian Judi Domino99 On line
Judi ceme online ialah salah satu jenis permainan judi domino99 Online yang menggunakan kombinasi 52 slip, dari masing-masing setiap tiket memiliki nilai bunga yang berbeda, yang mana poin menjadi tujuan penting di bermain judi online itu. tidak menutup kemungkinan kalau setiap player bisa memperoleh kemenangan dengan cukup gampang. Nah permainan ini sendiri mempunyai prinsip siapa sekadar baik bandar dan player yang mendapatkan angka gede maka dialah pemenangnya, berbeda dengan untuk besarnya angka yang sama kemenangan tetap terdapat ditangan bandar. Agar kian jelas terkait dengan permainan judi ceme online lalu beberapa hal yang demi anda pahami ketika tampil judi ceme online. Bos judi ceme online merupakan permainan yang sebenarnya bukan membutuhkan pengalaman apapun untuk memulai bermain, berbeda secara permainan judi lain diantaranya bola maupun judi tiket poker, untuk judi ceme online ini sendiri kartu akan dibagian secara otomatis, baik bandar dan player juga akan mendapatkan kesempatan kemenangan dari kartu yang dibagikan. Untuk masing-masing player dan bandar akan memperoleh 2 kartu, yang mana di satu meja sendiri biasanya terdiri dari 6-8 pemain sudah dengan bandar. Kemudian yang berikutnya tersekat dengan rule permainan sendiri, setiap player wajib menggerakkan ante atau taruhan serasi dengan besarnya pilihan taruhan bola yang akan diberikan.
Jenis-jenis permainan Bandar judi online
Judi Domino99 online yang paling naik daun
Judi tiket pertama dan paling naik daun di dunia perjudian on line adalah kartu domino99, terutama didunia nyata sendiri sajian ini disebut dengan gaple, biasanya menggunakan bahan yang terbuat dari keramik mempunyai warna merah dan putih beserta jumlah bulatan yang telah ditentukan, namun juga terdapat bentuk kartunya sendiri. Jika dalam judi online swasembada biasanya judi domino99 itu lebih disukai, masing-masing player akan mendapatkan 3 tiket dan putaran ke 4 putaran untuk menentukan sapa player yang akan jadi kemenangan dari nilai kartu yang sudah di jumlah sebelumnya. Hampir sama beserta judi ceme, prnsip dari permainan ini adalah player yang mendapatkan angka popular adalah pemenangnya.
Jenis Pertaruhan Kartu poker online pula populer
Kemudian yang selanjutnya adalah judi kartu tangkas online, untuk saat ini jenis judi poker on line menjadi salah satu produk judi yang paling penuh disukai oleh para tokoh judi, alasan pertama kenapa banyak pemain judi tenteram dengan permainan poker merupakan hadiah yang diberikan sedang besar, kalau dimainkan dengan online anda akan mengenal dengan istilah jackpot yang mana untuk mendapatkan jakcpot dalam nilai besar itu anda harus memilih terlebih dahulu nila jakcpot sesuai dengan keinginan anda, lantas ketika anda mendapatkan kombinasi kartu poker spesial oleh sebab itu jakcpot juga akan kamu dapatkan.
Judi capsa untai online paling diminati sambil pemain pemula
Kemudian jenis permainan judi kartu on line lain selain judi bos ceme online adalah judi kartu capsa susun, lumayan berbeda dengan permainan poker, tetapi untuk kombinasi yang digunakan tetaplah sama, untuk jenis judi ini swasembada menggunkaan kombinasi yang serupa beserta permainan poker ada royal flush hingga high card. Untuk sistem permainan tersebut anda hanya mengurutkan daripada kombinasi kartu tertinggi di paling rendah.
The fact is it’s trending warmer?
The fact is it’s trending cooler.
Sonce the Minoan Warmt period, the warmest period after the last Ice Age, every following warmth period has been cooler.
The Roman warmth period was cooler than the Minoan warmth period, the Medieval warmth period was cooler than the the Roman warmth period and our latest warming period was much cooler compared the Medieval warmth period.
As global warming has stopped approx. 12 years ago and the latest warming was a response to the El Ninjo that turned into a vicious La Ninja this summer, the cooling trend will become more obvious and the number cookers of Global temperature data sets will make a deep fall.
The upcoming winter will eradicate the entire AGW hoax.
Reply: Choosing the start date is the trick used in climate science. The temperature has been rising since about 1680. Yet since 1000 it’s been dropping. -PG
“We have to determine just where there is consensus, and where there are contrary opinions. This has to be done scientifically, without any prejudice.”
How can a vote to determine the validity of a scientific theory/theories not be prejudicial? Even if we all just gave up the ghost and said: OK, there’s complete agreement, let’s do it (radical global decarbonisation under UN governance) would that validate the theory/theories?
I just can’t believe a scientist would say that. Is this a translation issue? Feynman will be turning in his grave.
The next IPCC report will be just like the last; the propaganda material will be hidden better. The WWF studies will no more come from a WWF publication but they will channel the funding through some institute. They will learn and it will be more difficult to expose.
I’m disappointed by von Storch’s decision to be part of that organisation.
The last report was already so emphatic that there is no way to top it.
The IPCC will try to top it. No one is listining to them scream so they will try to scream louder.
Please change the horendous color scheme on your website. I’m not sure I have seen anything this bad since the early days of PCs. This is unreadable.
Reply: I thought it was kinda nice, better than what I had before. I’m open to suggestions. – PG
Nothing wrong with the color scheme IMHO. Maybe tastes vary? Or your browser/computer has a hiccup? Black on white ain’t that unreadable. If it’s pink on green on your screen you might need to check the monitor cable.
“The fact is it’s trending warmer”, no the calculated average of the yearly means is increasing. That does not mean it’s getting “warmer”. The fact is when you look at the full range of max and min temps in the years you will find that, in temperate zones, summer max temps have been dropping since 1900 (fewer heat waves), while the winters are less cold (fewer days in the really cold ranges). Hardley something to get alarmed and take action over.
It has been proven that the greenhouse gas effect does not exist. This was done in 1909 by R.W.Wood and more recently by the people that know what is happening in the atmosphere -physicists. below are two sets of definitions that indicate why we have a problem. Definitions of the Climate Discussion
What is Climate?
Definition:A few thousand weather days end to end for a specific location.
How many climates are there in the world?
Every part of the country and the world has a unique climate -the south of France, the North slope of Alaska, the heart of Africa, the northeast Great Lakes region of the US ,the north of Italy, the south of Italy,thousands of different climates etc.
What is weather?
The atmospheric conditions where you are.
Can mankind control the weather?
We have tried for thousands of years from the Indian rainmaker, to the cloud seeders of the 1950-60. Man can not control the weather, then how the hell can man be controlling the climate. This whole B.S of MANN-made global warming is a fairy tale. The MANNipulation of temperature data is a crime against humanity and these criminals should be put in jail.
What is a Climatologist?
There are two type: one is a temperature historian. There are many good ones that try with various scientific methods to determine what has happened in the past. The other type are people that look at the data or part of the data and they say that they can project what will happen in the future- these are FORTUNE TELLER- EVEN IF THEY ARE USING COMPUTER MODELS THAT CAN NOT BE TESTED- THEY ARE THE FLAT SCREEN FORTUNE TELLERS. THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIST BECAUSE THEY CAN NOT PROVIDE TEST RESULTS OF THEIR EXPERIMENTS. HOW MANY OF US WILL BE HERE IN 50 OR 100 YEARS TO SAY THAT THEIR COMPUTER MODEL DID NOT WORK.
When ever the computer models are tried to project for shorter periods of time they all have failed. Meteorologists that study weather is a specific region have trouble projecting even 5 to 10 days into the future with any degree of accuracy ,how the hell should we believe “Climatologist” who try to project for the whole world and the next 50 years.
We know that there is no computer model or computer that has the capacity to handle the thousands of variables that effect the weather and as stated above “climate is thousands of weather days for a region” stacked together.
No one that I’ve seen has attempted to show what effect the Moon has on the weather yet we know that it affect the tides and gravitational influences on Earth.
It’s time to tell “climatologist” that project into the future to put there writing in the correct catagory – “Science fiction”
Star Track is more believable than what garbage we are getting for Government funded( our money) “Climatologists”
List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
B. Klein an Environmental Engineer for 47 years.
Just a little addition of the work by Dr. Heinz Theime
Contribution to the discussion about Climate Change:
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics
by Dipl.-Ing. Heinz Thieme
Deutsche Version siehe: http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/index.htm
The relationship between so-called greenhouse gases and atmospheric temperature is not yet well understood. So far, climatologists have hardly participated in serious scientific discussion of the basic energetic mechanisms of the atmosphere. Some of them, however, appear to be starting to realise that their greenhouse paradigm is fundamentally flawed, and already preparing to withdraw their theories about the climatic effects of CO2 and other trace gases.
At present, the climatological profession is chiefly engaged in promoting the restriction of CO2 emissions as a means of limiting atmospheric warming. But at the same time, they admit that the greenhouse effect – i.e. the influence of so-called greenhouse gases on near-surface temperature – is not yet absolutely proven (Grassl et al., see: http–www.dmg-ev.de-gesellschaft-aktivitaeten-pdf-treibhauseffekt.pdf ). In other words, there is as yet no incontrovertible proof either of the greenhouse effect, or its connection with alleged global warming.
This is no surprise, because in fact there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect: it is an impossibility. The statement that so-called greenhouse gases, especially CO2, contribute to near-surface atmospheric warming is in glaring contradiction to well-known physical laws relating to gas and vapour, as well as to general caloric theory.
The greenhouse theory proposed by the climatological fraternity runs as follows: Outgoing infra-red radiation from the earth’s surface is somehow re-radiated by molecules of CO2 (mainly) and also O3, NO2, CH4 in the atmosphere. This backradiation produces warming of the lower atmosphere. To convince the public of the greenhouse effect, composites of temperature measurements since the 19th century are exhibited that show a certain warming. Measurements of the CO2 content of the air also show a rise in recent decades (Note CO2). Climatologists then claim that the CO2 rise has caused the temperature rise (see: http://earth.agu.org/eos_elec/99148e.html).
A second source of misconceptions about the relation between temperature and the CO2 content of air arises from an erroneous explanation of conditions on the planet Venus. The Venutian atmosphere is 95% CO2, and its near-surface temperature is approximately 460oC (see also: http://www.uni-erlangen.de/docs/FAU/fakultaet/natIII/geol_appl/klima1.htm ). What climatologists overlook is that atmospheric pressure at the surface of Venus is 90 bar, and that it is this colossal pressure that determines the temperature.
Strict application of physical laws admits no possibility that tiny proportions of gases like CO2 in our atmosphere cause backradiation that could heat up the surface and the atmosphere near it:
1. The troposphere cools as altitude increases: in dry air, at a rate of around 1oC per 100m; under typical atmospheric humidity, by around 0.7oC per 100m. This cooling reflects the decrease of atmospheric pressure as altitude increases. Higher is cooler, both by day and by night.
2. Backradiation of the heat radiation outgoing from the earth’s surface would only be possible by reflection, similarly to the effect of aluminium foil under roof insulation. But the CO2 share in our atmosphere cannot cause reflection in any way. Within homogeneous gases and gas mixtures no reflections occur. As is well known in optics, reflection and even refraction occur only at the boundaries of materials of different optical density, or at phase boundaries of a material or a material mixture (solid-liquid, liquid-gaseous, solid-gaseous). Thus it occurs with suspended water drops or ice crystals, or at the boundary between surface water and air – but never within homogeneous materials, e.g. air, water, glass.
3. If outgoing thermal radiation from the earth’s surface is absorbed in the atmosphere, the absorbing air warms up, disturbing the existing vertical pattern of temperature, density and pressure, i.e. the initial state of the air layers. It is well known that warmed air expands and, because it is then lighter than the non-warmed air around it, rises. The absorbed warmth is taken away by air mass exchange. Just this occurs with near-surface air that is warmed by convection from earth’s surface, vegetation, buildings and so on. For the same reason the windows of heated rooms are kept closed in winter – otherwise the warm air would escape.
These facts are slowly but surely dawning on climatologists. Grassl and others state (see above) that radiation absorbed by CO2-molecules will warm the atmosphere if no other reactions occur in the physical (in particular dynamic) processes in the earth/atmosphere system. In these “idealised conditions”, they say the greenhouse effect would be inevitable. Such “idealised conditions” must obviously include the proviso that air is stationary. It is really quite absurd that even now something so obvious as that hot air rises is not properly taken into account by the climatological profession. When air is heated up locally, it ascends and the warmth is removed. It also expands with decreasing atmospheric pressure at higher altitude, and cools so that no remaining warming can be observed. The warmth taken over by the absorbing air is transported toward the upper troposphere. The greenhouse effect does not occur.
The same process applies to individual CO2-molecules that absorb outgoing radiant heat from the earth’s surface or from lower layers of the troposphere. These individual molecules remain at the same temperature as their surroundings. Due to the high density of molecules in the troposphere, an immediate exchange of absorbed radiated energy takes place by convection with the surrounding molecules of air. The CO2-molecules in the air are not isolated and therefore cannot reach a higher temperature than their environment. If energy is absorbed, the molecules in the immediate vicinity will warm up.
4. A prerequisite for any type of heat transfer is that the emitter is warmer than the absorber. Heat transfer is determined by the ratio of the fourth powers of the temperatures of the emitting and the absorbing bodies. Because temperature is uniform within minute volumes of gas in the air, and temperature decreases with increasing altitude, back transfer to near-surface air of radiation from higher CO2-molecules is impossible. In fact, this is just as impossible as it is to use a cold heat radiator to heat up a warmer area.
5. The energy discharge from the troposphere takes place at its upper boundary layer, at the transition of the atmosphere from its gaseous state to a state approaching a vacuum. Only in this zone do gases start to emit even small quantities of energy by radiation. The other energy transfer mechanisms – thermal conduction and convection – which at denser pressure are far more efficient than radiation, no longer operate because of the low density of the atmosphere there. But from the surface where man lives and up to 10 to 17km altitude (depending on geographical latitude), gases transfer the small quantities of energy they might acquire from absorbed radiation by convection and conduction – not by radiation.
The climatologists derived the theoretical foundation of the greenhouse hypothesis from the concept of radiative equilibrium over the entire gas area of the atmosphere, right down to the earth’s surface. But the fundamental premise of radiative equilibrium – a balance of incoming and outgoing radiation – is correct only as long as it is limited to the vacuum-like zone of the upper atmosphere. In the lower regions of the atmosphere, the heat balance is essentially determined by thermal, i.e. thermodynamic equilibrium, which includes the thermodynamic characteristics of the components of the atmosphere as well as their changes in status.
6. From the upper atmosphere down to earth’s surface, air pressure rises continuously. The determinant of atmospheric pressure is the mass and the weight of that part of the atmosphere above the point in question. And as pressure increases, so does temperature. The rise in temperature is caused by the thermodynamic characteristics of the main components of the atmosphere, i.e. N2 and O2. Everyone knows that compression causes gases to warm: the effect is noticeable even when inflating bicycle tires. The atmosphere is no different.
The relations between temperature, pressure and volume within the gas area of an atmosphere are determined by the following equations:
General gas equitation p x v = R x T
Adiabatic change of state p x v = constant
or T x v -1 = constant
= relation of the specific thermal values cp to cv
Estimates of the effects of CO2 concentrations on air temperature are often – as mentioned before – derived from conditions on Venus. If one assumed that the atmosphere of Venus was similar to that of the earth, rather than being 95% CO2, and that it still had a pressure of 90 bar, then the surface temperature would be about 660°C, i.e. about 200°C more than at present. The difference arises from the somewhat smaller value for triatomic as against biatomic gases ( Air: 1.4; CO2: 1.3).
Thus it would actually be somewhat colder on earth if our atmosphere consisted of CO2 rather than air.
7. A special feature of our atmosphere is its water content. Water occurs in three states. The solid and liquid forms (clouds) show radiation characteristics completely different from gases: they reflect radiation. Thus only water in its liquid or solid states shows qualities to some extent comparable to a greenhouse (i.e. mimicking, however locally, the effect of fixed and airtight glass or foil). Naturally clouds do not prevent vertical air exchange. Moreover condensation and solidification of the water in air releases substantial amounts of heat, which largely determines the temperature of the lower atmosphere. By contrast, the heat transport and storage characteristics of trace gases like CO2 are negligible factors in determining air temperature.
An interesting sidelight is that human life and most human activities add humidity to the lower atmosphere. Examples include the spread and intensification of agriculture; irrigation; hydraulic engineering, i.e. dams and reservoirs; burning of fossil fuels; other water use by humans, e.g. in industrial production processes; as well respiration by humans and livestock. It could therefore be assumed that the water content of the atmosphere has increased over the last 100 years. And the resulting cloudier skies, especially at night, would lead to a measurable increase in near-surface air temperature. But climatologists have largely neglected the possible influence on temperature of changes in the water content of the atmosphere.
Conclusion
Commonly held perceptions of the climatic relevance of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases rest on a staggering failure to grasp some of the fundamentals of physics. Correct interpretation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics and sound appreciation of the necessary physical conditions for emission of radiation by gases lead to the understanding that within the troposphere no backradiation can be caused by so-called greenhouse gases. Therefore it is not at all correct to speak of a thermal effect of these gases on the biosphere.
The thermal conditions in our and any atmosphere are determined by its pressure and the mass of its main components. Higher concentrations of CO2 in our atmosphere – at least until they reached 2% (a 60-fold increase) and thus became injurious to health – would endanger neither the climate nor mankind. To avoid further misunderstanding, the terms greenhouse effect and greenhouse gases should be avoided in describing the functioning of the atmosphere. A more correct term would be atmosphere effect. The operation of this effect is described in “The Thermodynamic Atmosphere Effect” at http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/atmos.htm.)
It is completely incomprehensible and unjustified to imagine that mankind can or must protect the climate by attempting to control trace amounts of CO2 in the air.
Note CO2: However, doubts about the estimation that the preindustrial CO2-level would have been at 0,028%, at present it is about 0,038%, arose in a recent publication: “180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods”, http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/mscp/ene/2007/00000018/00000002/art00006
back
The above article is an adapted translation of articles that appeared in the German periodicals Elektrizitätswirtschaft No. 20/1999 and Fusion No. 1/2000
For more on “Atmospheric Backradiation”, one of the presuppositions of the greenhouse theory, see http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/backrad.htm
Also available: “Does Man Influence Climate?” at http://www.geocities.com/atmosco2/Influence.htm
And The Thermodynamic Atmosphäre Effect – stepwise explained – Using a set of technical models of planets with and without an atmosphere the reasons are explained for differences in surface temperature of the planet without an atmosphere compared with the temperature in the ground layer of atmosphere of the other planet.
It is worth to know the speech of Vaclav Klaus, President of the Czech Republic, at the UN Climate Change Conference 2007: http://www.klaus.cz/klaus2/asp/clanek.asp?id=pnHwpGc13sXM
You can contact the author at heinz.thieme@gmx.net
The author is co-author and belongs to the initial signers of the Climate Declaration of Heiligenroth (Klimamanifest von Heiligenroth) http://www.klimamanifest-von-heiligenroth.de/klimaman-e.html#
Page originally created 16.08.2000, English translation revised by S.Scott, July 2003, recent complement 20.01.2009
It’s been good day – just smashed my previous daily record for visits to this blog. The gates are moving!
Unfortunately the Glenmorangie will have to wait a day, though.
You’re doing fine.
Keep up the good work and if you can find the time spend some attention to the current Climate Meeting in Berlin.
A call been made for the introduction of new taxes to create a climate fund (read world government) and our enslavement as a consequence.
We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars here and consequently the establishment of a vicious corrupt elite dwarfing the rule of Hitler, Stalin, Mao and Pol-pot put together.
Their aim is to reduce the world population by destroying our civilizations.
http://green-agenda.com
Please change the horendous color scheme on your website. I’m not sure I have seen anything this bad since the early days of PCs. This is unreadable.