Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data? I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.

YOU are the one that asked for NOAA!! I provided NOAA data with proof of my point crawling up your ass and out through your eyeballs and you still can't see it? What data would you like to see next time so you can deny it? ITN is so right...all religions are faith based and yours is no exception.

And to be completely honest, I googled "Key West current sea temp" and it popped up 87. I did some more digging and found the 85s along with some 86s, 87s, 88s and 89s. Average is 87 and so it kind of blows holes in your overheated water theory.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.

Mmmm.....is there more or less property available for destruction than there was 100 years ago?

You may have to write new Algorizm for this one.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, Mr. Greenlite came out swinging this morning....and then took a proper beat down. He's been awful quiet today. Hope he's doing some soul searching. That said, I normally wouldn't kick a man when he's down, but I was looking over this entire thread again. I saw the very first post and just about came unglued again. As we know, Greenery has accused me of stacking the deck and posting made up stuff. He has expressed a faith in the National Weather Service data, and says I should use that to back up my claims. So, here is the first image he posted on this thread.

Hey Jizzy, do you remember when you were a kid, and you were watching wrestling on TV with your dad, and that big bad bully was kicking the shit out of old Dusty Rhodes? Oh yeah, that big bad bully would have him down and trying to get a count out, and old Dusty Rhodes would stick a fist into the air. Oh shit, you knew what was about to happen next. Old Dusty Rhodes would just stand up, with the big bad bully still hanging on, and then commence to beating the pure shit out of the big bad bully.

You remember that, don't you?

Well, I hope so, because now that I've had my sleep for the day [I work, if you can call it that, on graveyard shift, so my lack of posts for a while don't mean I'm down, lol], I'm gonna pummel your mentally deficient ass, lol.

Watch this.

[b]GasGuzzler wrote:I googled "Key West current sea temp" and it popped up 87. Average is 87....

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Now which one do you suppose is made up stuff?

Remember that greenman doesn't understand anything about science so he will google until he finds something that proves his point. Since he doesn't understand science he very often pulls his own plug.

Wake wrote:
This is the same with spot and greenman both. litebrain is stuck trying to convince the entire world that a reduction in the polar ice means something despite the fact that we really have no history to show that there even is a reduction and not a cyclic advance and recession. I showed that in 1954 and 1955 nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the north pole.

Wake wrote:
Nightmare continues to believe that if he makes up enough "science" that somehow he will be smart.

Wake wrote:
You HAND him an explanation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and what it means and not only does he deny it but then turns around and threatens others with it as if he has a magic baseball bat.

Wake wrote:
The most basic algebra demonstrates what it means and extensions to it but he is incapable of that.

Wake wrote:
While AGW is plainly incorrect the theory of it is so basic that anyone could understand it.

Wake wrote:
It is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in action.

Wake wrote:
The problem is that the theory requires additional CO2 to decrease the irradiance of the Earth and it can't.

Wake wrote:
The most basic understanding of heat motion in the troposphere shows two things:

1. There isn't any energy in the single open absorption band of CO2 so total saturation of that wavelength occurred at about 200 ppm - 280 ppm. This is what keeps CO2 at those levels as a minimum - at 180 ppm to 200 ppm photosynthesis ceases and plant extraction of CO2 no longer occurs. CO2 can then begin building up from all of the natural sources from volcanic to animal life. In any case since there is no energy in this band additional CO2 cannot effect irradiance.

Wake wrote:
2. The density of the atmosphere in the troposphere is such that virtually ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth from the troposphere into the stratosphere is via conduction and convection.

Wake wrote:
Even were CO2 able to find some energy it is a trace gas of such small percentages that since H20 vapor in the atmosphere is some 200 times greater volume, again conduction from CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere and most especially into water vapor is completely assured.

Wake wrote:
The counter-science that has been used to support AGW is literally staggering.

Wake wrote:
NASA and NOAA both have gone so far and to totally falsely scaled the effects of water vapor vs. CO2.

Wake wrote:
Dr. Michael Mann totally eliminated the last two warm periods so as to make his "hockey stick" look impressive.

Wake wrote:
Despite totally accurate MGT data from satellites

Wake wrote:
that show no warming since the satellites could gather data (38 years!)

Wake wrote:
NOAA and NASA have relied upon ground sites that measure temperature.

Wake wrote:
At least one study has shown that of the American sites only 10% or so could measure temperature within 1 degree C.

Wake wrote:
A large segment had errors of 5 degree C and higher.

Wake wrote:
The sites over most of the rest of the world have exactly the same sorts of problems.

Wake wrote:
This makes NOAA and NASA historic data sets a laughing stock.

Wake wrote:
When will this global warming hoax cease?

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenshit wrote;
And AGW [not AWG, that's a wire size unit] is adding to the strength of all hurricanes, and tornadoes, and even thunder storms, for that matter.

Please explain.

All I can conclude is that the special ed teachers at your elementary school did a wonderful job of teaching a kid born with half a brain to copy and paste irrelevant propaganda on the Internet.

I've got a life to live a not much time today, so I'll just address this one for now.

You said man made global warming is adding strength to tornadoes.

I showed you a chart from your beloved NOAA clearly showing you are wrong. You have said you trust them, have faith in them, and believe them.

You call it irrelevant propaganda and credit my elementary teachers.

Is that your argument?

Yes, that is m argument, but I am really starting to feel bad now, because I just realized that you really do only have half a brain, and here I am making fun of you. Shame on me.

Your chart is irrelevant for a couple of reasons. It doesn't go back far enough in time to really see if Climate Change is increasing the severity of storms. And my argument can't even be disputed, unless you are trying to dispute the well known fact that tornadoes are fueled by heat. I don't think your chart is disputing that, are you?

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
I've got a life to live a not much time today, so I'll just address this one for now.

You said man made global warming is adding strength to tornadoes.

I showed you a chart from your beloved NOAA clearly showing you are wrong. You have said you trust them, have faith in them, and believe them.

You call it irrelevant propaganda and credit my elementary teachers.

Is that your argument?

You can't expect a vicious fool to make any sort of honest answer do you?

Appears to me that one just did, even though the question wasn't directed at him.

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted long rant against Rush Limbaugh...

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted long rant prediction the extinction of the Republican party...

GreenMan wrote:
people will eventually realize that NOAA and NASA weren't making it up. And they will then destroy the party of misleaders.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
Your hero Rush Limbaugh even evacuated, after putting the media down for reporting the storm, lol.

Did you bother to go listen to what Rush said after you heard about it on CNN? I did. He simply was raising the question of whether or not the Media was scratching the backs of it's supporters(advertisers) such as Lowes and Home DePot. He did not accuse anyone of anything, as you like to do. Like when you claimed I made an east coast hurricane route prediction. I did no such thing. I was simply reporting what the flip flopping models were doing. I wondered if the media would report the model discrepancy. I'm a decent writer, learn to read.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
...and you can chew on this one for a while too since you said hurricanes are also gaining energy from global warming. It also has your beloved NOAA credentials on it.

Again, it's irrelevant. But here's a deal I'll make with you. Put the Harvey and Irma on it, and let's take another look, because it might just show a little increase. But it still wouldn't be relevant.

If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
...and you can't WAIT to hear about the destruction! You can almost pee yourself with excitement!

ITN you've nailed it here. At long last, the 12 year hurricane drought is over, and the "proof" they've needed for over a decade has finally come. They are pissing their pants they're so freikin giddy. Wonder if Al Joker pooped his pants again. Google that one.

Shit happens Al, but I really didn't need to know about it....what a moron.

Sidenote...The 00Z NAM is in and it has taken a jump back out to sea, farther east than it was before, never landfalling ANYWHERE, only brushing Miami with 40-50 MPH outer band winds. That would be a major disappointment to some if that verified. I'll look for this report on the news tonight. Any bets?

Yes, I'll take that bet. If Irma goes east of Florida, you win. If Irma follow the west coast of Florida, the alarmist media wins. I'm putting my money on the alarmist media, because of the water temperature from Key West and up the west coast of Florida. Water temperature is 89 in Key West, and 87 up the west coast, versus 86 up the east coast for a little then drops back to 85 in open ocean more east. But Tampa is sitting there with 87 degree water.

You can see that information here:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/satl_tmap.html
You can see all the current ocean temps there.

You can see the alarmist media projection here:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/dangerous-winds-storm-surge-threaten-florida-even-hurricane-092608392--abc-news-topstories.html

So far, the tract of Irma is following the heat. Could be coincidental, but you might recall that I suggested that the heat island around Houston could have drawn Harvey in. Now we get to see if there is any relationship between sea temp and Irma's path. The warm water up the west coast of Florida I think is a little more appetizing for Irma than the east coast, or land. That's because the heat is causing more air to rise, creating a low pressure, right up the west coast.

Watch this.

Hurricanes don't 'follow the heat'. They follow the winds produced by different pressure areas. The reason Harvey stalled was that the storm got caught between two high pressure areas that weren't moving.

You don't know that hurricanes don't follow the heated waters. What I am saying is that the heated waters could be causing the low pressure and the winds that do direct the hurricanes.

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
...and you can't WAIT to hear about the destruction! You can almost pee yourself with excitement!

ITN you've nailed it here. At long last, the 12 year hurricane drought is over, and the "proof" they've needed for over a decade has finally come. They are pissing their pants they're so freikin giddy. Wonder if Al Joker pooped his pants again. Google that one.

Shit happens Al, but I really didn't need to know about it....what a moron.

Sidenote...The 00Z NAM is in and it has taken a jump back out to sea, farther east than it was before, never landfalling ANYWHERE, only brushing Miami with 40-50 MPH outer band winds. That would be a major disappointment to some if that verified. I'll look for this report on the news tonight. Any bets?

Yes, I'll take that bet. If Irma goes east of Florida, you win. If Irma follow the west coast of Florida, the alarmist media wins. I'm putting my money on the alarmist media, because of the water temperature from Key West and up the west coast of Florida. Water temperature is 89 in Key West, and 87 up the west coast, versus 86 up the east coast for a little then drops back to 85 in open ocean more east. But Tampa is sitting there with 87 degree water.

You can see that information here:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/satl_tmap.html
You can see all the current ocean temps there.

You can see the alarmist media projection here:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/dangerous-winds-storm-surge-threaten-florida-even-hurricane-092608392--abc-news-topstories.html

So far, the tract of Irma is following the heat. Could be coincidental, but you might recall that I suggested that the heat island around Houston could have drawn Harvey in. Now we get to see if there is any relationship between sea temp and Irma's path. The warm water up the west coast of Florida I think is a little more appetizing for Irma than the east coast, or land. That's because the heat is causing more air to rise, creating a low pressure, right up the west coast.

Watch this.

Hurricanes don't 'follow the heat'. They follow the winds produced by different pressure areas. The reason Harvey stalled was that the storm got caught between two high pressure areas that weren't moving.

You don't know that hurricanes don't follow the heated waters. What I am saying is that the heated waters could be causing the low pressure and the winds that do direct the hurricanes.

...and your ignorance is of astronomical proportions.

Look up cyclogenesis. Once you understand that you won't be any smarter really, but you might know how stupid you've been.

GreenMan wrote:
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

GreenMan wrote:
Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data?

GreenMan wrote:
I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data? I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.

YOU are the one that asked for NOAA!! I provided NOAA data with proof of my point crawling up your ass and out through your eyeballs and you still can't see it? What data would you like to see next time so you can deny it? ITN is so right...all religions are faith based and yours is no exception.

And to be completely honest, I googled "Key West current sea temp" and it popped up 87. I did some more digging and found the 85s along with some 86s, 87s, 88s and 89s. Average is 87 and so it kind of blows holes in your overheated water theory.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.

Mmmm.....is there more or less property available for destruction than there was 100 years ago?

You may have to write new Algorizm for this one.

GreenMan wrote:
You left out the real thing that CO2 does, that makes it a Greenhouse Gas.
...deleted lengthy insult stream...

GreenMan wrote:
CO2 produces thermal energy when it absorbs light at the right frequency.

GreenMan wrote:
That thermal energy heats the surrounding air, making it a little bit warmer. Nitrogen and Oxygen do not have that ability, which is what differentiates the two types of gases.

GreenMan wrote:
But calling it a Holy Gas is actually correct,

GreenMan wrote:
since if it weren't for Greenhouse Gases, we wouldn't be able to live on this planet, due to the extreme cold.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Because there's always a bigger fish. There's always a biggest hurricane.

Now it turns out that Irma isn't the strongest hurricane on record. Now they are using the phrase "The only hurricane to hold level 5 for so long."

The records previous to about 2005 were recorded using the atmospheric pressure in the EYE of the storm. This is not an accurate gauge of the strength of a storm. Moreover unless you had a landfall or ship where this pressure could be measured you didn't have any records.

So previous to 1969 or so there are extremely few records and the records they have are not particularly indicative of hurricane strength since a very low pressure hurricane can also be very small but with extremely high winds since they are mostly wrapped around the eye wall.

The end result of this is that AS USUAL the media is lying through it's teeth. Greenman will accept anything that he feels will prove that the world is dying. I wish I could see what he has to say when he hits 70 years old.

You will have to wait a few more years, numb nuts. Holding Category 5 for so long is a record. Wind speed while in the Atlantic before getting to the Caribbean Sea or the Gulf of Mexico is also a record. It's tied at 2nd for the strongest wind speed anywhere in the Atlantic basin.

Here's some good up to date information on it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/09/07/all-records-hurricane-irma-has-already-broken/642948001/
http://mashable.com/2017/09/06/how-hurricane-irma-got-so-strong/#Aj5obWcIOmqD

I didn't check to see if those sites are typical fear mongering media sites or not. Seems like any news organisation that reports on the weather lately is suspect, lately, by the Church of AGW Denial congregation.

No such church. The argument of the Outsider of your church is not based on a circular argument.

Yours is.

Yes, your argument is circular, and in the worst way. Your only argument is your emotional reaction to this threat, which is denial.

GreenMan wrote:
I don't use "manufactured data."

GreenMan wrote:
The data I use is from reliable sources.

GreenMan wrote:
Just because AGW Deniers try to cast doubt on any climate data that is used to determine AGW doesn't mean the data is "manufactured."

GreenMan wrote:
It just shows the lengths people will go to ignore things they don't want to do anything about.

GreenMan wrote:
I don't reject any data from verifiable sources.

GreenMan wrote:
Though I do often reject the interpretations of that data from unreliable sources, such as yourself.

GreenMan wrote:
None of the laws of thermodynamics is broken by the Global Warming Theory

GreenMan wrote:
and neither is the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

GreenMan wrote:
That has been explained to you already, yet you still bring it up.

GreenMan wrote:
And the problem is that you are the one who doesn't understand what the theory actually says,

GreenMan wrote:
because you aren't trying to figure out if the alarmists are right or not,

GreenMan wrote:
you are simply grasping at straws to try to prove that they are wrong.

GreenMan wrote:
And you are doing that willfully, because you have proven yourself to be a knowledgeable person

GreenMan wrote:
Do you know what you are doing to your own karma?

GreenMan wrote:
What do you think a good learning opportunity would be for someone who propagated the destruction of the entire human race?

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted length predictions of gloom and doom...
So anyway, feel free to do what you want to do, because you do have the free will to destroy your inner being if you want to.

You have been warned.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

ITN wrote;
...and you can't WAIT to hear about the destruction! You can almost pee yourself with excitement!

ITN you've nailed it here. At long last, the 12 year hurricane drought is over, and the "proof" they've needed for over a decade has finally come. They are pissing their pants they're so freikin giddy. Wonder if Al Joker pooped his pants again. Google that one.

Shit happens Al, but I really didn't need to know about it....what a moron.

Sidenote...The 00Z NAM is in and it has taken a jump back out to sea, farther east than it was before, never landfalling ANYWHERE, only brushing Miami with 40-50 MPH outer band winds. That would be a major disappointment to some if that verified. I'll look for this report on the news tonight. Any bets?

Yes, I'll take that bet. If Irma goes east of Florida, you win. If Irma follow the west coast of Florida, the alarmist media wins. I'm putting my money on the alarmist media, because of the water temperature from Key West and up the west coast of Florida. Water temperature is 89 in Key West, and 87 up the west coast, versus 86 up the east coast for a little then drops back to 85 in open ocean more east. But Tampa is sitting there with 87 degree water.

You can see that information here:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/satl_tmap.html
You can see all the current ocean temps there.

You can see the alarmist media projection here:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/dangerous-winds-storm-surge-threaten-florida-even-hurricane-092608392--abc-news-topstories.html

So far, the tract of Irma is following the heat. Could be coincidental, but you might recall that I suggested that the heat island around Houston could have drawn Harvey in. Now we get to see if there is any relationship between sea temp and Irma's path. The warm water up the west coast of Florida I think is a little more appetizing for Irma than the east coast, or land. That's because the heat is causing more air to rise, creating a low pressure, right up the west coast.

Watch this.

You've lost already. Now the media is threatening Tampa with Irma. Though by he time it gets there they are sorry to admit it will only be a Cat 3. I'll bet you cried yourself to sleep last night the millions of people weren't destroyed. I'll bet your dreams of death and carnage being destroyed by a careless mother nature just broke your heart. It is also possible that Irma won't make landfall until it drops to a tropical storm. You can then get drunk and kill yourself in your misery. Hopefully.

You are truly a sick puppy, Wake. And did you know that your name makes a lot of sense. I have to compliment you on such a fitting name for yourself, but you had to have someone else help you with it, because it is so fitting. Wake is a party for a dead person, before they are buried. You are the big party for those who will die because they ignored the warnings of Global Warming.

Still crying that widespread death and looting hasn't taken over? People in New Hampshire are said to be all like you. Disgusting.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Now which one do you suppose is made up stuff?

I'm going to revert back to my original explanation. The special ed teachers did a wonderful job, considering that you only have half a brain. It would have been nice if they could have went a little further, and actually taught you how to think. But it might not have been their fault, because the half that you are missing might be where the thought process originates. Let's see. Let's go over the two charts, and see if we can figure out where the discrepancy is.

Let's start with your chart.


Oh, I can feel the excitement you must have felt, when you posted that piece of irrelevant information. Your heart was just a pounding, wasn't it? You thought that you were about to deliver the fatal blow to the mighty Greenman, didn't you? Yes sir, you thought you were about to teach him a lesson about using made up data, didn't you.

I'm thinking your hottie wife didn't marry you for your intellectual skills, did she?

Take a look at the top of your graph. What does it say?

Now take a look at the top of my graph.


What does it say?

GreenMan wrote:

Do you know what the difference between an Annual Mean and a Monthly Mean temperature is?

...deleted length insult stream....

So tell me, please. Do you really think you should compare the monthly mean temperature to the annual mean temperature, or has enough been said?

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenlite wrote;
Your chart is irrelevant for a couple of reasons. It doesn't go back far enough in time to really see if Climate Change is increasing the severity of storms. And my argument can't even be disputed, unless you are trying to dispute the well known fact that tornadoes are fueled by heat. I don't think your chart is disputing that, are you?

62 years isn't enough to show a trend???? ...and no, tornadoes are not fueled by heat. Showing your ignorance again. Useful idiot.

No, 62 years isn't enough to show a trend in tornado frequency due to Climate Change. You need to go back to before the climate began to be affected by the Industrial Revolution, if you seriously want to determine whether or not they are becoming more frequent. But yes, from your chart, it does look like the more we warm, the less frequently they occur.

GreenMan wrote:
Do you know where tornadoes come from?

GreenMan wrote:
If you said they are spawned by severe thunderstorms, then you are right.

But if you knew that, then I have to really dig deep to figure out how you can be so sure that heat doesn't fuel them? Does heat not fuel thunderstorms?

GreenMan wrote:
I can assure you that heat does fuel thunderstorms, after growing up in south Georgia.

GreenMan wrote:
Therefor, heat fuels tornadoes.

GreenMan wrote:
And additional heat should fuel more tornadoes.

GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps the reason is isn't is because it is heating the air and the earth, so there isn't a big enough difference between the two, to generate more storms.

GreenMan wrote:
Let's hope that is what is going on, and that they don't pick up steam in the future.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What? has Greenery done the old hit and run like hell too?
2 questions for him.

1. Is it possible to have a tornado with temps in the 30s? (it is) What fuels it?

Heat, dumbass. I already told you.

Oh, I see the problem, you think that 30 isn't hot, because you feel cold at 30 degrees. So you don't understand what's going on, do you? Is that because you don't want to understand, my mentally challenged challenger?

It's easy to understand really, but you might have to wait a few months to actually do this. Stand outside on a cold day. I'm sure you guys have them out in Iowa. Wait until it is about 20 below. Get a good feel for that, and then wait till next spring, when it gets back up to 30. Then go stand outside again. See if you can feel a difference. That difference in the way it feels, is called heat, you blubbering idiot.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
Your hero Rush Limbaugh even evacuated, after putting the media down for reporting the storm, lol.

Did you bother to go listen to what Rush said after you heard about it on CNN? I did. He simply was raising the question of whether or not the Media was scratching the backs of it's supporters(advertisers) such as Lowes and Home DePot. He did not accuse anyone of anything, as you like to do. Like when you claimed I made an east coast hurricane route prediction. I did no such thing. I was simply reporting what the flip flopping models were doing. I wondered if the media would report the model discrepancy. I'm a decent writer, learn to read.

His accusation was that the media was over-hyping the storm, just to make money, basically.

GreenMan wrote:
In doing that he was implying that there was no reason for people to stock up on supplies, to ride out the storm with, or to protect their property with.

GreenMan wrote:
Just a hyped up fake news story, is how he was presented coverage of Irma.

GreenMan wrote:
Then, ironically as hell, he had to pack his bags and head out of town, because of the "Liberal Media's reports."

GreenMan wrote:
Wow, looks like I'm right. Heat is what fuels tornadoes, and other forms of cyclones. Do you think you can have a difference in temperature without any heat?

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data? I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.

YOU are the one that asked for NOAA!! I provided NOAA data with proof of my point crawling up your ass and out through your eyeballs and you still can't see it? What data would you like to see next time so you can deny it? ITN is so right...all religions are faith based and yours is no exception.

And to be completely honest, I googled "Key West current sea temp" and it popped up 87. I did some more digging and found the 85s along with some 86s, 87s, 88s and 89s. Average is 87 and so it kind of blows holes in your overheated water theory.

Nah, it doesn't blow holes in anything of mine. It's just your admission that you did surf around until you found the lowest reported temperature, and then posted it, without even saying that the average was 87, as you did just now. That means that you were intentionally trying to mislead people. That means that you are blowing holes in your own credibility.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.

Mmmm.....is there more or less property available for destruction than there was 100 years ago?

You may have to write new Algorizm for this one.

Good point, lol. Sorry about sending you down that rabbit hole.

I guess we can't determine anything, for a couple more hundred years. And we can't take those evil climate scientist's word for it either. So we might as well just party on, right?

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Now which one do you suppose is made up stuff?

Remember that greenman doesn't understand anything about science so he will google until he finds something that proves his point. Since he doesn't understand science he very often pulls his own plug.

Not a science issue. A data issue. Science is not data. It is also a math issue. Science is not math. He uses fake data and bad math to deny science.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
This is the same with spot and greenman both. litebrain is stuck trying to convince the entire world that a reduction in the polar ice means something despite the fact that we really have no history to show that there even is a reduction and not a cyclic advance and recession. I showed that in 1954 and 1955 nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the north pole.

Litebeer just quotes manufactured data endlessly. He thinks he is done some kind of Holy service to the world for it.

Wake wrote:
Nightmare continues to believe that if he makes up enough "science" that somehow he will be smart.

I have made up no science. I have not changed the wording or the equations of any part of physics.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
You HAND him an explanation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and what it means and not only does he deny it but then turns around and threatens others with it as if he has a magic baseball bat.

You deny the very law you are trying to support now. Your paradox is just continuing an irrational argument.

Wake wrote:
The most basic algebra demonstrates what it means and extensions to it but he is incapable of that.

Your 'algebra' is ignoring dependent and independent variables. You are also ignoring important constants. Your 'algebra' is adding and subtracting terms to the equation. You are making a math error.

Wake wrote:
While AGW is plainly incorrect the theory of it is so basic that anyone could understand it.

Not a theory. No theory can exist based on a fallacy. No one has yet been able to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

Wake wrote:
It is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in action.

WRONG. The Magick Bouncing Photon argument violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
The problem is that the theory requires additional CO2 to decrease the irradiance of the Earth and it can't.

WRONG. The problem is that CO2, even it's present concentration, decreases the radiance of the Earth while increasing Earth's temperature. The bit that CO2 somehow changes the emissivity of Earth is just an extension of that same argument.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
The most basic understanding of heat motion in the troposphere shows two things:

1. There isn't any energy in the single open absorption band of CO2 so total saturation of that wavelength occurred at about 200 ppm - 280 ppm. This is what keeps CO2 at those levels as a minimum - at 180 ppm to 200 ppm photosynthesis ceases and plant extraction of CO2 no longer occurs. CO2 can then begin building up from all of the natural sources from volcanic to animal life. In any case since there is no energy in this band additional CO2 cannot effect irradiance.

It doesn't matter how much CO2 there is when it comes to 'saturation'. The 'saturation' experiment is a parlor trick.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
2. The density of the atmosphere in the troposphere is such that virtually ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth from the troposphere into the stratosphere is via conduction and convection.

WRONG. Most energy from the Earth is radiance from the Earth's surface. The atmosphere emits also, but it is far less dense than the surface.

Wake wrote:
Even were CO2 able to find some energy it is a trace gas of such small percentages that since H20 vapor in the atmosphere is some 200 times greater volume, again conduction from CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere and most especially into water vapor is completely assured.

Heh. CO2 conducts into anything cooler than itself. It sure doesn't need water around to do that!

Wake wrote:
The counter-science that has been used to support AGW is literally staggering.

It is not science at all. I wouldn't use the name 'counter-science'.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
NASA and NOAA both have gone so far and to totally falsely scaled the effects of water vapor vs. CO2.

They've gone further than that! They've given water vapor the same Magick properties as CO2. NONE of them are capable of warming the Earth. NONE of them are 'greenhouse' gases.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
Dr. Michael Mann totally eliminated the last two warm periods so as to make his "hockey stick" look impressive.

Meh. No one knows the temperature of the Earth. Not now, and not during the last so-called 'warm' periods (which were more about great weather across Europe than anything else).

Wake wrote:
Despite totally accurate MGT data from satellites

Satellites can't measure absolute temperature.

Wake wrote:
that show no warming since the satellites could gather data (38 years!)

Big deal. Satellites can't measure absolute temperature. You can't determine the temperature of the Earth that way.

Wake wrote:
NOAA and NASA have relied upon ground sites that measure temperature.

The only way to measure temperature. Each station has an accurate log of it's measurements. These are publicly available.

NOAA and NASA then cook this data using bad math to produce the charts you see on their central websites. (Actually, NASA just copies the NOAA info).

Wake wrote:
At least one study has shown that of the American sites only 10% or so could measure temperature within 1 degree C.

NOAA weather stations can measure to within fractions of a degree. Their thermometers (and other equipment) is checked annually.

Wake wrote:
A large segment had errors of 5 degree C and higher.

BS. NOAA weather stations have very accurate thermometers that are annually checked. So does every airport that reports weather conditions (although their thermometers are only accurate to within a degree).

Wake wrote:
The sites over most of the rest of the world have exactly the same sorts of problems.

Argument from randU and a compositional error fallacy. Thermometers at official stations vary in their accuracy. Some are really good, others, not so much.

Wake wrote:
This makes NOAA and NASA historic data sets a laughing stock.

No, it is ACCURATE. The individual station logs are completely accurate. Only the central websites and agencies cook the data using bad math. That part is NOT data. Is it manufactured.

Wake wrote:
When will this global warming hoax cease?

Probably not for quite awhile. This particular religion seems deeply entrenched in many nations, thanks to the efforts of the IPCC.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Greenshit wrote;
And AGW [not AWG, that's a wire size unit] is adding to the strength of all hurricanes, and tornadoes, and even thunder storms, for that matter.

Please explain.

All I can conclude is that the special ed teachers at your elementary school did a wonderful job of teaching a kid born with half a brain to copy and paste irrelevant propaganda on the Internet.

I've got a life to live a not much time today, so I'll just address this one for now.

You said man made global warming is adding strength to tornadoes.

I showed you a chart from your beloved NOAA clearly showing you are wrong. You have said you trust them, have faith in them, and believe them.

You call it irrelevant propaganda and credit my elementary teachers.

Is that your argument?

Yes, that is m argument, but I am really starting to feel bad now, because I just realized that you really do only have half a brain, and here I am making fun of you. Shame on me.

Your chart is irrelevant for a couple of reasons. It doesn't go back far enough in time to really see if Climate Change is increasing the severity of storms. And my argument can't even be disputed, unless you are trying to dispute the well known fact that tornadoes are fueled by heat. I don't think your chart is disputing that, are you?

We began measuring carbon dioxide in 1956. We began measuring hurricanes using aircraft since 1947. We have data to compare the two starting from 1956.

So...you are arguing that 'climate change' has not occurred for 61 years??? You DO realize you are going against the teachings of the Church of Global Warming here, don't you?

Then you say your argument can't be disputed??? What argument are you making now???

You can't even DEFINE 'climate change' without using circular definitions!

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted long rant against Rush Limbaugh...

So you expect Rush Limbaugh to sacrifice himself to a hurricane now? He has a radio show to do. He left to do it. You can't do it in the middle of a hurricane!

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted long rant prediction the extinction of the Republican party...

You are using your chicken entrails as a wish list. The Republican party is going nowhere for quite awhile. It may split into two parties, one that wants to restore a republican form of government that honors its Constitution, and the other a RINO type of party that wants to destroy the Constitution, but not as quickly as the Democrats want to.

GreenMan wrote:
people will eventually realize that NOAA and NASA weren't making it up. And they will then destroy the party of misleaders.

They ARE making it up. The math errors in there 'data' is obvious to anyone that understands statistical math.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
Your hero Rush Limbaugh even evacuated, after putting the media down for reporting the storm, lol.

Did you bother to go listen to what Rush said after you heard about it on CNN? I did. He simply was raising the question of whether or not the Media was scratching the backs of it's supporters(advertisers) such as Lowes and Home DePot. He did not accuse anyone of anything, as you like to do. Like when you claimed I made an east coast hurricane route prediction. I did no such thing. I was simply reporting what the flip flopping models were doing. I wondered if the media would report the model discrepancy. I'm a decent writer, learn to read.

It is obvious he never listened to Rush Limbaugh to see what he said. He never bothered to look at historical audio of it either. He does the same with Trump. He only listens to the fake news media like CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press.

It's truly amazing the propaganda these guys push now. Tokyo Rose would have been proud.

He probably never even heard Rush's show or actually listened to any of Trumps speeches in full.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
...and you can chew on this one for a while too since you said hurricanes are also gaining energy from global warming. It also has your beloved NOAA credentials on it.

Again, it's irrelevant. But here's a deal I'll make with you. Put the Harvey and Irma on it, and let's take another look, because it might just show a little increase. But it still wouldn't be relevant.

If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.

Not due to 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Due to building more in forests, the mismanagement of forests (allowing low level brush to grow and not thinning trees properly), and the falling value of the dollar.

Into the Night wrote:

What did a nice split level home in downtown Klamath Falls cost in 1967? What does it cost now?

Don't know about Klamath Falls? Okay. Answer the same question for a house about 3 miles from the center of Houston.

The dollar amount of property damage that you see is speculation by media. The actual cost is not known for several years after the storm. Most of that is private money, not government money. No one can track all off the money spent as a result of any storm completely.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You don't know that hurricanes don't follow the heated waters. What I am saying is that the heated waters could be causing the low pressure and the winds that do direct the hurricanes.

WRONG. High and low pressure areas are brought about by uneven heating of the surface of the Earth...land or sea.

The two high pressure areas that formed near Houston that stalled Harvey formed from two storm systems well to the north of Houston that had recently passed through. They both formed over land.

Into the Night wrote:
He still believes that the scene in Day After Tomorrow with multiple tornadoes touching down in close vicinity to one another in Los Angeles and newscopters flying between them is actually possible!

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Yeah. He used an actual station log. That just sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data?

Yup. The individual station log is his source data, the log BEFORE it was cooked by NOAA. He is showing you the raw data (which is the only data).

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.

So you want to ignore NOAA station data, ignore buoy data, and ignore the hurricane center data???

Into the Night wrote:

You would rather believe the cooked shit on the central NOAA website???

Into the Night wrote:

You don't believe in actual data...you believe in bad math. Such is the result of your faith in the Church of Global Warming.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You left out the real thing that CO2 does, that makes it a Greenhouse Gas.
...deleted lengthy insult stream...AND the argument that he was making, because he is right about that. And well, ok, he is right about the insults too.

And what is that, dumbass? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
CO2 produces thermal energy when it absorbs light at the right frequency.

CO2 produces nothing. I can convert electromagnetic energy to thermal energy and back again, same as any gas in the atmosphere, and the same as any substance.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
That thermal energy heats the surrounding air, making it a little bit warmer. Nitrogen and Oxygen do not have that ability, which is what differentiates the two types of gases.

Yes they do. ALL substances absorb and emit light. Most them absorb and emit infrared light. (I actually can't think of any exceptions, offhand).

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But calling it a Holy Gas is actually correct,

At least you admit that now.

GreenMan wrote:
since if it weren't for Greenhouse Gases, we wouldn't be able to live on this planet, due to the extreme cold.

No gas warms the Earth. Not oxygen, nitrogen, or any Holy Gas.

The ONLY way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Now which one do you suppose is made up stuff?

I'm going to revert back to my original explanation. The special ed teachers did a wonderful job, considering that you only have half a brain. It would have been nice if they could have went a little further, and actually taught you how to think. But it might not have been their fault, because the half that you are missing might be where the thought process originates. Let's see. Let's go over the two charts, and see if we can figure out where the discrepancy is.

Let's start with your chart.


Oh, I can feel the excitement you must have felt, when you posted that piece of irrelevant information. Your heart was just a pounding, wasn't it? You thought that you were about to deliver the fatal blow to the mighty Greenman, didn't you? Yes sir, you thought you were about to teach him a lesson about using made up data, didn't you.

I'm thinking your hottie wife didn't marry you for your intellectual skills, did she?

Take a look at the top of your graph. What does it say?

Now take a look at the top of my graph.


What does it say?

It says 'Alaska Climate Research Center' an institution well known for it's propaganda and manufactured data.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Do you know what the difference between an Annual Mean and a Monthly Mean temperature is?

...deleted length insult stream....because we already know what a retard Gassy is.

So tell me, please. Do you really think you should compare the monthly mean temperature to the annual mean temperature, or has enough been said?

Yes...they can be compared. Again, you don't understand statistical math, or even what an 'average' is.

Into the Night wrote:

The only problem of course, is that the Alaska Climate Research Center never used any station data. They just manufacture their data as part of their propaganda campaign.

Into the Night wrote:

So while such a comparison is mathematically sensible, it false apart due to a false equivalence.

Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to determine the temperature of Alaska. Weather stations in Alaska area ONLY capable of measuring the temperature AT THE STATION itself, where the thermometer bulb is actually located. That's good enough to assume a reasonable accuracy of temperature in an area extending 250 ft from the station, +- 1 degree, using the assumed possible temperature gradient so far observed.

Into the Night wrote:

...deleted childish remarks about how you 'won' the debate...because you didn't just win the debate, you annihilated a dear friend

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
What? has Greenery done the old hit and run like hell too?
2 questions for him.

1. Is it possible to have a tornado with temps in the 30s? (it is) What fuels it?

Heat, dumbass. I already told you.

Oh, I see the problem, you think that 30 isn't hot, because you feel cold at 30 degrees. So you don't understand what's going on, do you? Is that because you don't want to understand, my mentally challenged challenger?

It's easy to understand really, but you might have to wait a few months to actually do this. Stand outside on a cold day. I'm sure you guys have them out in Iowa. Wait until it is about 20 below. Get a good feel for that, and then wait till next spring, when it gets back up to 30. Then go stand outside again. See if you can feel a difference. That difference in the way it feels, is called heat, you blubbering idiot.

Not the definition of 'heat'. You seem to have no clue what 'heat' actually is.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Wow, looks like I'm right. Heat is what fuels tornadoes, and other forms of cyclones. Do you think you can have a difference in temperature without any heat?

False equivalence. You are trying to associate hot regions such as warm ocean water with 'heat'. At the same time you correctly use 'heat' here, but you can't see your false equivalence.

A cyclone (or a tornado) is convective activity. That IS heat. Heat does not cause the storm. It IS heat itself.