Remember me
▼ Content

Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating



Page 8 of 9<<<6789>
15-12-2017 20:45
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?


I found the stories of Barrow, AK warming rapidly are false.


I'm thinking you didn't go there, anymore than you did any actual research. Is there any chance that you could actually provide any supporting evidence that the stories of Barrow warming rapidly are false?

Or should we just take a known lying Denier is actually telling the truth about something?


I looked at the weather station records in Barrow, AK. That kinda overrides a Washington comPost story.


I seriously doubt that you even bothered to look at anything, since if you did, you would have seen an increase over the years. But in order to see anything other than a bunch of numbers, you would had to produce a graph. And I know for sure that you didn't bother to do that, because you don't care. But please feel free to stand up for yourself and prove me wrong. Simply post your source.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
15-12-2017 20:54
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
GasGuzzler wrote:
For starters Greenthing, your chart is from the Alaska Climate Research Center...funded by who?

If the chart were to show rapid cooling of the same magnitude, I still wouldn't buy it.

Does a chart that starts in 1949 not seem the slightest odd to you?


By the way...do a little searching for some Alaska station records from the late 1920s to around 1945....think you'll quickly figure out why it's starts in 1949.


Oh yeah, the good ole government conspiracy theory.
Everyone in the scientific community that receives money from the government is suspect, because they all still think Obama is in charge and they will be rewarded for saying the world is burning up.

I have no idea why whoever produced that chart started it in 1949. Perhaps it was to hide the warming that occurred in the 30s? I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. It's common knowledge that it did get quite warm back in the 30s and into the 40s.

Perhaps you think that because it got warm back then and cooled off after, that it will always do that?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
15-12-2017 21:00
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake said
OK, I've gone through the trouble of doing a statistical analysis of your chart and what it indicates is that since 1949 the temperature has FALLEN at 0.17 degrees per year overall.


So you are saying that the temperature has actually dropped 11.56 degrees, according to that chart? [2017-2049*.17 = 11.56].

I think I'll stick with the old new math that I was taught. [-1 - 6 = 7]


Why do I not find any surprise that you do not understand simple statistical analysis. It must be that math degree you have.


Why don't you bother to explain what it is about statistical mathematics that causes you to think that the temperature is dropping, when anyone who can subtract can see an increase?

One thing is for sure. It hasn't dropped over 11 degrees, according to that chart, no matter how creative you get with your analysis. The temperature increased by 7 degrees. How does statistical analysis change that?

And no, I do not have a mathematics degree, so please take baby steps.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
15-12-2017 21:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake said
OK, I've gone through the trouble of doing a statistical analysis of your chart and what it indicates is that since 1949 the temperature has FALLEN at 0.17 degrees per year overall.


So you are saying that the temperature has actually dropped 11.56 degrees, according to that chart? [2017-2049*.17 = 11.56].

I think I'll stick with the old new math that I was taught. [-1 - 6 = 7]


Why do I not find any surprise that you do not understand simple statistical analysis. It must be that math degree you have.


Why don't you bother to explain what it is about statistical mathematics that causes you to think that the temperature is dropping, when anyone who can subtract can see an increase?

One thing is for sure. It hasn't dropped over 11 degrees, according to that chart, no matter how creative you get with your analysis. The temperature increased by 7 degrees. How does statistical analysis change that?

And no, I do not have a mathematics degree, so please take baby steps.


You do not understand that that is a statistical average and that means that adding statistics from a century or more before that would change that average to near zero. I told you that before and you don't seem capable of understanding it.

Fact that the statistics show a cooling doesn't mean that it cooled that much. Exactly why do you post here if you don't understand the math or science behind any of this? You obviously don't want to learn anything - you want to argue that Popular Science is correct and that the rest of the world is wrong.

Pretty quick you'll be arguing with nightmare whether or not climate change is a "circular argument".

Weather patterns from day to day do not represent the climate. Climate is a long term averaging of conditions. Think of it this way - we have summer, fall, winter and spring. We do not say a year is hot because we have a not summer. We have to average the daily temperatures over the entire globe for an entire year to get a single year's average temperature. At ANY point in that average it can say that the temperature is rising or falling.

Now the longer term you average the more accurately you can ascertain the climate. Since the world only has accurate records for less that 200 years the only way to make even a wild guess about what is happening is with computer models. Since all these models are based upon various theories of how the atmosphere behaves (and most have shown themselves to be so wrong that they cannot be used in reverse to accurately model past temperatures that we have records for) and this is far too complex to be able to model so all of this bull about AGW is just that - bull.

Now we have another problem - climate isn't infinite. Were we to have dead accurate records from the planet Earth starting from about billion years ago what we would find with statistical averaging is a slight cooling each year that actually represented the cooling of the Sun as it ages.

So of what use is statistical averaging if the very meaning of that average depends on the length of time you're averaging?

Because you have the ability of knowing the length of time you're averaging and so determine what THAT specific average means. Even though it is exactly the same procedure your choice of time period and time length tells you what you want to determine.

You produced a graph that had a LOT of cold and some warm. You interpret that to show increasing temperatures when it did nothing of the sort - THOUGH IT MIGHT. We cannot tell without enough past data and enough future data to identify it.

One significant piece of data is that we have warm periods every thousand or so years. Our present warm period started right on schedule and long before man had the capacity to cause anything more than strictly local effects.

The complications of climate are so vast that anyone that proclaims themselves a "climate scientist" is lying. You can ONLY study small portions of the subject and we haven't covered a tenth of the subject that are climate variables. Without full understanding of each and every one of these variable there's no way to model the climate and we even have a difficult time being half assed accurate with the weather.

Extremely slight changes in the atmosphere that seem totally invisible to instrumentation can develop into major weather patterns that can drive weather for very long terms. We do not have the slightest idea what effects the Southern Oscillation (El Nino/La Nina) which is a major cause of weather patterns.

So don't BELIEVE me - look into it yourself. And do NOT use any popularization. Drag out the math texts and educate yourself. Drag out the books on spectroscopy and LEARN why CO2 cannot effect global warming. Learn how NASA has been manufacturing raw temperature data rather than reporting accurate raw data.

I have talked about Urban Heat Island Effects. I have shown how the carefully kept records in Japan show this effect almost perfectly linearly with city size.

But you cannot count on Urban Heat Island Effect because the wind can completely erase this effect when it exceeds 22 kph. That's not a lot of wind. Only 13 mph. Today in the bay area we have a wind of about 5 mph with a humidity of 61% - remember that WATER is the prime cause of the heat blanket effect that has been named "the greenhouse effect". The weatherman refers to this as "really dry air" for the San Francisco bay area. Do you really think that CO2 at 412 ppm is going to have any effect at all?

The more you study climate the more you discover that you have to know to accurately model it. And without an accurate model you cannot prove one thing about the climate.

Or you can take nightmare's path and claim that the only thing you need to know is the emmisivity of the Earth so that you can use the Stefan-Boltzmann law - But a nutcake by any other name still remains a nutcake.
Edited on 15-12-2017 22:46
15-12-2017 22:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?


I found the stories of Barrow, AK warming rapidly are false.


I'm thinking you didn't go there, anymore than you did any actual research. Is there any chance that you could actually provide any supporting evidence that the stories of Barrow warming rapidly are false?

Or should we just take a known lying Denier is actually telling the truth about something?


I looked at the weather station records in Barrow, AK. That kinda overrides a Washington comPost story.


I seriously doubt that you even bothered to look at anything, since if you did, you would have seen an increase over the years.

I looked. There is no marked increase.
GreenMan wrote:
But in order to see anything other than a bunch of numbers, you would had to produce a graph.

Don't need to. The weather station itself produces one.
GreenMan wrote:
And I know for sure that you didn't bother to do that, because you don't care.

I do care. That's why I call liars like you on the rug.
GreenMan wrote:
But please feel free to stand up for yourself and prove me wrong. Simply post your source.

The Barrow, AK weather station. Go look it up. Have fun.


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2017 22:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
For starters Greenthing, your chart is from the Alaska Climate Research Center...funded by who?

If the chart were to show rapid cooling of the same magnitude, I still wouldn't buy it.

Does a chart that starts in 1949 not seem the slightest odd to you?


By the way...do a little searching for some Alaska station records from the late 1920s to around 1945....think you'll quickly figure out why it's starts in 1949.


Oh yeah, the good ole government conspiracy theory.

You don't believe the government conspires to justify and expand itself? Boy, have YOU got your head in the sand!
GreenMan wrote:
Everyone in the scientific community that receives money from the government is suspect, because they all still think Obama is in charge and they will be rewarded for saying the world is burning up.

No, everyone in the scientific community that receives money from the government is suspect, because government has an agenda...to justify and expand itself.

YOU claim that a scientist is suspect because he received money from an oil company. I claim a scientist is suspect because most of them receive their money from a single source...the government.

GreenMan wrote:
I have no idea why whoever produced that chart started it in 1949. Perhaps it was to hide the warming that occurred in the 30s? I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. It's common knowledge that it did get quite warm back in the 30s and into the 40s.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you think that because it got warm back then and cooled off after, that it will always do that?

What got warm and cooled off again? Does that seem abnormal to you?


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2017 22:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake said
OK, I've gone through the trouble of doing a statistical analysis of your chart and what it indicates is that since 1949 the temperature has FALLEN at 0.17 degrees per year overall.


So you are saying that the temperature has actually dropped 11.56 degrees, according to that chart? [2017-2049*.17 = 11.56].

I think I'll stick with the old new math that I was taught. [-1 - 6 = 7]


Why do I not find any surprise that you do not understand simple statistical analysis. It must be that math degree you have.


Why don't you bother to explain what it is about statistical mathematics that causes you to think that the temperature is dropping, when anyone who can subtract can see an increase?

He can't. He doesn't know statistical math or any of the prerequisite math to understand statistical math.
GreenMan wrote:
One thing is for sure. It hasn't dropped over 11 degrees, according to that chart, no matter how creative you get with your analysis. The temperature increased by 7 degrees. How does statistical analysis change that?

Arguing over a graph of random numbers is pointless.
GreenMan wrote:
And no, I do not have a mathematics degree, so please take baby steps.

There is no space to write a book on the subject in Topix.

May I suggest some good books on the following subjects: algebra, random number mathematics, probability mathematics, and statistical mathematics.

When you learn statistical mathematics, you will learn that a simple average is not a valid statistical summary.


The Parrot Killer
15-12-2017 22:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake said
OK, I've gone through the trouble of doing a statistical analysis of your chart and what it indicates is that since 1949 the temperature has FALLEN at 0.17 degrees per year overall.


So you are saying that the temperature has actually dropped 11.56 degrees, according to that chart? [2017-2049*.17 = 11.56].

I think I'll stick with the old new math that I was taught. [-1 - 6 = 7]


Why do I not find any surprise that you do not understand simple statistical analysis. It must be that math degree you have.


Why don't you bother to explain what it is about statistical mathematics that causes you to think that the temperature is dropping, when anyone who can subtract can see an increase?

One thing is for sure. It hasn't dropped over 11 degrees, according to that chart, no matter how creative you get with your analysis. The temperature increased by 7 degrees. How does statistical analysis change that?

And no, I do not have a mathematics degree, so please take baby steps.


You do not understand that that is a statistical average

There is no such thing as a 'statistical' average. A simple average is not statistical mathematics.
Wake wrote:
and that means that adding statistics from a century or more before that would change that average to near zero.

Statistics do not add.
Wake wrote:
I told you that before and you don't seem capable of understanding it.

You don't either.
Wake wrote:
Fact that the statistics show a cooling doesn't mean that it cooled that much.

Not a fact...an argument. Learn what a 'fact' is.
If a statistical summary shows a cooling by so many degrees and gives a reasonable margin of error for it, it effectively DOES mean cooling occurred by that amount (plus or minus the margin of error).
Wake wrote:
Exactly why do you post here if you don't understand the math or science behind any of this?

I would ask you the same, if you want to go by that criteria.
Wake wrote:
You obviously don't want to learn anything -

You have already demonstrated that you don't want to either.
Wake wrote:
you want to argue that Popular Science is correct and that the rest of the world is wrong.

Gee...sound like you also.


The Parrot Killer
16-12-2017 17:51
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?


I found the stories of Barrow, AK warming rapidly are false.


I'm thinking you didn't go there, anymore than you did any actual research. Is there any chance that you could actually provide any supporting evidence that the stories of Barrow warming rapidly are false?

Or should we just take a known lying Denier is actually telling the truth about something?


I looked at the weather station records in Barrow, AK. That kinda overrides a Washington comPost story.


I seriously doubt that you even bothered to look at anything, since if you did, you would have seen an increase over the years.

I looked. There is no marked increase.
GreenMan wrote:
But in order to see anything other than a bunch of numbers, you would had to produce a graph.

Don't need to. The weather station itself produces one.
GreenMan wrote:
And I know for sure that you didn't bother to do that, because you don't care.

I do care. That's why I call liars like you on the rug.
GreenMan wrote:
But please feel free to stand up for yourself and prove me wrong. Simply post your source.

The Barrow, AK weather station. Go look it up. Have fun.

So I did go look up the Barrow Weather Station, and found the data. Should have known there would be some kind of lie involved, coming from you. There is no data on their site that produces any chart for their yearly average temperature. Their data is only in hourly, and you can produce a chart. And that chart does show little or no increase over time. But it's hourly readings, which have not been averaged into yearly readings, so you can't really make a yearly average determination. Yet you would like to claim that their data shows no increase. You are worse than a regular habitual liar, you are more like a snake oil salesman.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
16-12-2017 21:01
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
GreenMan wrote: You are worse than a regular habitual liar, you are more like a snake oil salesman.
Ah, now you're getting it.... just need to fine-tune your descriptive powers. "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
17-12-2017 01:30
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
GreenMan wrote:
So I did go look up the Barrow Weather Station, and found the data. Should have known there would be some kind of lie involved, coming from you. There is no data on their site that produces any chart for their yearly average temperature. Their data is only in hourly, and you can produce a chart. And that chart does show little or no increase over time. But it's hourly readings, which have not been averaged into yearly readings, so you can't really make a yearly average determination. Yet you would like to claim that their data shows no increase. You are worse than a regular habitual liar, you are more like a snake oil salesman.


What you do is average the warmest hour of each day for a month and then average that temperature for a year. Because Barrow is above the Arctic Circle about six months out of the year it is frozen most of the time and the temperatures only change from weather fronts.

It's a pain in the butt to handle information in this manner but you can make an Excel spreadsheet that will do most of the work and then you only have to download the temperature records.

I don't know that nightmare is an outright liar - I think that he cannot tell the difference between his own invention and the truth.
17-12-2017 05:22
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(289)
Look for a trend.

17-12-2017 11:08
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(289)
Double check these guys, just look at the figures for each October.

"...a coastal town, that is used to being surrounded by ice ... but Barrow, is warming and much of that ice is melting faster than ever before. ..."

"...according to NOAA every October in the past decade has been far above the long term average ..."


Signs Of Climate Change In Northern Alaska - 2012
The northernmost city in Alaska, Barrow, has reached a new milestone. It's broken another record for high autumn temperatures - part of a trend that is causing the ice to freeze later and later.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rgfm2BjBL4Y
17-12-2017 20:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?


I found the stories of Barrow, AK warming rapidly are false.


I'm thinking you didn't go there, anymore than you did any actual research. Is there any chance that you could actually provide any supporting evidence that the stories of Barrow warming rapidly are false?

Or should we just take a known lying Denier is actually telling the truth about something?


I looked at the weather station records in Barrow, AK. That kinda overrides a Washington comPost story.


I seriously doubt that you even bothered to look at anything, since if you did, you would have seen an increase over the years.

I looked. There is no marked increase.
GreenMan wrote:
But in order to see anything other than a bunch of numbers, you would had to produce a graph.

Don't need to. The weather station itself produces one.
GreenMan wrote:
And I know for sure that you didn't bother to do that, because you don't care.

I do care. That's why I call liars like you on the rug.
GreenMan wrote:
But please feel free to stand up for yourself and prove me wrong. Simply post your source.

The Barrow, AK weather station. Go look it up. Have fun.

So I did go look up the Barrow Weather Station, and found the data. Should have known there would be some kind of lie involved, coming from you. There is no data on their site that produces any chart for their yearly average temperature. Their data is only in hourly, and you can produce a chart. And that chart does show little or no increase over time. But it's hourly readings, which have not been averaged into yearly readings, so you can't really make a yearly average determination. Yet you would like to claim that their data shows no increase. You are worse than a regular habitual liar, you are more like a snake oil salesman.

This is from the Barrow, AK airport monitoring station, collated by the WRCC.
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?akbarr

This is an older chart from the CDIAC data (no longer available as of Sept of this year).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFmLya3ZHYAhXLGpQKHYOuApYQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.john-daly.com%2Fstations%2Fstations.htm&psig=AOvVaw2RmzhKYUaju0mtICRR_oy2&ust=1513623485869185

Both the CDIAC and the WRCC maintain data collected from various stations themselves and provide a repository of historical data. They show the raw data, not something cooked up by NOAA.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 17-12-2017 20:31
17-12-2017 20:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
So I did go look up the Barrow Weather Station, and found the data. Should have known there would be some kind of lie involved, coming from you. There is no data on their site that produces any chart for their yearly average temperature. Their data is only in hourly, and you can produce a chart. And that chart does show little or no increase over time. But it's hourly readings, which have not been averaged into yearly readings, so you can't really make a yearly average determination. Yet you would like to claim that their data shows no increase. You are worse than a regular habitual liar, you are more like a snake oil salesman.


What you do is average the warmest hour of each day for a month and then average that temperature for a year. Because Barrow is above the Arctic Circle about six months out of the year it is frozen most of the time and the temperatures only change from weather fronts.

It's a pain in the butt to handle information in this manner but you can make an Excel spreadsheet that will do most of the work and then you only have to download the temperature records.

I don't know that nightmare is an outright liar - I think that he cannot tell the difference between his own invention and the truth.


Already been done for you by the WRCC. The CDIAC used to have this information in plots, but their site is currently undergoing major renovations and that form of data is not available anymore (since Sept of this year).


The Parrot Killer
17-12-2017 22:44
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?


I found the stories of Barrow, AK warming rapidly are false.


I'm thinking you didn't go there, anymore than you did any actual research. Is there any chance that you could actually provide any supporting evidence that the stories of Barrow warming rapidly are false?

Or should we just take a known lying Denier is actually telling the truth about something?


I looked at the weather station records in Barrow, AK. That kinda overrides a Washington comPost story.


I seriously doubt that you even bothered to look at anything, since if you did, you would have seen an increase over the years.

I looked. There is no marked increase.
GreenMan wrote:
But in order to see anything other than a bunch of numbers, you would had to produce a graph.

Don't need to. The weather station itself produces one.
GreenMan wrote:
And I know for sure that you didn't bother to do that, because you don't care.

I do care. That's why I call liars like you on the rug.
GreenMan wrote:
But please feel free to stand up for yourself and prove me wrong. Simply post your source.

The Barrow, AK weather station. Go look it up. Have fun.

So I did go look up the Barrow Weather Station, and found the data. Should have known there would be some kind of lie involved, coming from you. There is no data on their site that produces any chart for their yearly average temperature. Their data is only in hourly, and you can produce a chart. And that chart does show little or no increase over time. But it's hourly readings, which have not been averaged into yearly readings, so you can't really make a yearly average determination. Yet you would like to claim that their data shows no increase. You are worse than a regular habitual liar, you are more like a snake oil salesman.

This is from the Barrow, AK airport monitoring station, collated by the WRCC.
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?akbarr

This is an older chart from the CDIAC data (no longer available as of Sept of this year).
https://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjFmLya3ZHYAhXLGpQKHYOuApYQjRwIBw&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.john-daly.com%2Fstations%2Fstations.htm&psig=AOvVaw2RmzhKYUaju0mtICRR_oy2&ust=1513623485869185

Both the CDIAC and the WRCC maintain data collected from various stations themselves and provide a repository of historical data. They show the raw data, not something cooked up by NOAA.


Because of Barrow being above the Arctic Circle it would be EXTREMELY unusual to have any temperature changes that are measurable. The only way this would be likely to happen is from ocean current changes. Such changes would not be from AGW but from something altogether different such as major bottom shifts along the Siberian coastal areas.

It could also come from warmer water runoffs from a warm front in British Columbia such as occurred in 1998 from the effects of El Nino. This warm runoff can completely change the characteristics of the Pt Barrow climate for a year or two.

Greenman has already shown that he thinks that if it gets warm for a year or two it means that global warming is real. Without a background in math there simply is no way to explain climate stability to him.
17-12-2017 23:31
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(289)
Wake wrote:
Greenman has already shown that he thinks that if it gets warm for a year or two it means that global warming is real. Without a background in math there simply is no way to explain climate stability to him.


"... taking a variety of actions and investing in technologies across the value chain that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The oil and natural gas industry will continue to be an integral part of the effort to address the issue of climate change." ... The American Petroleum Institute

http://www.climatechangeandenergy.com/#/?section=leadinginvestment-leading-innovation

http://www.climatechangeandenergy.com/about/


"Bring us your sick and tired, your educated ..."
17-12-2017 23:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed:...... gets warm for a year or two....
For 390+ straight months, Earth bio-sphere temperatures have been over the 20th century average. This, despite "many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" trading on the many decades long languid Total Solar Irradiation, including 11 years sub-standard TSI AND a 3+ year TSI setting a 100 year record low.
18-12-2017 00:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
monckton wrote:
Wake wrote:
Greenman has already shown that he thinks that if it gets warm for a year or two it means that global warming is real. Without a background in math there simply is no way to explain climate stability to him.


"... taking a variety of actions and investing in technologies across the value chain that reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. The oil and natural gas industry will continue to be an integral part of the effort to address the issue of climate change." ... The American Petroleum Institute

http://www.climatechangeandenergy.com/#/?section=leadinginvestment-leading-innovation

http://www.climatechangeandenergy.com/about/


So have you convinced the British Government yet?
18-12-2017 00:10
moncktonProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(289)
They hired me - I'm undercover.

But really, what kind of kook are you?
You disagree with 97.1% of scientists, the intellectuals, the Trump Whitehouse, NASA, NOAA, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Al Gore, all the stinking foreigners, the Liberals AND the Oil companies ... and you don't like faggots.
I thought they caught the unabomber.
Has it not occurred to you that you are somewhat out on a limb?

Do the maths.
18-12-2017 00:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
monckton wrote:
They hired me - I'm undercover.

But really, what kind of kook are you?
You disagree with 97.1% of scientists, the intellectuals, the Trump Whitehouse, NASA, NOAA, Bill Nye the Science Guy, Al Gore, all the stinking foreigners, the Liberals AND the Oil companies ... and you don't like faggots.
I thought they caught the unabomber.
Has it not occurred to you that you are somewhat out on a limb?

Do the maths.


Yep, you sure know your business.
18-12-2017 01:22
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake said
OK, I've gone through the trouble of doing a statistical analysis of your chart and what it indicates is that since 1949 the temperature has FALLEN at 0.17 degrees per year overall.


So you are saying that the temperature has actually dropped 11.56 degrees, according to that chart? [2017-2049*.17 = 11.56].

I think I'll stick with the old new math that I was taught. [-1 - 6 = 7]


Why do I not find any surprise that you do not understand simple statistical analysis. It must be that math degree you have.


Why don't you bother to explain what it is about statistical mathematics that causes you to think that the temperature is dropping, when anyone who can subtract can see an increase?

One thing is for sure. It hasn't dropped over 11 degrees, according to that chart, no matter how creative you get with your analysis. The temperature increased by 7 degrees. How does statistical analysis change that?

And no, I do not have a mathematics degree, so please take baby steps.


You do not understand that that is a statistical average and that means that adding statistics from a century or more before that would change that average to near zero. I told you that before and you don't seem capable of understanding it.

Fact that the statistics show a cooling doesn't mean that it cooled that much. Exactly why do you post here if you don't understand the math or science behind any of this? You obviously don't want to learn anything - you want to argue that Popular Science is correct and that the rest of the world is wrong.

Pretty quick you'll be arguing with nightmare whether or not climate change is a "circular argument".

Weather patterns from day to day do not represent the climate. Climate is a long term averaging of conditions. Think of it this way - we have summer, fall, winter and spring. We do not say a year is hot because we have a not summer. We have to average the daily temperatures over the entire globe for an entire year to get a single year's average temperature. At ANY point in that average it can say that the temperature is rising or falling.

Now the longer term you average the more accurately you can ascertain the climate. Since the world only has accurate records for less that 200 years the only way to make even a wild guess about what is happening is with computer models. Since all these models are based upon various theories of how the atmosphere behaves (and most have shown themselves to be so wrong that they cannot be used in reverse to accurately model past temperatures that we have records for) and this is far too complex to be able to model so all of this bull about AGW is just that - bull.

Now we have another problem - climate isn't infinite. Were we to have dead accurate records from the planet Earth starting from about billion years ago what we would find with statistical averaging is a slight cooling each year that actually represented the cooling of the Sun as it ages.

So of what use is statistical averaging if the very meaning of that average depends on the length of time you're averaging?

Because you have the ability of knowing the length of time you're averaging and so determine what THAT specific average means. Even though it is exactly the same procedure your choice of time period and time length tells you what you want to determine.

You produced a graph that had a LOT of cold and some warm. You interpret that to show increasing temperatures when it did nothing of the sort - THOUGH IT MIGHT. We cannot tell without enough past data and enough future data to identify it.

One significant piece of data is that we have warm periods every thousand or so years. Our present warm period started right on schedule and long before man had the capacity to cause anything more than strictly local effects.

The complications of climate are so vast that anyone that proclaims themselves a "climate scientist" is lying. You can ONLY study small portions of the subject and we haven't covered a tenth of the subject that are climate variables. Without full understanding of each and every one of these variable there's no way to model the climate and we even have a difficult time being half assed accurate with the weather.

Extremely slight changes in the atmosphere that seem totally invisible to instrumentation can develop into major weather patterns that can drive weather for very long terms. We do not have the slightest idea what effects the Southern Oscillation (El Nino/La Nina) which is a major cause of weather patterns.

So don't BELIEVE me - look into it yourself. And do NOT use any popularization. Drag out the math texts and educate yourself. Drag out the books on spectroscopy and LEARN why CO2 cannot effect global warming. Learn how NASA has been manufacturing raw temperature data rather than reporting accurate raw data.

I have talked about Urban Heat Island Effects. I have shown how the carefully kept records in Japan show this effect almost perfectly linearly with city size.

But you cannot count on Urban Heat Island Effect because the wind can completely erase this effect when it exceeds 22 kph. That's not a lot of wind. Only 13 mph. Today in the bay area we have a wind of about 5 mph with a humidity of 61% - remember that WATER is the prime cause of the heat blanket effect that has been named "the greenhouse effect". The weatherman refers to this as "really dry air" for the San Francisco bay area. Do you really think that CO2 at 412 ppm is going to have any effect at all?

The more you study climate the more you discover that you have to know to accurately model it. And without an accurate model you cannot prove one thing about the climate.

Or you can take nightmare's path and claim that the only thing you need to know is the emmisivity of the Earth so that you can use the Stefan-Boltzmann law - But a nutcake by any other name still remains a nutcake.


Why do I have to follow either of the paths that you or Parrot walk? I would rather find my own. That's why I wrote a Climate Code algorithm which precisely explains why it gets warm enough on this planet for us to live.

Why don't you try walking my path instead? Open your mind to the truth. Seek to know only the truth about things that involve you. Reject the false arguments of people like Parrot who basically rejects the science of climate change because he doesn't think you can even measure the average temperature of the planet. So how can you determine a change? And reject your false arguments also. If it is wrong, then it doesn't serve you well. It might make you feel better about what you are doing, but in the end, it will leave you cold and bitter.

You don't have to write algorithms, if you don't know how. You can use the ones provided. Some people are good at writing algorithms, while others are good at using them solve problems. Perhaps you are one of those.

Your argument that raising CO2 levels won't increase the earth's temperature because CO2 is in saturation at 30 meters is a falsehood. Yes, CO2 is in saturation, as you claim [as far as I know], but that 30 meters of air is also producing radiation, which is being absorbed in higher layers of air. It just keeps moving up, until the air is too thin to absorb much radiation, and the radiation finally gets to fly off into the wild blue yonder, much to the Parrot's delight, since he and Stefan Boltzmann were big buddies when they went to different schools together.

Uh, your argument is easily proven wrong, by the way, because it is getting progressively warmer as the decades click by, which is very annoying to the Denier Parrots. They eventually realize that they have all been duped, before it's over. Let's hope there is nothing to the rumor that you can't eat money. Because their reward is money. Just money. No future, because no food. Because they believed their own nonsense, and did not prepare for shortages. And they did not prepare for the price of everything going up, once the Alarmists enforced their Carbon Tax on virtually everything that is manufactured, including food.

I've been pondering some things lately that concern me, which are related to that. You see, what bugs me is that there is a big difference in what the prophecies say would happen and what science is saying is happening. The prophecies are clearly about Global Warming, but blame God's Wrath for it. And there are things in the prophecy that indicate that it takes years for the events to unfold, it's not in the hundreds of years, like science is leading us to believe will happen regarding Global Warming. Everything we hear are projections of a hundred years or more, and mostly related to sea level change. So I think we have a false time frame perspective, as a society. We think it's our grandchildren's problem, if a problem at all. It might even be better for them, except for the sea level change. And that might not be so bad, if we make so preemptive moves in the right direction. Maybe we should start approving new construction on the inland side of cities on the ocean?

Unfortunately, the prophecies say it goes faster than that. In fact, one very famous one calls for a nation to be knocked to its knees with the "arms of a flood." That term used to be considered a "flood of men," but that doesn't make much sense in a modern world. We have weaponry now that pretty much makes up for any number of people. It makes more sense that the "arms of a flood" is an actual flood, or tsunami, triggered through a terrorist act. Basically, they are going to use the warming climate against us, I think by triggering a slide of ice into the ocean down in Antarctica. Possibly a nuclear explosion or something that would quicken the natural slide of the ice into the sea.

And after that, things just go downhill.

And you think I need to choose either your or another Denier's path. That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I know what your angle is by using Statistical Math to claim things that aren't so. You are simply getting confused. Parrot did a good job of slicing you up, so there is no need for me to go there, except to point out that you are using someone else's Thunder, and using it incorrectly. You need to drop the Statistical Analysis, because you are not Roy Spencer, and you do not understand what he said. And that is why you think you can apply it to everything.

Spencer's argument is simply that there was no increase in 2016 over 1998, because the measured increase was not above the possible error. That's not that difficult to understand. And it does not mean there has been no increase since satellite data became available.

Is that something that you can get your head around, or are we going to have to revisit this again, and again, and again?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
18-12-2017 05:04
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
monckton wrote:...what kind of kook are you?
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & many time(plus 1) threatener. These are more accurate descriptions than kook.
18-12-2017 16:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
GreenMan wrote:

Why do I have to follow either of the paths that you or Parrot walk? I would rather find my own. That's why I wrote a Climate Code algorithm which precisely explains why it gets warm enough on this planet for us to live.

Why don't you try walking my path instead? Open your mind to the truth. Seek to know only the truth about things that involve you. Reject the false arguments of people like Parrot who basically rejects the science of climate change because he doesn't think you can even measure the average temperature of the planet. So how can you determine a change? And reject your false arguments also. If it is wrong, then it doesn't serve you well. It might make you feel better about what you are doing, but in the end, it will leave you cold and bitter.

You don't have to write algorithms, if you don't know how. You can use the ones provided. Some people are good at writing algorithms, while others are good at using them solve problems. Perhaps you are one of those.

Your argument that raising CO2 levels won't increase the earth's temperature because CO2 is in saturation at 30 meters is a falsehood. Yes, CO2 is in saturation, as you claim [as far as I know], but that 30 meters of air is also producing radiation, which is being absorbed in higher layers of air. It just keeps moving up, until the air is too thin to absorb much radiation, and the radiation finally gets to fly off into the wild blue yonder, much to the Parrot's delight, since he and Stefan Boltzmann were big buddies when they went to different schools together.

Uh, your argument is easily proven wrong, by the way, because it is getting progressively warmer as the decades click by, which is very annoying to the Denier Parrots. They eventually realize that they have all been duped, before it's over. Let's hope there is nothing to the rumor that you can't eat money. Because their reward is money. Just money. No future, because no food. Because they believed their own nonsense, and did not prepare for shortages. And they did not prepare for the price of everything going up, once the Alarmists enforced their Carbon Tax on virtually everything that is manufactured, including food.

I've been pondering some things lately that concern me, which are related to that. You see, what bugs me is that there is a big difference in what the prophecies say would happen and what science is saying is happening. The prophecies are clearly about Global Warming, but blame God's Wrath for it. And there are things in the prophecy that indicate that it takes years for the events to unfold, it's not in the hundreds of years, like science is leading us to believe will happen regarding Global Warming. Everything we hear are projections of a hundred years or more, and mostly related to sea level change. So I think we have a false time frame perspective, as a society. We think it's our grandchildren's problem, if a problem at all. It might even be better for them, except for the sea level change. And that might not be so bad, if we make so preemptive moves in the right direction. Maybe we should start approving new construction on the inland side of cities on the ocean?

Unfortunately, the prophecies say it goes faster than that. In fact, one very famous one calls for a nation to be knocked to its knees with the "arms of a flood." That term used to be considered a "flood of men," but that doesn't make much sense in a modern world. We have weaponry now that pretty much makes up for any number of people. It makes more sense that the "arms of a flood" is an actual flood, or tsunami, triggered through a terrorist act. Basically, they are going to use the warming climate against us, I think by triggering a slide of ice into the ocean down in Antarctica. Possibly a nuclear explosion or something that would quicken the natural slide of the ice into the sea.

And after that, things just go downhill.

And you think I need to choose either your or another Denier's path. That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I know what your angle is by using Statistical Math to claim things that aren't so. You are simply getting confused. Parrot did a good job of slicing you up, so there is no need for me to go there, except to point out that you are using someone else's Thunder, and using it incorrectly. You need to drop the Statistical Analysis, because you are not Roy Spencer, and you do not understand what he said. And that is why you think you can apply it to everything.

Spencer's argument is simply that there was no increase in 2016 over 1998, because the measured increase was not above the possible error. That's not that difficult to understand. And it does not mean there has been no increase since satellite data became available.

Is that something that you can get your head around, or are we going to have to revisit this again, and again, and again?


I would like to revisit your rediculous statements in another decade and see what you have to say about your "algorithm" or more accurately your "Al Gore Rhythm".
18-12-2017 16:40
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: I would like to revisit your rediculous statements in another decade.....
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" keeps repeating itself.... even down to the ridiculous misspelling.
Meanwhile, I repeat since, "many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" still doesn't get it:
For 390+ straight months, Earth bio-sphere temperatures have been over the 20th century average. This, despite "many time(plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" trading on the many decades long languid Total Solar Irradiation, including 11 years sub-standard TSI AND a 3+ year TSI setting a 100 year record low, Earth bio-sphere temperatures continue upward.
Edited on 18-12-2017 16:58
18-12-2017 18:07
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(969)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

Why do I have to follow either of the paths that you or Parrot walk? I would rather find my own. That's why I wrote a Climate Code algorithm which precisely explains why it gets warm enough on this planet for us to live.

Why don't you try walking my path instead? Open your mind to the truth. Seek to know only the truth about things that involve you. Reject the false arguments of people like Parrot who basically rejects the science of climate change because he doesn't think you can even measure the average temperature of the planet. So how can you determine a change? And reject your false arguments also. If it is wrong, then it doesn't serve you well. It might make you feel better about what you are doing, but in the end, it will leave you cold and bitter.

You don't have to write algorithms, if you don't know how. You can use the ones provided. Some people are good at writing algorithms, while others are good at using them solve problems. Perhaps you are one of those.

Your argument that raising CO2 levels won't increase the earth's temperature because CO2 is in saturation at 30 meters is a falsehood. Yes, CO2 is in saturation, as you claim [as far as I know], but that 30 meters of air is also producing radiation, which is being absorbed in higher layers of air. It just keeps moving up, until the air is too thin to absorb much radiation, and the radiation finally gets to fly off into the wild blue yonder, much to the Parrot's delight, since he and Stefan Boltzmann were big buddies when they went to different schools together.

Uh, your argument is easily proven wrong, by the way, because it is getting progressively warmer as the decades click by, which is very annoying to the Denier Parrots. They eventually realize that they have all been duped, before it's over. Let's hope there is nothing to the rumor that you can't eat money. Because their reward is money. Just money. No future, because no food. Because they believed their own nonsense, and did not prepare for shortages. And they did not prepare for the price of everything going up, once the Alarmists enforced their Carbon Tax on virtually everything that is manufactured, including food.

I've been pondering some things lately that concern me, which are related to that. You see, what bugs me is that there is a big difference in what the prophecies say would happen and what science is saying is happening. The prophecies are clearly about Global Warming, but blame God's Wrath for it. And there are things in the prophecy that indicate that it takes years for the events to unfold, it's not in the hundreds of years, like science is leading us to believe will happen regarding Global Warming. Everything we hear are projections of a hundred years or more, and mostly related to sea level change. So I think we have a false time frame perspective, as a society. We think it's our grandchildren's problem, if a problem at all. It might even be better for them, except for the sea level change. And that might not be so bad, if we make so preemptive moves in the right direction. Maybe we should start approving new construction on the inland side of cities on the ocean?

Unfortunately, the prophecies say it goes faster than that. In fact, one very famous one calls for a nation to be knocked to its knees with the "arms of a flood." That term used to be considered a "flood of men," but that doesn't make much sense in a modern world. We have weaponry now that pretty much makes up for any number of people. It makes more sense that the "arms of a flood" is an actual flood, or tsunami, triggered through a terrorist act. Basically, they are going to use the warming climate against us, I think by triggering a slide of ice into the ocean down in Antarctica. Possibly a nuclear explosion or something that would quicken the natural slide of the ice into the sea.

And after that, things just go downhill.

And you think I need to choose either your or another Denier's path. That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I know what your angle is by using Statistical Math to claim things that aren't so. You are simply getting confused. Parrot did a good job of slicing you up, so there is no need for me to go there, except to point out that you are using someone else's Thunder, and using it incorrectly. You need to drop the Statistical Analysis, because you are not Roy Spencer, and you do not understand what he said. And that is why you think you can apply it to everything.

Spencer's argument is simply that there was no increase in 2016 over 1998, because the measured increase was not above the possible error. That's not that difficult to understand. And it does not mean there has been no increase since satellite data became available.

Is that something that you can get your head around, or are we going to have to revisit this again, and again, and again?


I would like to revisit your rediculous statements in another decade and see what you have to say about your "algorithm" or more accurately your "Al Gore Rhythm".


Word you're looking for is Algorizm.
18-12-2017 19:28
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

Why do I have to follow either of the paths that you or Parrot walk? I would rather find my own. That's why I wrote a Climate Code algorithm which precisely explains why it gets warm enough on this planet for us to live.

Why don't you try walking my path instead? Open your mind to the truth. Seek to know only the truth about things that involve you. Reject the false arguments of people like Parrot who basically rejects the science of climate change because he doesn't think you can even measure the average temperature of the planet. So how can you determine a change? And reject your false arguments also. If it is wrong, then it doesn't serve you well. It might make you feel better about what you are doing, but in the end, it will leave you cold and bitter.

You don't have to write algorithms, if you don't know how. You can use the ones provided. Some people are good at writing algorithms, while others are good at using them solve problems. Perhaps you are one of those.

Your argument that raising CO2 levels won't increase the earth's temperature because CO2 is in saturation at 30 meters is a falsehood. Yes, CO2 is in saturation, as you claim [as far as I know], but that 30 meters of air is also producing radiation, which is being absorbed in higher layers of air. It just keeps moving up, until the air is too thin to absorb much radiation, and the radiation finally gets to fly off into the wild blue yonder, much to the Parrot's delight, since he and Stefan Boltzmann were big buddies when they went to different schools together.

Uh, your argument is easily proven wrong, by the way, because it is getting progressively warmer as the decades click by, which is very annoying to the Denier Parrots. They eventually realize that they have all been duped, before it's over. Let's hope there is nothing to the rumor that you can't eat money. Because their reward is money. Just money. No future, because no food. Because they believed their own nonsense, and did not prepare for shortages. And they did not prepare for the price of everything going up, once the Alarmists enforced their Carbon Tax on virtually everything that is manufactured, including food.

I've been pondering some things lately that concern me, which are related to that. You see, what bugs me is that there is a big difference in what the prophecies say would happen and what science is saying is happening. The prophecies are clearly about Global Warming, but blame God's Wrath for it. And there are things in the prophecy that indicate that it takes years for the events to unfold, it's not in the hundreds of years, like science is leading us to believe will happen regarding Global Warming. Everything we hear are projections of a hundred years or more, and mostly related to sea level change. So I think we have a false time frame perspective, as a society. We think it's our grandchildren's problem, if a problem at all. It might even be better for them, except for the sea level change. And that might not be so bad, if we make so preemptive moves in the right direction. Maybe we should start approving new construction on the inland side of cities on the ocean?

Unfortunately, the prophecies say it goes faster than that. In fact, one very famous one calls for a nation to be knocked to its knees with the "arms of a flood." That term used to be considered a "flood of men," but that doesn't make much sense in a modern world. We have weaponry now that pretty much makes up for any number of people. It makes more sense that the "arms of a flood" is an actual flood, or tsunami, triggered through a terrorist act. Basically, they are going to use the warming climate against us, I think by triggering a slide of ice into the ocean down in Antarctica. Possibly a nuclear explosion or something that would quicken the natural slide of the ice into the sea.

And after that, things just go downhill.

And you think I need to choose either your or another Denier's path. That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I know what your angle is by using Statistical Math to claim things that aren't so. You are simply getting confused. Parrot did a good job of slicing you up, so there is no need for me to go there, except to point out that you are using someone else's Thunder, and using it incorrectly. You need to drop the Statistical Analysis, because you are not Roy Spencer, and you do not understand what he said. And that is why you think you can apply it to everything.

Spencer's argument is simply that there was no increase in 2016 over 1998, because the measured increase was not above the possible error. That's not that difficult to understand. And it does not mean there has been no increase since satellite data became available.

Is that something that you can get your head around, or are we going to have to revisit this again, and again, and again?


I would like to revisit your rediculous statements in another decade and see what you have to say about your "algorithm" or more accurately your "Al Gore Rhythm".


Word you're looking for is Algorizm.


Greenman doesn't understand science and he doesn't understand math and he thinks that somehow he can invent an algorithm to explain climate.

I statistically averaged his chart and he cannot understand WHY it would show temperature going down when the last several years were warm. He could not understand that if you have a sine wave and average a period three quarters of it down and one quarter of it rising again the average is going to show all down and not up.

If you do not understand THAT how in the hell can you say you have an algorithm for anything?

I am simply shocked at the level of ignorance from these True Believers.

Or from nightmare who thinks that the universe is controlled by the Stefan-Boltzman Law and that he doesn't even understand that aside from gravity virtually all of the energy in the universe is HEAT? When confronted with that idea he says that nuclear fusion isn't heat? He cannot even grasp that fission and fusion are ALL about heat and are the driving forces of the universe. I simply cannot relate to someone that not only doesn't understand that but purposely refuses to understand that because it would mean he was wrong about something.

Hell, he can't even grasp that light is heat with more energy in it than IR that he believes is the only "heat". It's like talking to a Muppet.
18-12-2017 20:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
GreenMan wrote:
Why do I have to follow either of the paths that you or Parrot walk?

You don't. You can live in ignorance if you choose to do so. I don't have to walk your path either.
GreenMan wrote:
I would rather find my own. That's why I wrote a Climate Code algorithm which precisely explains why it gets warm enough on this planet for us to live.

Ah yes...advertising your amazing algorithm, developed using random numbers and fake data.
GreenMan wrote:
Why don't you try walking my path instead?

Why? I prefer to remain an Outsider of your faith.
GreenMan wrote:
Open your mind to the truth.

The truth is you deny science, math, and logic. I'll stick with science, math, and logic.
GreenMan wrote:
Seek to know only the truth about things that involve you.

Already have. It the same things that involve you, though you deny them.
GreenMan wrote:
Reject the false arguments of people like Parrot who basically rejects the science of climate change

There is no theory of science in 'climate change'. No theory can be based on a void argument. You first have to define 'climate change' using something other than a circular definition.
GreenMan wrote:
because he doesn't think you can even measure the average temperature of the planet.

You can't. You are unable to see it, because you deny mathematics as well.
GreenMan wrote:
So how can you determine a change?

You can't.
GreenMan wrote:
And reject your false arguments also.

Theories of science are not false arguments. Mathematics is not false arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
If it is wrong, then it doesn't serve you well. It might make you feel better about what you are doing, but in the end, it will leave you cold and bitter.

Nope. Good ole' science and mathematics has made me and others wealthier, healthier, and better entertained than anyone in history. It is YOUR argument that is cold and bitter. It is YOUR argument that preaches doom and gloom. It is YOUR argument that preaches man is without hope because of what he has supposedly done to this planet.
GreenMan wrote:
You don't have to write algorithms, if you don't know how. You can use the ones provided. Some people are good at writing algorithms, while others are good at using them solve problems. Perhaps you are one of those.

Inversion fallacy. Your algorithm is one based on fake and random numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
Your argument that raising CO2 levels won't increase the earth's temperature because CO2 is in saturation at 30 meters is a falsehood.

CO2 is incapable of warming the Earth. 'Saturation' makes no difference.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, CO2 is in saturation, as you claim [as far as I know], but that 30 meters of air is also producing radiation, which is being absorbed in higher layers of air. It just keeps moving up, until the air is too thin to absorb much radiation, and the radiation finally gets to fly off into the wild blue yonder, much to the Parrot's delight, since he and Stefan Boltzmann were big buddies when they went to different schools together.

You actually have it partially right here. The part that's missing is that most radiance comes from the surface directly into space.
GreenMan wrote:
Uh, your argument is easily proven wrong, by the way, because it is getting progressively warmer as the decades click by, which is very annoying to the Denier Parrots.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
They eventually realize that they have all been duped, before it's over.

Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
Let's hope there is nothing to the rumor that you can't eat money. Because their reward is money. Just money.

Scripture from the Church of Karl Marx.
GreenMan wrote:
No future, because no food.

Doom and gloom. Why are you so cold and bitter?
GreenMan wrote:
And they did not prepare for the price of everything going up, once the Alarmists enforced their Carbon Tax on virtually everything that is manufactured, including food.

Forced taxes cause revolts. Didn't you know that? I can manufacture my own food. It's not hard to do.
GreenMan wrote:
I've been pondering some things lately that concern me, which are related to that. You see, what bugs me is that there is a big difference in what the prophecies say would happen and what science is saying is happening.

Science doesn't say.
GreenMan wrote:
The prophecies are clearly about Global Warming,

No, YOUR prophecies are clearly about 'global warming'.
GreenMan wrote:
but blame God's Wrath for it.
And there are things in the prophecy that indicate that it takes years for the events to unfold, it's not in the hundreds of years,

Again, as interpreted by YOU.
GreenMan wrote:
like science is leading us to believe will happen regarding Global Warming.

Science doesn't say anything about 'global warming'. The phrase 'global warming' doesn't mean anything. It's a buzz phrase that a religion is built around.
GreenMan wrote:
Everything we hear are projections of a hundred years or more, and mostly related to sea level change.

It's not possible to measure sea level either. There is not enough water from all the ice on the Earth to change it much. Remember that ice CAME from the sea.
GreenMan wrote:
So I think we have a false time frame perspective, as a society. We think it's our grandchildren's problem, if a problem at all. It might even be better for them, except for the sea level change. And that might not be so bad, if we make so preemptive moves in the right direction.

More doom and gloom. Why are you so cold and bitter? Why are you trying to control the lives of others?
GreenMan wrote:
Maybe we should start approving new construction on the inland side of cities on the ocean?

Still trying to control the lives of others. You are trying to force the paths of others, instead of letting them choose their own paths.
GreenMan wrote:
Unfortunately, the prophecies say it goes faster than that. In fact, one very famous one calls for a nation to be knocked to its knees with the "arms of a flood." That term used to be considered a "flood of men," but that doesn't make much sense in a modern world. We have weaponry now that pretty much makes up for any number of people. It makes more sense that the "arms of a flood" is an actual flood, or tsunami, triggered through a terrorist act.

You ARE a paranoid one, aren't you?
GreenMan wrote:
Basically, they are going to use the warming climate against us, I think by triggering a slide of ice into the ocean down in Antarctica.

Even if they somehow could, the resulting tsunami would do nothing except mess up the lives of some nearby penguins.
GreenMan wrote:
Possibly a nuclear explosion or something that would quicken the natural slide of the ice into the sea.

You obviously have no understanding of the effects of blowing something up.
GreenMan wrote:
And after that, things just go downhill.

What? You destroyed it!
GreenMan wrote:
And you think I need to choose either your or another Denier's path. That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

So you would rather force others to walk your path. Not funny.
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, one more thing. I know what your angle is by using Statistical Math to claim things that aren't so. You are simply getting confused. Parrot did a good job of slicing you up, so there is no need for me to go there, except to point out that you are using someone else's Thunder, and using it incorrectly. You need to drop the Statistical Analysis, because you are not Roy Spencer, and you do not understand what he said. And that is why you think you can apply it to everything.

Roy Spencer is wrong here. I understand his argument and the flaw that is in it.
GreenMan wrote:
Spencer's argument is simply that there was no increase in 2016 over 1998, because the measured increase was not above the possible error.

This is the flaw. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth because there is insufficient instrumentation to even begin a sensible statistical analysis. The margin of error is too great to calculate a sensible summary.
GreenMan wrote:
That's not that difficult to understand. And it does not mean there has been no increase since satellite data became available.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They measure light. It is not possible to determine the emissivity of Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
Is that something that you can get your head around, or are we going to have to revisit this again, and again, and again?

It is YOU that keeps trying to force others to walk your path. It is YOU that is going in circles.


The Parrot Killer
18-12-2017 21:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
Greenman doesn't understand science and he doesn't understand math and he thinks that somehow he can invent an algorithm to explain climate.

True.
Wake wrote:
I statistically averaged his chart

No, you didn't. A simple average is not statistical math.
Wake wrote:
and he cannot understand WHY it would show temperature going down when the last several years were warm.

His chart of random numbers shows a warming trend. Adding your random numbers to his to show a cooling trend is ridiculous.
Wake wrote:
He could not understand that if you have a sine wave and average a period three quarters of it down and one quarter of it rising again the average is going to show all down and not up.

A sine wave coming from random numbers is meaningless.
Wake wrote:
If you do not understand THAT how in the hell can you say you have an algorithm for anything?

YOUR algorithm is just as bad.
Wake wrote:
I am simply shocked at the level of ignorance from these True Believers.
Like you?
Wake wrote:
Or from nightmare who thinks that the universe is controlled by the Stefan-Boltzman Law

Liar. I never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
and that he doesn't even understand that aside from gravity virtually all of the energy in the universe is HEAT?

Wrong. Heat is not energy.
Wake wrote:
When confronted with that idea he says that nuclear fusion isn't heat?
It isn't.
Wake wrote:
He cannot even grasp that fission and fusion are ALL about heat
Nope. They are about splitting or combining nuclei of atoms, respectively.
Wake wrote:
and are the driving forces of the universe.
You don't know that. You can't see the entire universe. You really don't know WHAT the driving force (if any) of the universe is.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...8...2...1...
Hell, he can't even grasp that light is heat with more energy in it than IR that he believes is the only "heat".
...deleted Mantra 1...

Light is only heat if it is absorbed by something and that absorption results in a gain of thermal energy. Generally, infrared light (or lower) is the only light producing this kind of absorption. Higher energy light, including visible light, often causes chemical reactions or direct ionization, not an increase of thermal energy. An exception is some chemical reactions caused by light CAN be exothermic, such as the absorption of UV-C light by ozone.


The Parrot Killer
18-12-2017 22:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Greenman doesn't understand science and he doesn't understand math and he thinks that somehow he can invent an algorithm to explain climate.

True.
Wake wrote:
I statistically averaged his chart

No, you didn't. A simple average is not statistical math.
Wake wrote:
and he cannot understand WHY it would show temperature going down when the last several years were warm.

His chart of random numbers shows a warming trend. Adding your random numbers to his to show a cooling trend is ridiculous.
Wake wrote:
He could not understand that if you have a sine wave and average a period three quarters of it down and one quarter of it rising again the average is going to show all down and not up.

A sine wave coming from random numbers is meaningless.
Wake wrote:
If you do not understand THAT how in the hell can you say you have an algorithm for anything?

YOUR algorithm is just as bad.
Wake wrote:
I am simply shocked at the level of ignorance from these True Believers.
Like you?
Wake wrote:
Or from nightmare who thinks that the universe is controlled by the Stefan-Boltzman Law

Liar. I never said any such thing.
Wake wrote:
and that he doesn't even understand that aside from gravity virtually all of the energy in the universe is HEAT?

Wrong. Heat is not energy.
Wake wrote:
When confronted with that idea he says that nuclear fusion isn't heat?
It isn't.
Wake wrote:
He cannot even grasp that fission and fusion are ALL about heat
Nope. They are about splitting or combining nuclei of atoms, respectively.
Wake wrote:
and are the driving forces of the universe.
You don't know that. You can't see the entire universe. You really don't know WHAT the driving force (if any) of the universe is.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...8...2...1...
Hell, he can't even grasp that light is heat with more energy in it than IR that he believes is the only "heat".
...deleted Mantra 1...

Light is only heat if it is absorbed by something and that absorption results in a gain of thermal energy. Generally, infrared light (or lower) is the only light producing this kind of absorption. Higher energy light, including visible light, often causes chemical reactions or direct ionization, not an increase of thermal energy. An exception is some chemical reactions caused by light CAN be exothermic, such as the absorption of UV-C light by ozone.


Sorry but the statistical mean of a set is the average. I did NOT say median. And the ONLY way to achieve an AVERAGE that is called a mean is an arithmetic mean which is what I performed.

I did NOT see you correcting my math. Exactly why was that again? You merely smart-mouthed as usual pretending to know something which you do not.

Or as the dictionary definition:

"1. Average can be in mean (arithmetic mean), median, or mode. Mean is basically a form of describing an average of the sample.

2. Mean can be in many various types too, but only the arithmetic mean is considered as a form of average.

3. 'Average' is usually used in casual English conversation, while 'mean' is usually used in technical language."

YOU are incapable of understanding the difference between a technical explanation and a casual explanation. That is from low IQ and the fear of what it makes you look like.

Not to mention your asinine approach to taking a descriptive explanation as some sort of real event.

You exacerbate your ignorance by not understanding energy and its forms. Light IS HEAT. Showing it on an absorbing surface so that it warms the surface does not change its identity - only its frequency. I have watched you spout this ignorance so much it's gratifying to know that you are incapable of learning.

Now be a good little boy and go play with your legos in your hanger where no doubt your job is to refuel aircraft.
Edited on 18-12-2017 23:10
19-12-2017 01:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
Sorry but the statistical mean of a set is the average.

There is no such thing as a 'statistical' mean.
Wake wrote:
I did NOT say median.

Never said you did.
Wake wrote:
And the ONLY way to achieve an AVERAGE that is called a mean is an arithmetic mean which is what I performed.

Fine. You are, however, just adding your random numbers to his to calculate your average from. Big deal.
Wake wrote:
I did NOT see you correcting my math.

Pay attention next time.
Wake wrote:
Exactly why was that again?

I did. Pay attention next time.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...2...
Wake wrote:
Or as the dictionary definition:

"1. Average can be in mean (arithmetic mean), median, or mode. Mean is basically a form of describing an average of the sample.

2. Mean can be in many various types too, but only the arithmetic mean is considered as a form of average.

3. 'Average' is usually used in casual English conversation, while 'mean' is usually used in technical language."

Do you see the phrase 'statistical math' in there?
Wake wrote:
YOU are incapable of understanding the difference between a technical explanation and a casual explanation. That is from low IQ and the fear of what it makes you look like.

You are trying to counter an argument that doesn't exist. Pay attention.
Wake wrote:
Not to mention your asinine approach to taking a descriptive explanation as some sort of real event.

This statement doesn't even make sense. Must be your anger cutting lose again.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...10...1...
Light IS HEAT.

Nope. It is only heat if it is absorbed by something and causes an increase in thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
Showing it on an absorbing surface so that it warms the surface does not change its identity

As far as the use of the word 'heat' is concerned, it absolutely does.
Wake wrote:
- only its frequency.
...deleted Mantra 2...2...4...16...16...16...1...

Absorbed light has no frequency. The photon is destroyed.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 19:56
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

Why do I have to follow either of the paths that you or Parrot walk? I would rather find my own. That's why I wrote a Climate Code algorithm which precisely explains why it gets warm enough on this planet for us to live.

Why don't you try walking my path instead? Open your mind to the truth. Seek to know only the truth about things that involve you. Reject the false arguments of people like Parrot who basically rejects the science of climate change because he doesn't think you can even measure the average temperature of the planet. So how can you determine a change? And reject your false arguments also. If it is wrong, then it doesn't serve you well. It might make you feel better about what you are doing, but in the end, it will leave you cold and bitter.

You don't have to write algorithms, if you don't know how. You can use the ones provided. Some people are good at writing algorithms, while others are good at using them solve problems. Perhaps you are one of those.

Your argument that raising CO2 levels won't increase the earth's temperature because CO2 is in saturation at 30 meters is a falsehood. Yes, CO2 is in saturation, as you claim [as far as I know], but that 30 meters of air is also producing radiation, which is being absorbed in higher layers of air. It just keeps moving up, until the air is too thin to absorb much radiation, and the radiation finally gets to fly off into the wild blue yonder, much to the Parrot's delight, since he and Stefan Boltzmann were big buddies when they went to different schools together.

Uh, your argument is easily proven wrong, by the way, because it is getting progressively warmer as the decades click by, which is very annoying to the Denier Parrots. They eventually realize that they have all been duped, before it's over. Let's hope there is nothing to the rumor that you can't eat money. Because their reward is money. Just money. No future, because no food. Because they believed their own nonsense, and did not prepare for shortages. And they did not prepare for the price of everything going up, once the Alarmists enforced their Carbon Tax on virtually everything that is manufactured, including food.

I've been pondering some things lately that concern me, which are related to that. You see, what bugs me is that there is a big difference in what the prophecies say would happen and what science is saying is happening. The prophecies are clearly about Global Warming, but blame God's Wrath for it. And there are things in the prophecy that indicate that it takes years for the events to unfold, it's not in the hundreds of years, like science is leading us to believe will happen regarding Global Warming. Everything we hear are projections of a hundred years or more, and mostly related to sea level change. So I think we have a false time frame perspective, as a society. We think it's our grandchildren's problem, if a problem at all. It might even be better for them, except for the sea level change. And that might not be so bad, if we make so preemptive moves in the right direction. Maybe we should start approving new construction on the inland side of cities on the ocean?

Unfortunately, the prophecies say it goes faster than that. In fact, one very famous one calls for a nation to be knocked to its knees with the "arms of a flood." That term used to be considered a "flood of men," but that doesn't make much sense in a modern world. We have weaponry now that pretty much makes up for any number of people. It makes more sense that the "arms of a flood" is an actual flood, or tsunami, triggered through a terrorist act. Basically, they are going to use the warming climate against us, I think by triggering a slide of ice into the ocean down in Antarctica. Possibly a nuclear explosion or something that would quicken the natural slide of the ice into the sea.

And after that, things just go downhill.

And you think I need to choose either your or another Denier's path. That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I know what your angle is by using Statistical Math to claim things that aren't so. You are simply getting confused. Parrot did a good job of slicing you up, so there is no need for me to go there, except to point out that you are using someone else's Thunder, and using it incorrectly. You need to drop the Statistical Analysis, because you are not Roy Spencer, and you do not understand what he said. And that is why you think you can apply it to everything.

Spencer's argument is simply that there was no increase in 2016 over 1998, because the measured increase was not above the possible error. That's not that difficult to understand. And it does not mean there has been no increase since satellite data became available.

Is that something that you can get your head around, or are we going to have to revisit this again, and again, and again?


I would like to revisit your rediculous statements in another decade and see what you have to say about your "algorithm" or more accurately your "Al Gore Rhythm".


You can revisit my statements now, unless you think 10 more years will make you a little smarter. I doubt it, since a person's mental capacity doesn't improve much when a person gets as old as you already are. My algorithm doesn't calculate the temperature for the next decade, except to indicate more warming. I expect another .15C increase in the next decade. But it could be a lot higher, because things are changing, like the dwindling ice sheet over much of the Arctic, which changes the albedo of the surface, causing increased warming. So we could see twice that by then. Who knows?

One thing is for certain though, it's not going to get any cooler. It's just going to keep getting hot, until it can get a little hotter. Then it's even gonna get hotter. Of course, you will be ok in California, as long as you build a fire proof house, underground.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
19-12-2017 20:04
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

Why do I have to follow either of the paths that you or Parrot walk? I would rather find my own. That's why I wrote a Climate Code algorithm which precisely explains why it gets warm enough on this planet for us to live.

Why don't you try walking my path instead? Open your mind to the truth. Seek to know only the truth about things that involve you. Reject the false arguments of people like Parrot who basically rejects the science of climate change because he doesn't think you can even measure the average temperature of the planet. So how can you determine a change? And reject your false arguments also. If it is wrong, then it doesn't serve you well. It might make you feel better about what you are doing, but in the end, it will leave you cold and bitter.

You don't have to write algorithms, if you don't know how. You can use the ones provided. Some people are good at writing algorithms, while others are good at using them solve problems. Perhaps you are one of those.

Your argument that raising CO2 levels won't increase the earth's temperature because CO2 is in saturation at 30 meters is a falsehood. Yes, CO2 is in saturation, as you claim [as far as I know], but that 30 meters of air is also producing radiation, which is being absorbed in higher layers of air. It just keeps moving up, until the air is too thin to absorb much radiation, and the radiation finally gets to fly off into the wild blue yonder, much to the Parrot's delight, since he and Stefan Boltzmann were big buddies when they went to different schools together.

Uh, your argument is easily proven wrong, by the way, because it is getting progressively warmer as the decades click by, which is very annoying to the Denier Parrots. They eventually realize that they have all been duped, before it's over. Let's hope there is nothing to the rumor that you can't eat money. Because their reward is money. Just money. No future, because no food. Because they believed their own nonsense, and did not prepare for shortages. And they did not prepare for the price of everything going up, once the Alarmists enforced their Carbon Tax on virtually everything that is manufactured, including food.

I've been pondering some things lately that concern me, which are related to that. You see, what bugs me is that there is a big difference in what the prophecies say would happen and what science is saying is happening. The prophecies are clearly about Global Warming, but blame God's Wrath for it. And there are things in the prophecy that indicate that it takes years for the events to unfold, it's not in the hundreds of years, like science is leading us to believe will happen regarding Global Warming. Everything we hear are projections of a hundred years or more, and mostly related to sea level change. So I think we have a false time frame perspective, as a society. We think it's our grandchildren's problem, if a problem at all. It might even be better for them, except for the sea level change. And that might not be so bad, if we make so preemptive moves in the right direction. Maybe we should start approving new construction on the inland side of cities on the ocean?

Unfortunately, the prophecies say it goes faster than that. In fact, one very famous one calls for a nation to be knocked to its knees with the "arms of a flood." That term used to be considered a "flood of men," but that doesn't make much sense in a modern world. We have weaponry now that pretty much makes up for any number of people. It makes more sense that the "arms of a flood" is an actual flood, or tsunami, triggered through a terrorist act. Basically, they are going to use the warming climate against us, I think by triggering a slide of ice into the ocean down in Antarctica. Possibly a nuclear explosion or something that would quicken the natural slide of the ice into the sea.

And after that, things just go downhill.

And you think I need to choose either your or another Denier's path. That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh.

Oh yeah, one more thing. I know what your angle is by using Statistical Math to claim things that aren't so. You are simply getting confused. Parrot did a good job of slicing you up, so there is no need for me to go there, except to point out that you are using someone else's Thunder, and using it incorrectly. You need to drop the Statistical Analysis, because you are not Roy Spencer, and you do not understand what he said. And that is why you think you can apply it to everything.

Spencer's argument is simply that there was no increase in 2016 over 1998, because the measured increase was not above the possible error. That's not that difficult to understand. And it does not mean there has been no increase since satellite data became available.

Is that something that you can get your head around, or are we going to have to revisit this again, and again, and again?


I would like to revisit your rediculous statements in another decade and see what you have to say about your "algorithm" or more accurately your "Al Gore Rhythm".


Word you're looking for is Algorizm.


Greenman doesn't understand science and he doesn't understand math and he thinks that somehow he can invent an algorithm to explain climate.

I statistically averaged his chart and he cannot understand WHY it would show temperature going down when the last several years were warm. He could not understand that if you have a sine wave and average a period three quarters of it down and one quarter of it rising again the average is going to show all down and not up.

If you do not understand THAT how in the hell can you say you have an algorithm for anything?

I am simply shocked at the level of ignorance from these True Believers.

Or from nightmare who thinks that the universe is controlled by the Stefan-Boltzman Law and that he doesn't even understand that aside from gravity virtually all of the energy in the universe is HEAT? When confronted with that idea he says that nuclear fusion isn't heat? He cannot even grasp that fission and fusion are ALL about heat and are the driving forces of the universe. I simply cannot relate to someone that not only doesn't understand that but purposely refuses to understand that because it would mean he was wrong about something.

Hell, he can't even grasp that light is heat with more energy in it than IR that he believes is the only "heat". It's like talking to a Muppet.


It's not even remotely possible that you did any kind of statistical analysis to a chart. The chart does not show most of the values that were used for its production. All you can get are the minimum and maximum values, and nothing in between. So how is it that you were able to run any calculations, without the source data?

I don't think you will even bother to answer that question, because you just got caught trying to bluff your way into looking intelligent. Solly, you can't bluff your way into looking intelligent, all you are capable of is continuing your comical attempt to be somebody. Stand down, pay attention to what is going on, and form a useful opinion. Useful being the key word there.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
19-12-2017 21:15
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
GreenMan wrote:
It's not even remotely possible that you did any kind of statistical analysis to a chart. The chart does not show most of the values that were used for its production. All you can get are the minimum and maximum values, and nothing in between. So how is it that you were able to run any calculations, without the source data?

I don't think you will even bother to answer that question, because you just got caught trying to bluff your way into looking intelligent. Solly, you can't bluff your way into looking intelligent, all you are capable of is continuing your comical attempt to be somebody. Stand down, pay attention to what is going on, and form a useful opinion. Useful being the key word there.


Did you or did you not supply a chart showing temperature variations from the "Norm" from year to year?

If you don't understand how the data you supplied can be manipulated, do not pretend that someone else is as incapable as yourself.

As for your asinine idea that open water in the arctic is unusual by all means tell us what would give you that opinion. I have already shown that there was open waters as far north as the north pole in the 50's. Also the northwest passage was discovered by Amundsen in a wooden boat with an 8 horsepower motor and hardly the icebreaker you seem to infer it would take.

Maybe you should get with litebrain who thinks that ice extent photography since 1979 tells the entire story of the arctic regions.

Too bad that we know that El Nino can cause large precipitation in northern Canada leading to very large amounts of warmer freshwater being drained into the areas where lighter ice is. It has also been shown that conditions in Syberia greatly effect the ice around Barrow that you are using as some sort of proof that your Al Gore ism that fails everywhere else still works with perfect accuracy.
19-12-2017 22:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's not even remotely possible that you did any kind of statistical analysis to a chart. The chart does not show most of the values that were used for its production. All you can get are the minimum and maximum values, and nothing in between. So how is it that you were able to run any calculations, without the source data?

I don't think you will even bother to answer that question, because you just got caught trying to bluff your way into looking intelligent. Solly, you can't bluff your way into looking intelligent, all you are capable of is continuing your comical attempt to be somebody. Stand down, pay attention to what is going on, and form a useful opinion. Useful being the key word there.


Did you or did you not supply a chart showing temperature variations from the "Norm" from year to year?

If you don't understand how the data you supplied can be manipulated, do not pretend that someone else is as incapable as yourself.

As for your asinine idea that open water in the arctic is unusual by all means tell us what would give you that opinion. I have already shown that there was open waters as far north as the north pole in the 50's. Also the northwest passage was discovered by Amundsen in a wooden boat with an 8 horsepower motor and hardly the icebreaker you seem to infer it would take.

Maybe you should get with litebrain who thinks that ice extent photography since 1979 tells the entire story of the arctic regions.

Too bad that we know that El Nino can cause large precipitation in northern Canada leading to very large amounts of warmer freshwater being drained into the areas where lighter ice is. It has also been shown that conditions in Syberia greatly effect the ice around Barrow that you are using as some sort of proof that your Al Gore ism that fails everywhere else still works with perfect accuracy.


The data he supplied is not data.


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 22:34
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's not even remotely possible that you did any kind of statistical analysis to a chart. The chart does not show most of the values that were used for its production. All you can get are the minimum and maximum values, and nothing in between. So how is it that you were able to run any calculations, without the source data?

I don't think you will even bother to answer that question, because you just got caught trying to bluff your way into looking intelligent. Solly, you can't bluff your way into looking intelligent, all you are capable of is continuing your comical attempt to be somebody. Stand down, pay attention to what is going on, and form a useful opinion. Useful being the key word there.


Did you or did you not supply a chart showing temperature variations from the "Norm" from year to year?

If you don't understand how the data you supplied can be manipulated, do not pretend that someone else is as incapable as yourself.

As for your asinine idea that open water in the arctic is unusual by all means tell us what would give you that opinion. I have already shown that there was open waters as far north as the north pole in the 50's. Also the northwest passage was discovered by Amundsen in a wooden boat with an 8 horsepower motor and hardly the icebreaker you seem to infer it would take.

Maybe you should get with litebrain who thinks that ice extent photography since 1979 tells the entire story of the arctic regions.

Too bad that we know that El Nino can cause large precipitation in northern Canada leading to very large amounts of warmer freshwater being drained into the areas where lighter ice is. It has also been shown that conditions in Syberia greatly effect the ice around Barrow that you are using as some sort of proof that your Al Gore ism that fails everywhere else still works with perfect accuracy.


The data he supplied is not data.


You have no idea what data is so that puts your opinions out.
19-12-2017 23:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It's not even remotely possible that you did any kind of statistical analysis to a chart. The chart does not show most of the values that were used for its production. All you can get are the minimum and maximum values, and nothing in between. So how is it that you were able to run any calculations, without the source data?

I don't think you will even bother to answer that question, because you just got caught trying to bluff your way into looking intelligent. Solly, you can't bluff your way into looking intelligent, all you are capable of is continuing your comical attempt to be somebody. Stand down, pay attention to what is going on, and form a useful opinion. Useful being the key word there.


Did you or did you not supply a chart showing temperature variations from the "Norm" from year to year?

If you don't understand how the data you supplied can be manipulated, do not pretend that someone else is as incapable as yourself.

As for your asinine idea that open water in the arctic is unusual by all means tell us what would give you that opinion. I have already shown that there was open waters as far north as the north pole in the 50's. Also the northwest passage was discovered by Amundsen in a wooden boat with an 8 horsepower motor and hardly the icebreaker you seem to infer it would take.

Maybe you should get with litebrain who thinks that ice extent photography since 1979 tells the entire story of the arctic regions.

Too bad that we know that El Nino can cause large precipitation in northern Canada leading to very large amounts of warmer freshwater being drained into the areas where lighter ice is. It has also been shown that conditions in Syberia greatly effect the ice around Barrow that you are using as some sort of proof that your Al Gore ism that fails everywhere else still works with perfect accuracy.


The data he supplied is not data.


You have no idea what data is so that puts your opinions out.


So you are defending his random numbers??? Make up your mind!!


The Parrot Killer
19-12-2017 23:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Greenman, I would like you to watch the following video and pay attention to it. It's a little longer than an hour but it covers a whole lot of ground.

We could argue and get angry and call each others names but you appear to be interested in science and so you should be able to understand this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJBDI7jVMqM

As for my part I understand spectometry and I can absolutely tell you that CO2 does NOTHING. The CO2 levels above 200 or 250 ppm left the single absorption band of CO2 in saturation. If there's no additional energy to absorb you can't add anything to warming.
19-12-2017 23:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5138)
Wake wrote:
Greenman, I would like you to watch the following video and pay attention to it. It's a little longer than an hour but it covers a whole lot of ground.

We could argue and get angry and call each others names but you appear to be interested in science and so you should be able to understand this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJBDI7jVMqM

As for my part I understand spectometry and I can absolutely tell you that CO2 does NOTHING. The CO2 levels above 200 or 250 ppm left the single absorption band of CO2 in saturation. If there's no additional energy to absorb you can't add anything to warming.


Absorption is not equal to warming. You cannot warm the hotter surface using a colder gas.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2017 02:03
Wake
★★★★★
(3336)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Greenman, I would like you to watch the following video and pay attention to it. It's a little longer than an hour but it covers a whole lot of ground.

We could argue and get angry and call each others names but you appear to be interested in science and so you should be able to understand this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJBDI7jVMqM

As for my part I understand spectometry and I can absolutely tell you that CO2 does NOTHING. The CO2 levels above 200 or 250 ppm left the single absorption band of CO2 in saturation. If there's no additional energy to absorb you can't add anything to warming.


Absorption is not equal to warming. You cannot warm the hotter surface using a colder gas.


Then explain why the top of the stratosphere is warmer than the bottom.
Page 8 of 9<<<6789>





Join the debate Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
equatorial Ozone depletion atmospheric sluff due to heating1514-05-2018 06:07
Barrow, Alaska: The Leading Edge Of Climate Change - 7 mins221-12-2017 18:56
Alaska: State of Emergency - 20 mins919-12-2017 21:52
Rapid climate shift due to Albedo Flip407-03-2017 20:32
water and air have a moderating effect and a heating effect2224-02-2017 05:21
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact