Remember me
▼ Content

Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating



Page 9 of 9<<<789
20-12-2017 02:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
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.


Perhaps you should read up on the oxygen/ozone cycle.


The Parrot Killer
20-12-2017 02:54
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
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.


Perhaps you should read up on the oxygen/ozone cycle.


Perhaps you should explain yourself instead of hinting that you know things that you don't.
20-12-2017 15:46
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
Into the Night wrote:
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.


You made some interesting points, though a little too imaginative for my taste. I prefer the cold, hard truth over pretty pictures of fantasy.

You think that people who are aware of the future of our planet are "paranoid," for doing anything to prevent their own demise. Just because paranoid people sometimes do harbor feelings of doom, it doesn't mean that everyone who knows the planet's future is paranoid, just because they know that it's going to continue getting hotter. So you can't really make that connection. On the one hand, you have a person that doesn't really know why he or she has feelings of doom, they just do. On the other hand, you have a person that knows the planet is heating up and that will lead to doom. That is not paranoia, that is logical thinking. Ignoring danger, on the other hand, is insanity, even worse than paranoia.

You also have a possible misunderstanding of how much water is locked away in land bound glaciers around the world. Or perhaps you think that 1,000 feet of sea level rise "isn't much." About 15 years ago, I decided to abandon my search for the truth about what's going on, and live like everyone else, in denial. It was that night that I saw my home, from a position in space, where I was just hanging out. I heard some guy from behind me say, "that is your home," as I looked at what remained of the eastern seaboard of the US. Nothing but the Blue Ridge and Appalachian Mountains were above water in the southeast. I lived near Aiken, SC at the time, and it was underwater. I could see that the ocean now went where the "Rolling Foothills," where I owned some property, near Greenville, SC. That's a little over a 1,000 foot rise in sea level. Of course, I went right back to figuring out what was going on. And eventually found out that the 1,000 rise I saw in my dream, is what many scientists believe the sea level would go to if all the ice melted. And yes, I am aware that the ice came from the oceans. But I can't figure out why you think that is relevant. Surely you are not trying to claim that if all the glaciers on the planet melted, that the sea level would not increase.

You are also fixated on your notion that the planet's temperature can't be measured accurately enough to be used. That's not really an excuse to ignore what people who study the earth's climate are telling us about it. It makes you look pompous in doing so. You're not even remotely a scientist, and you don't work on any kind of research into the earth's climate. So who are you, to be trying to judge the work of people who are so far above you? You have no credibility, and you prove over and over what a denier of reality you truly are, as you accuse others of denying science, math, and whatever else it is that you are preaching [none of which is science or math].

You are proud of the accomplishments of humanity over the last couple hundred years. People have raised their standard of living tremendously, and now peasants live better than kings used to. You are lavishing in the lifestyle that you have become accustomed to, and you don't want to stop. Nobody blames you for that, including myself. But you need to take a look around, and see the big picture. If you could ever get what we are going into, into your mind, then you would gladly learn to get by without some of the things you now consider as necessary.

And who knows, if you could see clearly enough, you might even see if you can share my path.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
20-12-2017 16:04
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
GreenMan wrote:
You made some interesting points, though a little too imaginative for my taste. I prefer the cold, hard truth over pretty pictures of fantasy.

OK..... so no imagination and fantasies. Got it. Does that include dreams?
[quote]GreenMan wrote:About 15 years ago, I decided to abandon my search for the truth about what's going on, and live like everyone else, in denial. It was that night that I saw my home, from a position in space, where I was just hanging out. I heard some guy from behind me say, "that is your home," as I looked at what remained of the eastern seaboard of the US. Nothing but the Blue Ridge and Appalachian Mountains were above water in the southeast. I lived near Aiken, SC at the time, and it was underwater. I could see that the ocean now went where the "Rolling Foothills," where I owned some property, near Greenville, SC. That's a little over a 1,000 foot rise in sea level.

I had a dream a while back that the Earth was a frozen wasteland, and the Spring would not come. It was frozen the entire summer. It WAS a nightmare! What does it mean?

Edited on 20-12-2017 16:49
20-12-2017 16:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
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.


Perhaps you should read up on the oxygen/ozone cycle.


Perhaps you should explain yourself instead of hinting that you know things that you don't.


Wake,
Remember that experiment that I'm pursuing ? It will probably happen in 2018. It's not easy asking scientists to consider a different explanation for how atmospheric forcing happens in the tropopause and stratosphere. I can't expect them to take my word for it.
It's possible that as the ozone layer became depleted that it reflected less UV-B solar radiation. And that might be why the stratosphere has cooled.
They do say that as the stratosphere cools that the troposphere warms. and if my experiment does show that atmospheric forcing happens that is not known now then that could get some scientists to reconsider how that part of our atmosphere works differently than currently believed.


Jim
20-12-2017 16:40
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
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.


Perhaps you should read up on the oxygen/ozone cycle.


Perhaps you should explain yourself instead of hinting that you know things that you don't.


Wake,
Remember that experiment that I'm pursuing ? It will probably happen in 2018. It's not easy asking scientists to consider a different explanation for how atmospheric forcing happens in the tropopause and stratosphere. I can't expect them to take my word for it.
It's possible that as the ozone layer became depleted that it reflected less UV-B solar radiation. And that might be why the stratosphere has cooled.
They do say that as the stratosphere cools that the troposphere warms. and if my experiment does show that atmospheric forcing happens that is not known now then that could get some scientists to reconsider how that part of our atmosphere works differently than currently believed.


Jim


Well, it sounds like you may accomplish something. Remember that even a negative finding is more data. Good luck.
20-12-2017 23:36
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You made some interesting points, though a little too imaginative for my taste. I prefer the cold, hard truth over pretty pictures of fantasy.

OK..... so no imagination and fantasies. Got it. Does that include dreams?
[quote]GreenMan wrote:About 15 years ago, I decided to abandon my search for the truth about what's going on, and live like everyone else, in denial. It was that night that I saw my home, from a position in space, where I was just hanging out. I heard some guy from behind me say, "that is your home," as I looked at what remained of the eastern seaboard of the US. Nothing but the Blue Ridge and Appalachian Mountains were above water in the southeast. I lived near Aiken, SC at the time, and it was underwater. I could see that the ocean now went where the "Rolling Foothills," where I owned some property, near Greenville, SC. That's a little over a 1,000 foot rise in sea level.

I had a dream a while back that the Earth was a frozen wasteland, and the Spring would not come. It was frozen the entire summer. It WAS a nightmare! What does it mean?


It means that you are a cold hearted person, that will never warm up, Gassy. You will always be like a frozen wasteland, where no one goes. Even your own family will abandon you as you grow old and die.

That will be $25. You can pay the receptionist on the way out. She will give me my $5 cut.

Dreams are sometimes just meaningless adventures through the netherlands of time, but they are usually meant to guide the person down the path which they are chosen, and also to condition the person for their path. Dreams are sometimes prophetic, but at a personal level.

Dreams like the one you mock are a rarity for me. I remembered it because I woke up during it. In fact, it was a two part dream, which began with a view of the continent of Africa. After zooming in, I could see that the whole continent had became a grassland. Then went back to sleep and woke up to the other one, about the oceans.

I wouldn't try to convince anyone that the sea level will change, due to my dream. Or to what level the sea will rise, due to my dream. My dream was not meant for that. There are other avenues of understanding what is going on, without resorting to dreams. That dream was simply meant to affirm to me, and me only, that the research I was doing into prophecy and climate science should continue. So of course, that is what I did, since I'm not in the business of disrespecting God.

Remember, people should always be submissive to God.

The sooner you can figure out how to know what God is telling you, the sooner you can become submissive to God.

Pay attention to your dreams. Learn how to analyze them, and when to analyze them. Write them down, and revisit them occasionally, to see how close your own analysis was. Learn that first, and then you will be ready to walk with one foot in each world.

And, try to keep your dreams and your daytime reality intertwined in harmony, because they are. No, your mommy didn't really hurt you when she spanked you in your dream. But the reason you dreamed of your mommy spanking you was because you didn't understand why your mommy would hurt you. The dream revealed to you that your mommy was a psychopathic serial killer, and was taking her real anxiety out on everyone else, and you should be lucky that she just beat the ever living shit out of you.

With knowing that information, you were able to continue to love your mommy, even though she beat you daily, right after you got off the school bus. And you know, there was always something you did wrong, because you were such a dumb ass little fat boy growing up.

Ok, that is a fantasy. People make up fantasies while they are awake. Sometimes they get an idea or two from a dream, but it is generally during the waken state that stories are created.

Try to separate the two. Dreams are Dreams. Fantasies are Fantasies. One is from the mind of men. The other is from the Mind of God, or sometimes the Mexican Food, or other outside stimuli.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
21-12-2017 05:55
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
GreenMan wrote:
That will be $25. You can pay the receptionist on the way out. She will give me my $5 cut.

You need to raise your cut a bit. After paying the carbon taxes, you can't expect to eat and buy solar panel batteries on those tiny margins!
21-12-2017 16:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That will be $25. You can pay the receptionist on the way out. She will give me my $5 cut.

You need to raise your cut a bit. After paying the carbon taxes, you can't expect to eat and buy solar panel batteries on those tiny margins!


Ouch!
21-12-2017 16:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
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.


Perhaps you should read up on the oxygen/ozone cycle.


Perhaps you should explain yourself instead of hinting that you know things that you don't.


Wake,
Remember that experiment that I'm pursuing ? It will probably happen in 2018. It's not easy asking scientists to consider a different explanation for how atmospheric forcing happens in the tropopause and stratosphere. I can't expect them to take my word for it.
It's possible that as the ozone layer became depleted that it reflected less UV-B solar radiation. And that might be why the stratosphere has cooled.
They do say that as the stratosphere cools that the troposphere warms. and if my experiment does show that atmospheric forcing happens that is not known now then that could get some scientists to reconsider how that part of our atmosphere works differently than currently believed.


Jim


Well, it sounds like you may accomplish something. Remember that even a negative finding is more data. Good luck.


Thanks ! That's kind of how I've been looking at it.
22-12-2017 12:56
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
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.


Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data. So you are caught in yet another total lie, when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart. It's totally impossible. But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about. You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real. Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido? Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
22-12-2017 13:15
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(648)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That will be $25. You can pay the receptionist on the way out. She will give me my $5 cut.

You need to raise your cut a bit. After paying the carbon taxes, you can't expect to eat and buy solar panel batteries on those tiny margins!


She decides what to charge, and what my cut is. And the last time we talked about it, I found out how much it costs to go to the beautician, and to drive a pretty red sports car, and live in a luxury apartment, and eat out every night so she doesn't have to wash dishes and ruin her manicure.

But you know what, I can't complain, because she give me a better cut than she give the real shrink down the hall. And we both make a lot more than those saw bones on down the hall. Seems people would rather just talk about their problems, than actually have them removed permanently.

But now that you mention carbon taxes and batteries. Why did you mention carbon taxes and batteries? I'm thinking those two things are not on you list of priorities. And I'm also thinking that you aren't one of the leaders of your social group [unless you consider your social group as your redneck friends, and not all the people in your community], so you probably won't be leading anyone down the battery trail, before the carbon taxes hit. That of course means, that you will be wishing you had a battery to charge, and a solar panel to charge it with, when the taxes are implemented.

You see, doofus, all a stupid denier can do is delay the inevitable. Eventually, the evidence of warming due to Greenhouse Gas emissions will be so overwhelming, that even you guys know it is true. Well, there is one more thing you could do, if you really, really, really want to avoid paying more taxes. You can pipe the exhaust from your 4X4 into the cab, and enjoy all that good carbon monoxide, which is not a pollutant, by the way. In fact, it is a very powerful sleep aid. You can send yourself off in the comfort of your own pick up truck. Turn on some good tunes, and idle your life away.

I'm thinking you don't have the stones for that, so you might as well get your heart set on paying through the nose for diesel and lectricity.

And don't worry, you don't have to learn how to put a solar generator together. I'll be glad to do that for you, and ship it to your location, ready to work out of the box. And if you are a good boy, I might even sell you a 4 wheel drive electric vehicle, that will climb the highest hills, and allow you to smuggle moonshine.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
22-12-2017 16:18
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(979)
Greenman wrote:
That will be $25. You can pay the receptionist on the way out. She will give me my $5 cut.

You need to raise your cut a bit. After paying the carbon taxes, you can't expect to eat and buy solar panel batteries on those tiny margins!
She decides what to charge, and what my cut is. And the last time we talked about it, I found out how much it costs to go to the beautician, and to drive a pretty red sports car, and live in a luxury apartment, and eat out every night so she doesn't have to wash dishes and ruin her manicure.

I think this is how you would see a perfect federal government....handing down price controls while they get fat and happy.
But you know what, I can't complain, because she give me a better cut than she give the real shrink down the hall. And we both make a lot more than those saw bones on down the hall. Seems people would rather just talk about their problems, than actually have them removed permanently.

I think people these days like to create problems, just so they can try to solve them. Some people actually need a little something like that to feel useful and important. I would suspect Litebeer would fall into this category.
But now that you mention carbon taxes and batteries. Why did you mention carbon taxes and batteries?

Just to tweak your skull full of mush.
I'm thinking those two things are not on you list of priorities.

Nope!
And I'm also thinking that you aren't one of the leaders of your social group [unless you consider your social group as your redneck friends, and not all the people in your community],

Don't have a regular Thurs night social group. I've got some redneck friends and a few high earner friends that live in the city. We all golf/drink/make fun of the warming crowd together a few times a summer. Quite a mix and a lot of fun now and then.
so you probably won't be leading anyone down the battery trail, before the carbon taxes hit. That of course means, that you will be wishing you had a battery to charge, and a solar panel to charge it with, when the taxes are implemented.

You know I deal in foreclosed homes. If the carbon taxes hit as hard as you say they will, it will crush the economy something awful. There will be a wave of foreclosures so big it'll make 2008 look like it was nothing. I'll make so much money I won't have to worry about the cost of electricity.
You see, doofus, all a stupid denier can do is delay the inevitable.

I can't delay the weather any more than you or Obama or Algore, or all 3 of you dufasses put together.
Eventually, the evidence of warming due to Greenhouse Gas emissions will be so overwhelming, that even you guys know it is true.

Wait a minute! I thought the "science was settled".
Well, there is one more thing you could do, if you really, really, really want to avoid paying more taxes. You can pipe the exhaust from your 4X4 into the cab, and enjoy all that good carbon monoxide, which is not a pollutant, by the way.

Monoxide bad. Dioxide good.
In fact, it is a very powerful sleep aid. You can send yourself off in the comfort of your own pick up truck. Turn on some good tunes, and idle your life away.

I can't give you the pleasure of going away...you know that!

I'm thinking you don't have the stones for that, so you might as well get your heart set on paying through the nose for diesel and lectricity
.
Let me spell this out for you.
If high carbon taxes come to reality, it'll crush the economy, and I'll make shitloads of money.
I love this country and my family way more than I love truckloads of money.
So even though I would benefit greatly from a crushing tax, it's a bad idea.
I might even sell you a 4 wheel drive electric vehicle, that will climb the highest hills, and allow you to smuggle moonshine.

OK by me as long as there is an outlet at the top of the hill to recharge my battery....or do I need to bring a gas burning generator? That IS
how a lot of electricity is made. Isn't it?

Edited on 22-12-2017 16:21
22-12-2017 17:42
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
GreenMan 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.


Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data. So you are caught in yet another total lie, when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart. It's totally impossible. But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about. You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real. Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido? Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?


Look, I shouldn't get angry with you but you continue to abuse available information. All of the temperature records in the US were set in the 30's. And we had more warm spells in the 50's. As I noted - El Nino is a perfectly common occurrence and it can cause the ice to disappear as far north as the pole.

Since this is a common occurrence of what importance is the change in albedo? It has occurred before and all it took was a La Nina to move warm air further south for the northern regions to freeze over again.

It appears that we have warmed since 1880. But we can't tell how much because NASA has counterfeited the records for reasons not very clear. Presently the satellite records from 1979 to present is dramatically different than the NASA released records. What's more - if there IS CO2 caused warming it would mean that the middle troposphere would be a LOT warmer than it presently is.

What we need to do is investigate what occurred and the people responsible should be gravely punished.
22-12-2017 19:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
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.


Perhaps you should read up on the oxygen/ozone cycle.


Perhaps you should explain yourself instead of hinting that you know things that you don't.

Perhaps you should actually take the time to read up on it, since you don't listen to me.


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2017 19:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
GreenMan wrote:
You made some interesting points, though a little too imaginative for my taste. I prefer the cold, hard truth over pretty pictures of fantasy.

No, you prefer your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
You think that people who are aware of the future of our planet are "paranoid,"

You are NOT aware of the future of our planet.
GreenMan wrote:
for doing anything to prevent their own demise.

That is paranoid.
GreenMan wrote:
Just because paranoid people sometimes do harbor feelings of doom, it doesn't mean that everyone who knows the planet's future is paranoid,

You don't know the planet's future. You are paranoid.
GreenMan wrote:
just because they know that it's going to continue getting hotter.

You don't.
GreenMan wrote:
So you can't really make that connection.

I can easily make that connection.
GreenMan wrote:
On the one hand, you have a person that doesn't really know why he or she has feelings of doom, they just do.

Like you?
GreenMan wrote:
On the other hand, you have a person that knows the planet is heating up and that will lead to doom. That is not paranoia, that is logical thinking. Ignoring danger, on the other hand, is insanity, even worse than paranoia.

That is not logical thinking. That is paranoia.
GreenMan wrote:
You also have a possible misunderstanding of how much water is locked away in land bound glaciers around the world.

Okay. Here's the big question for you: How much water is locked away in land bound glaciers around the world? What do you think will happen to most of it if it all melts?
GreenMan wrote:
Or perhaps you think that 1,000 feet of sea level rise "isn't much."

There isn't enough water.
GreenMan wrote:
About 15 years ago, I decided to abandon my search for the truth about what's going on, and live like everyone else, in denial.

What??? You abandoned your religion for awhile?
GreenMan wrote:
It was that night that I saw my home, from a position in space, where I was just hanging out. I heard some guy from behind me say, "that is your home," as I looked at what remained of the eastern seaboard of the US. Nothing but the Blue Ridge and Appalachian Mountains were above water in the southeast. I lived near Aiken, SC at the time, and it was underwater. I could see that the ocean now went where the "Rolling Foothills," where I owned some property, near Greenville, SC. That's a little over a 1,000 foot rise in sea level. Of course, I went right back to figuring out what was going on.

So your entire religion is based on a dream you had?
GreenMan wrote:
And eventually found out that the 1,000 rise I saw in my dream, is what many scientists believe the sea level would go to if all the ice melted.

Any scientist saying that is full of hooey. Science is not consensus. Science is not credentials. Science is not even scientists.
GreenMan wrote:
And yes, I am aware that the ice came from the oceans. But I can't figure out why you think that is relevant.

It is time to realize how it got there.
GreenMan wrote:
Surely you are not trying to claim that if all the glaciers on the planet melted, that the sea level would not increase.

Just how much water is locked away in land glaciers? Hmmmmm?
GreenMan wrote:
You are also fixated on your notion that the planet's temperature can't be measured accurately enough to be used.

I keep pointing it out along with my other statements. That is not fixation. This particular point is because the math just doesn't add up.
GreenMan wrote:
That's not really an excuse to ignore what people who study the earth's climate are telling us about it.

Yes it is. If the math doesn't work, the math doesn't work. No scientist can override the rules of mathematics, though many have tried.
GreenMan wrote:
It makes you look pompous in doing so.

Ask me if I care.
GreenMan wrote:
You're not even remotely a scientist,

But I am.
GreenMan wrote:
and you don't work on any kind of research into the earth's climate.

There is no such thing as a climate for Earth. There is no such thing as a weather of Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
So who are you, to be trying to judge the work of people who are so far above you?

No one is above or below me. I am slave to no man, and no man is my slave.
GreenMan wrote:
You have no credibility,

You do not have the authority to determine that except for your own view. I already knew I had no credibility with you. Ask me if I care.
GreenMan wrote:
and you prove over and over what a denier of reality you truly are,

Don't try philosophy, you suck at science, math, and logic.
GreenMan wrote:
as you accuse others of denying science, math, and whatever else it is that you are preaching [none of which is science or math].

The rules of statistical math is math. The laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is science. You DENY all of it.
GreenMan wrote:
You are proud of the accomplishments of humanity over the last couple hundred years.

Why wouldn't I be?
GreenMan wrote:
People have raised their standard of living tremendously, and now peasants live better than kings used to.

And that's a problem?
GreenMan wrote:
You are lavishing in the lifestyle that you have become accustomed to, and you don't want to stop.

Why stop?
GreenMan wrote:
Nobody blames you for that, including myself.

Liar. You are blaming me even now.
GreenMan wrote:
But you need to take a look around, and see the big picture.

I have.
GreenMan wrote:
If you could ever get what we are going into, into your mind, then you would gladly learn to get by without some of the things you now consider as necessary.

I don't need to 'get by without'. Who are YOU to determine what is 'necessary'? You are not dictator of the world.
GreenMan wrote:
And who knows, if you could see clearly enough, you might even see if you can share my path.

I don't want to. You might as well not try to convert me. I am the devil of your religion. I abhor your religion. I will continue to fight your religion.


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2017 19:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
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.


Perhaps you should read up on the oxygen/ozone cycle.


Perhaps you should explain yourself instead of hinting that you know things that you don't.

Perhaps you should actually take the time to read up on it, since you don't listen to me.


Perhaps you should actually explain yourself instead of your mindless "No it isn't".
22-12-2017 19:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data.

I already knew this. It is because your 'data' is just manufactured numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
So you are caught in yet another total lie,

Inversion fallacy. Making up data IS lying.
GreenMan wrote:
when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart.

He didn't. He doesn't know statistical math.
GreenMan wrote:
It's totally impossible.

No, it's totally possible, just pointless.
GreenMan wrote:
But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

He has a lot more competence than you here. He correctly pointed out that your dates are not significant.
GreenMan wrote:
And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about.

I will call this argument 1).
GreenMan wrote:
You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I will call this argument 2). Welcome to your new paradox.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real.

You should stay away from what 'real' is. The word 'real' to you is just a buzzword.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

People have regularly sailed through the Northwest passage, now that we know how to navigate it. I believe there's even a cruise ship now that sails that channel. I'll have to look up which cruise line it is.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido?

So...the Earth is warming because it has already warmed? Do you have ANY idea how much energy it would take to melt the polar ice??? No one knows the emissivity of Earth. Let's say the albedo drops at the pole. Since the pole receives such little sunlight, what's the diff?
GreenMan wrote:
Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?

Perhaps you should understand also that if albedo drops, emissivity rises. Emissivity is the inverse of albedo.


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2017 20:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan 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.


Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data. So you are caught in yet another total lie, when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart. It's totally impossible. But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about. You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real. Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido? Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?


Look, I shouldn't get angry with you but you continue to abuse available information. All of the temperature records in the US were set in the 30's. And we had more warm spells in the 50's. As I noted - El Nino is a perfectly common occurrence and it can cause the ice to disappear as far north as the pole.

A few details are wrong here. We've had records set during any year. We've had warm spells during any year also. NONE of it means a whit to global temperatures. The records that are set are set at the stations measuring the temperature, not the world. The warm spells we get are measured at the stations, not the world. El Nino has been around as long as the Pacific ocean itself. You are correct that it is a perfectly common occurrence. Whether it can be blamed for the melting of ice at a pole is making a hasty conclusion (a fallacy).
Wake wrote:
Since this is a common occurrence of what importance is the change in albedo? It has occurred before and all it took was a La Nina to move warm air further south for the northern regions to freeze over again.

No, all it took was winter approaching.
Wake wrote:
It appears that we have warmed since 1880.

You don't know that. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
But we can't tell how much because NASA has counterfeited the records for reasons not very clear.

Counterfeited? No, synthesized from the thick air of propaganda would be a better word.
Wake wrote:
Presently the satellite records from 1979 to present is dramatically different than the NASA released records.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. We do no know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
What's more - if there IS CO2 caused warming it would mean that the middle troposphere would be a LOT warmer than it presently is.

Why?
Wake wrote:
What we need to do is investigate what occurred and the people responsible should be gravely punished.

So...punish people for their religion?? Isn't there a law about that somewhere in the United States?


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2017 20:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data.

I already knew this. It is because your 'data' is just manufactured numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
So you are caught in yet another total lie,

Inversion fallacy. Making up data IS lying.
GreenMan wrote:
when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart.

He didn't. He doesn't know statistical math.
GreenMan wrote:
It's totally impossible.

No, it's totally possible, just pointless.
GreenMan wrote:
But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

He has a lot more competence than you here. He correctly pointed out that your dates are not significant.
GreenMan wrote:
And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about.

I will call this argument 1).
GreenMan wrote:
You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I will call this argument 2). Welcome to your new paradox.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real.

You should stay away from what 'real' is. The word 'real' to you is just a buzzword.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

People have regularly sailed through the Northwest passage, now that we know how to navigate it. I believe there's even a cruise ship now that sails that channel. I'll have to look up which cruise line it is.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido?

So...the Earth is warming because it has already warmed? Do you have ANY idea how much energy it would take to melt the polar ice??? No one knows the emissivity of Earth. Let's say the albedo drops at the pole. Since the pole receives such little sunlight, what's the diff?
GreenMan wrote:
Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?

Perhaps you should understand also that if albedo drops, emissivity rises. Emissivity is the inverse of albedo.


As with the rest of your BS I'm waiting for you to define statistical analysis and how it is any different than what I performed on a chart. It doesn't matter in the least that the chart was accurate or not - it was being presented as accurate. And the analysis of it showed that it did not mean what Greenman thought it did.

And you haven't any idea what I did. So I'll ask you a second time - what is statistical math in your very tiny mind?
22-12-2017 20:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan 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.


Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data. So you are caught in yet another total lie, when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart. It's totally impossible. But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about. You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real. Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido? Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?


Look, I shouldn't get angry with you but you continue to abuse available information. All of the temperature records in the US were set in the 30's. And we had more warm spells in the 50's. As I noted - El Nino is a perfectly common occurrence and it can cause the ice to disappear as far north as the pole.

A few details are wrong here. We've had records set during any year. We've had warm spells during any year also. NONE of it means a whit to global temperatures. The records that are set are set at the stations measuring the temperature, not the world. The warm spells we get are measured at the stations, not the world. El Nino has been around as long as the Pacific ocean itself. You are correct that it is a perfectly common occurrence. Whether it can be blamed for the melting of ice at a pole is making a hasty conclusion (a fallacy).
Wake wrote:
Since this is a common occurrence of what importance is the change in albedo? It has occurred before and all it took was a La Nina to move warm air further south for the northern regions to freeze over again.

No, all it took was winter approaching.
Wake wrote:
It appears that we have warmed since 1880.

You don't know that. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
But we can't tell how much because NASA has counterfeited the records for reasons not very clear.

Counterfeited? No, synthesized from the thick air of propaganda would be a better word.
Wake wrote:
Presently the satellite records from 1979 to present is dramatically different than the NASA released records.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. We do no know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
What's more - if there IS CO2 caused warming it would mean that the middle troposphere would be a LOT warmer than it presently is.

Why?
Wake wrote:
What we need to do is investigate what occurred and the people responsible should be gravely punished.

So...punish people for their religion?? Isn't there a law about that somewhere in the United States?


You grow more and more strange by the second. Temperatures, rainfall, average humidity, and atmospheric pressure stay within record bounds for almost everyone all of the time. The very FACT that they advertise new records should tell you something but you apparently aren't perceptive enough to know that.

There isn't one scientist in the entire world that denies mean global temperature can be measured and the means to do so. There is only argument about fake methods of declaring it for political purposes. And yet you believe that you know much more than any atmospheric scientist. You are simply beyond belief. Your claims that "you cannot measure mean global temperature" is a mental dysfunction.

Can you explain the difference between counterfeiting and synthesized? One is an active act of distorting the record while the other could be merely nothing more than making mistaken analysis. All data is synthesized from records. This isn't any such thing as mistaken analysis. This is a perfectly systematic criminal act done to provoke a response positive to a specific political group.
22-12-2017 21:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data.

I already knew this. It is because your 'data' is just manufactured numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
So you are caught in yet another total lie,

Inversion fallacy. Making up data IS lying.
GreenMan wrote:
when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart.

He didn't. He doesn't know statistical math.
GreenMan wrote:
It's totally impossible.

No, it's totally possible, just pointless.
GreenMan wrote:
But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

He has a lot more competence than you here. He correctly pointed out that your dates are not significant.
GreenMan wrote:
And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about.

I will call this argument 1).
GreenMan wrote:
You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I will call this argument 2). Welcome to your new paradox.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real.

You should stay away from what 'real' is. The word 'real' to you is just a buzzword.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

People have regularly sailed through the Northwest passage, now that we know how to navigate it. I believe there's even a cruise ship now that sails that channel. I'll have to look up which cruise line it is.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido?

So...the Earth is warming because it has already warmed? Do you have ANY idea how much energy it would take to melt the polar ice??? No one knows the emissivity of Earth. Let's say the albedo drops at the pole. Since the pole receives such little sunlight, what's the diff?
GreenMan wrote:
Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?

Perhaps you should understand also that if albedo drops, emissivity rises. Emissivity is the inverse of albedo.


As with the rest of your BS I'm waiting for you to define statistical analysis and how it is any different than what I performed on a chart. It doesn't matter in the least that the chart was accurate or not - it was being presented as accurate. And the analysis of it showed that it did not mean what Greenman thought it did.

And you haven't any idea what I did. So I'll ask you a second time - what is statistical math in your very tiny mind?


Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2017 21:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan 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.


Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data. So you are caught in yet another total lie, when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart. It's totally impossible. But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about. You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real. Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido? Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?


Look, I shouldn't get angry with you but you continue to abuse available information. All of the temperature records in the US were set in the 30's. And we had more warm spells in the 50's. As I noted - El Nino is a perfectly common occurrence and it can cause the ice to disappear as far north as the pole.

A few details are wrong here. We've had records set during any year. We've had warm spells during any year also. NONE of it means a whit to global temperatures. The records that are set are set at the stations measuring the temperature, not the world. The warm spells we get are measured at the stations, not the world. El Nino has been around as long as the Pacific ocean itself. You are correct that it is a perfectly common occurrence. Whether it can be blamed for the melting of ice at a pole is making a hasty conclusion (a fallacy).
Wake wrote:
Since this is a common occurrence of what importance is the change in albedo? It has occurred before and all it took was a La Nina to move warm air further south for the northern regions to freeze over again.

No, all it took was winter approaching.
Wake wrote:
It appears that we have warmed since 1880.

You don't know that. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
But we can't tell how much because NASA has counterfeited the records for reasons not very clear.

Counterfeited? No, synthesized from the thick air of propaganda would be a better word.
Wake wrote:
Presently the satellite records from 1979 to present is dramatically different than the NASA released records.

Satellites are incapable of measuring temperature. They can only measure light. We do no know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
What's more - if there IS CO2 caused warming it would mean that the middle troposphere would be a LOT warmer than it presently is.

Why?
Wake wrote:
What we need to do is investigate what occurred and the people responsible should be gravely punished.

So...punish people for their religion?? Isn't there a law about that somewhere in the United States?


...deleted Mantra 1... Temperatures, rainfall, average humidity, and atmospheric pressure stay within record bounds for almost everyone all of the time.

Never said they didn't.
Wake wrote:
The very FACT that they advertise new records should tell you something but you apparently aren't perceptive enough to know that.

Conclusion from false premise.
Wake wrote:
There isn't one scientist in the entire world that denies mean global temperature can be measured and the means to do so.

Argument of ignorance and argument of the Stone. Sorry, but anyone claiming this is making a math error.
Wake wrote:
There is only argument about fake methods of declaring it for political purposes.

Declaring fake data for political purposes is the same argument. Here we agree.
Wake wrote:
And yet you believe that you know much more than any atmospheric scientist.

Not a science problem. A math problem.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 1...2...
[quote]Wake wrote:
Your claims that "you cannot measure mean global temperature" is a mental dysfunction.

Math is not a mental dysfunction.
Wake wrote:
Can you explain the difference between counterfeiting and synthesized?

Sure. Counterfeiting is copying existing something that exists and using it as if it were the original. Synthesizing is the creation of something usually out of some component parts.

The 'data' at the IPCC, NOAA, and NASA (which only copy each other), is fabricated from random numbers. It is synthesized. There is no global temperature data. There never has been. There still isn't.

Wake wrote:
One is an active act of distorting the record while the other could be merely nothing more than making mistaken analysis.

There is no record to distort. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
Wake wrote:
All data is synthesized from records.

WRONG. Data is an observation. It is a measurement. It is not synthesized at all.
Wake wrote:
This isn't any such thing as mistaken analysis.

There isn't? YOU sure did one! YOU tried to analyze his charts and call it statistical math. It isn't.
Wake wrote:
This is a perfectly systematic criminal act

What law was broken?
Wake wrote:
done to provoke a response positive to a specific political group.

That's illegal now??? What about the gun lobby? What about the anti-tax folks? What about building a high speed rail between L.A. and San Francisco? What about marches or protests?

ALL of these use techniques to provoke a response positive to a specific political group!


The Parrot Killer
22-12-2017 23:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I did provide a chart. And it is impossible for anyone to extract the original data from that chart, or any other chart, and do any kind of analysis on that data.

I already knew this. It is because your 'data' is just manufactured numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
So you are caught in yet another total lie,

Inversion fallacy. Making up data IS lying.
GreenMan wrote:
when you said you ran a statistical analysis on that chart.

He didn't. He doesn't know statistical math.
GreenMan wrote:
It's totally impossible.

No, it's totally possible, just pointless.
GreenMan wrote:
But what is even more amazing is that you are so incompetent mentally, that you didn't even know that.

He has a lot more competence than you here. He correctly pointed out that your dates are not significant.
GreenMan wrote:
And the rest of your argument is almost equally lame. You think you can twist what I said into something about ice in the polar region disappearing, and that because it has disappeared before, that this is nothing to worry about.

I will call this argument 1).
GreenMan wrote:
You apparently don't understand that this thread is about rapid heating in the polar region. And the possible reasons why. One of the probable reasons we are seeing a rapid increase in temperature there is because the earth's albeido is changing due to less ice.

I will call this argument 2). Welcome to your new paradox.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't really think that because it has done that before, that it isn't real.

You should stay away from what 'real' is. The word 'real' to you is just a buzzword.
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, we are all aware that it did get quite warm during the 1930s, and it would stand to reason that the ice receded back then too. And perhaps even before then, someone sailed through the North Pole in a rubber dingy. It's not relevant to what we are discussing.

People have regularly sailed through the Northwest passage, now that we know how to navigate it. I believe there's even a cruise ship now that sails that channel. I'll have to look up which cruise line it is.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you would like to take a more direct approach, and deny that ice loss changes the earth's albeido?

So...the Earth is warming because it has already warmed? Do you have ANY idea how much energy it would take to melt the polar ice??? No one knows the emissivity of Earth. Let's say the albedo drops at the pole. Since the pole receives such little sunlight, what's the diff?
GreenMan wrote:
Or is that too much like what your other Parrot denier would do?

Perhaps you should understand also that if albedo drops, emissivity rises. Emissivity is the inverse of albedo.


As with the rest of your BS I'm waiting for you to define statistical analysis and how it is any different than what I performed on a chart. It doesn't matter in the least that the chart was accurate or not - it was being presented as accurate. And the analysis of it showed that it did not mean what Greenman thought it did.

And you haven't any idea what I did. So I'll ask you a second time - what is statistical math in your very tiny mind?


Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.


Then you won't mind supplying a link to this explanation of yours. You know you can't get away by ignoring questions for a month and then saying you already answered it. There is NO difference between "statistical math" and any other. The ONLY difference is the manner in which it is presented. But I don't expect a moron to understand that and your F-ing playing with words doesn't change a thing.
23-12-2017 01:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.

Then you won't mind supplying a link to this explanation of yours.

Actually, I DO mind. You go look for it yourself. I'm tired of supporting your lazy ass. You even responded to them. Your usual response was something along the lines of a 'big book of words'. In other words, you discarded it without counterargument. Discarding an argument without counterargument is an argument of the Stone. A fallacy is not an argument or a counterargument.
Wake wrote:
You know you can't get away by ignoring questions for a month

You haven't asked any questions. You only make stupid statements that need correcting over and over.
Wake wrote:
and then saying you already answered it.

I have...multiple times...in detail...to you and others.
Wake wrote:
There is NO difference between "statistical math" and any other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really ARE an ignorant one, aren't you?!?

Why the hell are there different branches in mathematics at all, dumbass?
Wake wrote:
The ONLY difference is the manner in which it is presented.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...5...1...

WRONG. Presentation is not part of mathematics at all.

Considering your continued use of lies, threats, and insults, you are making a TERRIBLE presentation of your arguments.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-12-2017 01:53
23-12-2017 01:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.

Then you won't mind supplying a link to this explanation of yours.

Actually, I DO mind. You go look for it yourself. I'm tired of supporting your lazy ass. You even responded to them. Your usual response was something along the lines of a 'big book of words'. In other words, you discarded it without counterargument. Discarding an argument without counterargument is an argument of the Stone. A fallacy is not an argument or a counterargument.
Wake wrote:
You know you can't get away by ignoring questions for a month

You haven't asked any questions. You only make stupid statements that need correcting over and over.
Wake wrote:
and then saying you already answered it.

I have...multiple times...in detail...to you and others.
Wake wrote:
There is NO difference between "statistical math" and any other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really ARE an ignorant one, aren't you?!?

Why the hell are there different branches in mathematics at all, dumbass?
Wake wrote:
The ONLY difference is the manner in which it is presented.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...5...1...

WRONG. Presentation is not part of mathematics at all.

Considering your continued use of lies, threats, and insults, you are making a TERRIBLE presentation of your arguments.


Ahhh - there it is again - you have never ONCE given an explanation of anything you have to say. You must believe that God's words spring from you mouth. You are a useless and worthless liar. You know so damn little that I'm really surprised that you can spell.

"Presentation is not part of mathematics" More idiocy from the mouth of God. You had said that you know Calculus and plainly that statement proves you an utter liar.
23-12-2017 03:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.

Then you won't mind supplying a link to this explanation of yours.

Actually, I DO mind. You go look for it yourself. I'm tired of supporting your lazy ass. You even responded to them. Your usual response was something along the lines of a 'big book of words'. In other words, you discarded it without counterargument. Discarding an argument without counterargument is an argument of the Stone. A fallacy is not an argument or a counterargument.
Wake wrote:
You know you can't get away by ignoring questions for a month

You haven't asked any questions. You only make stupid statements that need correcting over and over.
Wake wrote:
and then saying you already answered it.

I have...multiple times...in detail...to you and others.
Wake wrote:
There is NO difference between "statistical math" and any other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really ARE an ignorant one, aren't you?!?

Why the hell are there different branches in mathematics at all, dumbass?
Wake wrote:
The ONLY difference is the manner in which it is presented.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...5...1...

WRONG. Presentation is not part of mathematics at all.

Considering your continued use of lies, threats, and insults, you are making a TERRIBLE presentation of your arguments.


Ahhh - there it is again - you have never ONCE given an explanation of anything you have to say.

Liar. I have explained everything I say. I have explained it to YOU also. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur...Mantra 1...5...2...1...
"Presentation is not part of mathematics" ...deleted Mantra 1...non-sequitur... You had said that you know Calculus and plainly that statement proves you...deleted Mantra 5...

Calculus is not a presentation. It is a branch of mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2017 06:47
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.

Then you won't mind supplying a link to this explanation of yours.

Actually, I DO mind. You go look for it yourself. I'm tired of supporting your lazy ass. You even responded to them. Your usual response was something along the lines of a 'big book of words'. In other words, you discarded it without counterargument. Discarding an argument without counterargument is an argument of the Stone. A fallacy is not an argument or a counterargument.
Wake wrote:
You know you can't get away by ignoring questions for a month

You haven't asked any questions. You only make stupid statements that need correcting over and over.
Wake wrote:
and then saying you already answered it.

I have...multiple times...in detail...to you and others.
Wake wrote:
There is NO difference between "statistical math" and any other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really ARE an ignorant one, aren't you?!?

Why the hell are there different branches in mathematics at all, dumbass?
Wake wrote:
The ONLY difference is the manner in which it is presented.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...5...1...

WRONG. Presentation is not part of mathematics at all.

Considering your continued use of lies, threats, and insults, you are making a TERRIBLE presentation of your arguments.


Ahhh - there it is again - you have never ONCE given an explanation of anything you have to say.

Liar. I have explained everything I say. I have explained it to YOU also. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur...Mantra 1...5...2...1...
"Presentation is not part of mathematics" ...deleted Mantra 1...non-sequitur... You had said that you know Calculus and plainly that statement proves you...deleted Mantra 5...

Calculus is not a presentation. It is a branch of mathematics.


You have never once explained anything because you couldn't. "Calculus is not a presentation. It is a branch of mathematics." Argument of the Stone. You could make a moron look intelligent. The only one here with less brains that you is litebrain who loves holding conversations with himself. You would but you don't have anything of worth to say.
23-12-2017 19:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.

Then you won't mind supplying a link to this explanation of yours.

Actually, I DO mind. You go look for it yourself. I'm tired of supporting your lazy ass. You even responded to them. Your usual response was something along the lines of a 'big book of words'. In other words, you discarded it without counterargument. Discarding an argument without counterargument is an argument of the Stone. A fallacy is not an argument or a counterargument.
Wake wrote:
You know you can't get away by ignoring questions for a month

You haven't asked any questions. You only make stupid statements that need correcting over and over.
Wake wrote:
and then saying you already answered it.

I have...multiple times...in detail...to you and others.
Wake wrote:
There is NO difference between "statistical math" and any other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really ARE an ignorant one, aren't you?!?

Why the hell are there different branches in mathematics at all, dumbass?
Wake wrote:
The ONLY difference is the manner in which it is presented.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...5...1...

WRONG. Presentation is not part of mathematics at all.

Considering your continued use of lies, threats, and insults, you are making a TERRIBLE presentation of your arguments.


Ahhh - there it is again - you have never ONCE given an explanation of anything you have to say.

Liar. I have explained everything I say. I have explained it to YOU also. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur...Mantra 1...5...2...1...
"Presentation is not part of mathematics" ...deleted Mantra 1...non-sequitur... You had said that you know Calculus and plainly that statement proves you...deleted Mantra 5...

Calculus is not a presentation. It is a branch of mathematics.


You have never once explained anything because you couldn't.
...deleted redundancy...Mantra 1...2...1...1...1...1...5...1...

I already have multiple times. You continue to make the argument of the Stone. You continue lie. You apparently have nothing to say but insults anymore.


The Parrot Killer
23-12-2017 20:13
Wake
★★★★★
(3353)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.

Then you won't mind supplying a link to this explanation of yours.

Actually, I DO mind. You go look for it yourself. I'm tired of supporting your lazy ass. You even responded to them. Your usual response was something along the lines of a 'big book of words'. In other words, you discarded it without counterargument. Discarding an argument without counterargument is an argument of the Stone. A fallacy is not an argument or a counterargument.
Wake wrote:
You know you can't get away by ignoring questions for a month

You haven't asked any questions. You only make stupid statements that need correcting over and over.
Wake wrote:
and then saying you already answered it.

I have...multiple times...in detail...to you and others.
Wake wrote:
There is NO difference between "statistical math" and any other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really ARE an ignorant one, aren't you?!?

Why the hell are there different branches in mathematics at all, dumbass?
Wake wrote:
The ONLY difference is the manner in which it is presented.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...5...1...

WRONG. Presentation is not part of mathematics at all.

Considering your continued use of lies, threats, and insults, you are making a TERRIBLE presentation of your arguments.


Ahhh - there it is again - you have never ONCE given an explanation of anything you have to say.

Liar. I have explained everything I say. I have explained it to YOU also. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur...Mantra 1...5...2...1...
"Presentation is not part of mathematics" ...deleted Mantra 1...non-sequitur... You had said that you know Calculus and plainly that statement proves you...deleted Mantra 5...

Calculus is not a presentation. It is a branch of mathematics.


You have never once explained anything because you couldn't.
...deleted redundancy...Mantra 1...2...1...1...1...1...5...1...

I already have multiple times. You continue to make the argument of the Stone. You continue lie. You apparently have nothing to say but insults anymore.


There is nothing to say to someone who is so sciency that they deny the entire atmospheric science of measuring MGT. There is nothing to say to someone that thinks that will accuse someone of being a "warmist" because they disagree with you.

You are a moron and you deserve nothing but insults. None of them will ever get through to you because you aren't bright enough to understand them.
23-12-2017 21:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5247)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Argument of the Stone. I have already explained this multiple times to you.

Then you won't mind supplying a link to this explanation of yours.

Actually, I DO mind. You go look for it yourself. I'm tired of supporting your lazy ass. You even responded to them. Your usual response was something along the lines of a 'big book of words'. In other words, you discarded it without counterargument. Discarding an argument without counterargument is an argument of the Stone. A fallacy is not an argument or a counterargument.
Wake wrote:
You know you can't get away by ignoring questions for a month

You haven't asked any questions. You only make stupid statements that need correcting over and over.
Wake wrote:
and then saying you already answered it.

I have...multiple times...in detail...to you and others.
Wake wrote:
There is NO difference between "statistical math" and any other.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You really ARE an ignorant one, aren't you?!?

Why the hell are there different branches in mathematics at all, dumbass?
Wake wrote:
The ONLY difference is the manner in which it is presented.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...5...1...

WRONG. Presentation is not part of mathematics at all.

Considering your continued use of lies, threats, and insults, you are making a TERRIBLE presentation of your arguments.


Ahhh - there it is again - you have never ONCE given an explanation of anything you have to say.

Liar. I have explained everything I say. I have explained it to YOU also. Argument of the Stone.
Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur...Mantra 1...5...2...1...
"Presentation is not part of mathematics" ...deleted Mantra 1...non-sequitur... You had said that you know Calculus and plainly that statement proves you...deleted Mantra 5...

Calculus is not a presentation. It is a branch of mathematics.


You have never once explained anything because you couldn't.
...deleted redundancy...Mantra 1...2...1...1...1...1...5...1...

I already have multiple times. You continue to make the argument of the Stone. You continue lie. You apparently have nothing to say but insults anymore.


There is nothing to say to someone who is so sciency that they deny the entire atmospheric science of measuring MGT. There is nothing to say to someone that thinks that will accuse someone of being a "warmist" because they disagree with you.

You are a moron and you deserve nothing but insults. None of them will ever get through to you because you aren't bright enough to understand them.


Q.E.D. Thank you for demonstrating what I just said so well.


The Parrot Killer
Page 9 of 9<<<789





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