Climate Data 800,000 years

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.

You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?

That's right, my sleepy friend, I haven't looked at them to "see how implausible they are." How did you guess that?

No, I looked at them to see if there was any chance that could enlighten me on how our Planetary Climate Control System worked.

So why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think is implausible about any of the graphs.

They are manufactured data. They don't mean anything.

In a way they are manufactured data, because I didn't use any raw data. I had to average the raw data so it would line up in time with other data, which was also averaged. But if you are saying that the raw data from the ice was manufactured then I think you are in error.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... how implausible....

We already know how implausible the mathematics of "wake-me-up" are. "wake-me-up" can't even get exponents right.

His obvious lack of talent in understanding mathematics makes me wonder why he is in the forum, because understanding Climate requires a LOT of mathematical skills. But he is good to have around, since he provides quite a lot of opportunity to laugh.

Climate is weather 'over a long time'. What mathematical skills are there in climate???

You left out a word, Professor. You need to ask, "What mathematical skills are there in understanding climate?". Then I can answer your question. But you don't need the answer now, do you? Ok, just in case you are that dim. You have to understand math [just very basic stuff, like exponents, addition, and division] to mentally visualize how several components act together, each with his own little piece, to force a particular outcome, which can be calculated with math and proven with comparison to actual results. For example, warming of our planet starts with warmth from the sun. You have to subtract a certain amount of warmth from the average output of the sun though to account for how much dust is in the air, because it blocks some of that warmth. So you have to figure out how much warmth is blocked because of the dust. Then you have to add a little warmth to that result to account for the amount of greenhouse gases are present, because greenhouse gases absorb heat radiation from earth and reradiate back. Determining both the greenhouse gas and the dust forcing requires that you understand how exponents work, and how division works. So I'm thinking you can finally get there, if you open your mind to the possibility that you could have been mistaken about some things. But people like Wake will never be able to really comprehend how such a minute amount of something can do anything [except keep the whole world alive].

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.

In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim

Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.

Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

GreenMan wrote:
NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet.

GreenMan wrote:
So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.

In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim

Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.

Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet. So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

You really are a loser aren't you? Is that why you chose the profession you are in? Do you like seeing other people who are bigger losers than you? Does that make you feel better about yourself, when you are throwing some poor smuck out of your bosses new home?

No wonder you threaten people. You are too stupid to win any other way. Do you still beat your wife, or did she finally get out of there?

It isn't in the least bit surprising that you don't even catch the faintest idea what I'm talking about.

I especially like you "continental shift". Did they teach you that in grade school?

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.

In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim

Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.

While a valid point, why would an ice form in warmer climates in the first place? What are you getting your core from?

Not really sure if you are asking the idiot or me.

GreenMan wrote:
I think he gets his ice from the fridge. I got mine from Antarctica, because I like the special kind. It adds flavor to my drinks that is out of this world. I think it might be the dinosaur piss.

GreenMan wrote:
Ice i[f>s] forming down there now, even as we speak, because it's in the southern hemisphere and is enjoying Winter now.

GreenMan wrote:
Next spring, the Church of AGW will be all out in force talking about how much more ice there is down there now, compared to last year.

GreenMan wrote:
It's so cold down there that you still need a jacket on, even in the middle of Summer.

GreenMan wrote:
But the record only goes back to about a million years, so we know that at some time in the past, there was no ice there.

GreenMan wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: What mathematical skills are there in climate???

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" agrees it has no mathematical skills.

ROFLMAO

Thank you litesong. I needed a good laugh.

And you are probably right. If a person doesn't have math skills then they aren't what is considered "intelligent," because intelligence requires problem solving skills. These parrots we play with are just walking talking textbooks, spouting out whatever their masters have told them to spout.

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.

In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical.


Jim

Jim, they do know what the primary cause of warming is. I don't mean to sound like a smart ass, but it's the Sun. Our orbit does vary over time, as you suggest, but not necessarily because of ice build up. I'm not saying that it doesn't affect it, just saying that it doesn't really matter, because the orbital variation is already there. The Milankovitch Affect is an accepted theory by most people now [anyone hollar if the don't agree that the earth's orbit varies], and we know with certainty that we go through periods of more and less warmth from the sun, as shown in this graph.

You can see that the varying heat from the sun does influence the earth's climate. But you can also see that there must be something else going on, because the earth's climate doesn't track insolation [heat from the sun] very well. It should, if insolation were the only variable in driving the earth's climate.

GreenMan wrote:
Those researchers you mention are correct, there is more to the driving forces behind our climate, and CO2 does lag behind a natural warming period by about 800 years. That IMO is being caused by a proliferation of animal life, due to the warming. The animals produce CO2, which adds to the additional warming from the sun.

GreenMan wrote:
The CO2 then aids the sun in warming the planet, so it gets even warmer.

GreenMan wrote:...deleted long rambling...I know that without having to take anyone's word for it, because I worked out the mathematical equation that determines what the climate of the planet should be, based on insolation, dust, and greenhouse gases.

GreenMan wrote:
You can see from the graph below, that the model I built closely follows the actual climate of the planet.

GreenMan wrote:
The maximum deviation from actual is about 3C, and there are some repeating cases of when the earth cooled quicker than the model calculates.

GreenMan wrote:
So I know that there is some other variable that if also influencing the climate. I suspect it has to do with water vapor, but have no way of determining what changes water vapor might be going through.
...deleted graph of random numbers...

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.

In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim

Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.

Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet. So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

You really are a loser aren't you? Is that why you chose the profession you are in? Do you like seeing other people who are bigger losers than you? Does that make you feel better about yourself, when you are throwing some poor smuck out of your bosses new home?

No wonder you threaten people. You are too stupid to win any other way. Do you still beat your wife, or did she finally get out of there?

It isn't in the least bit surprising that you don't even catch the faintest idea what I'm talking about.

I especially like you "continental shift". Did they teach you that in grade school?

No, you Bimbo, they taught me Continental Drift in grade school, just like everybody else. I called it shift for a reason, and it went right over your fat head. As you mention, continents don't shift, they drift. It's a slo-o-o-o-o-w process. A million years ago, they would have been just a few miles from where they are now. So their placement means nada. zilch. nothing.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:
I didn't expect you to be capable of reading what I wrote so I'm not surprised that you don't understand it.

I don't understand what? The Continental Drift theory? I'm aware of it, and I understand it. What I am saying is that it is such a slow movement that there has been little change in the last million years. Some, but not much. So whatever changes there have been are irrelevant.

Or am I supposed to just ignore reasoning, for the sake of getting along with a total idiot?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:
I didn't expect you to be capable of reading what I wrote so I'm not surprised that you don't understand it.

I don't understand what? The Continental Drift theory? I'm aware of it, and I understand it. What I am saying is that it is such a slow movement that there has been little change in the last million years. Some, but not much. So whatever changes there have been are irrelevant.

Or am I supposed to just ignore reasoning, for the sake of getting along with a total idiot?

What you're saying is that you think that the continental drift occurred millions of years ago and then seized up and never moved in the last 800,000 years because you're a fool.

Tim the plumber wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.

So what are the variables you are using to cause the variatuion?

The variables are insolation, dust, CO2, CH4, N2O.

Nothing to do with vegitation coverage, urbanisation, land position (continental drift), albedo, vulcanism.

If you have done such a model wich does not need to account for these things and still makes such good hindcasts then you should send it to nature to consider for publication.

This forum is not the place to get such a detailed and informed review of it.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The Greenhouse Effect is explained by the Church's most notable contributors, NOAA.
https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/infodata/lesson_plans/The%20Greenhouse%20Effect-%20Fact%20of%20Theory.pdf

Yup. The old Magick Bouncing Photon theory again. Too bad it violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Wake wrote:
What you're saying is that you think that the continental drift occurred millions of years ago and then seized up and never moved in the last 800,000 years because you're a fool.

Into the Night wrote:
Something your twit high school teacher forgot to mention (they probably don't know):

Continental drift changes with time. The direction and speed of continental drift change, you see.

Into the Night wrote:
You don't know where anything was a million years ago.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Something your twit high school teacher forgot to mention (they probably don't know):

Continental drift changes with time. The direction and speed of continental drift change, you see.

Twit? I'll have you to know that Mr. Cooper was a very sharp teacher. And he didn't leave nuthun out.

But you surprise me, with your lack of logic, at times. I think it's a convenience for you. You seem to bounce back and forth from brilliant to moron. You know there hasn't been a substantial amount of movement in the continents in 1,000,000 years, and you also know that it doesn't matter, because ocean currents just move thermal energy around the planet. They therefore do not affect the average temperature of the planet.

The climate gods want your head. I tried to reason with them, because I wanted to sacrifice someone else. But they said they didn't want a retard. Don't worry, I'll let you choose your method of leaving.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:
What you're saying is that you think that the continental drift occurred millions of years ago and then seized up and never moved in the last 800,000 years because you're a fool.

No that is not what I'm saying, but I'm starting to think that it doesn't matter how I say it, you are going to twist it around some kind of way so that you don't have to acknowledge and accept it. But here goes one more time, just for giggles and shits.

The maximum distance the continents of North and South America could have been from each other 1,000,000 years ago is about 1500 miles. And that would be only if they were both moving toward each other. It's more likely though, that they were half that distance, because 1500 miles is determined using a blazing 10 cm/yr speed. The range appears to be from about 1 cm/yr to 10 cm/yr. If we drop that back to 1 cm/yr, we get 150 miles of separation 1,000,000 years ago. And not necessarily separation.

They are actually moving in the same general direction though, which can be seen here.

http://www.world-map-interactive.info/images/world-map/world-pics/world-map-continetal-drift.jpg

I love how Mexico goes from being a nub, to a long finger, reaching down to touch South America. In reality, they were together at one time, and pulled apart. I think they left a mountain ridge behind them, and that mountain ridge got pushed up as they drifted back together. It's been there all along, just under water. And if they are moving in the same direction, as that link indicated, then their distance from each other wouldn't have changed anywhere near as much as if they were approaching each other. So it's a crap shoot determining the actual distance. But it's irrelevant for two reasons.

One, there had to be a mountain range there all along for there to be land there today. It was just pushed up as the plates slid past each other, or over and under each other. So that mountain range would have been a hindrance to any ocean currents. And the other reason continental drift is irrelevant, which is the big one that you keep ignoring, is that we are dealing with planetary not regional climate. The oceans are moving heat around, but are not a source of heat to the planet. They are just a source of heat to different regions. They are also a source of cooling to some regions of the world. But they are just moving thermal energy from one place to another. That will not affect what the average temperature of the planet is, nor will it affect what the average temperature of Antarctica is, unless the currents around Antarctica change. And I am banking on the currents around Antarctica not changing, because if they do, then ice from Anartica can't be used as a proxy for the planet's average temperature.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Something your twit high school teacher forgot to mention (they probably don't know):

Continental drift changes with time. The direction and speed of continental drift change, you see.

Twit? I'll have you to know that Mr. Cooper was a very sharp teacher. And he didn't leave nuthun out.

GreenMan wrote:
But you surprise me, with your lack of logic, at times.

GreenMan wrote:
I think it's a convenience for you. You seem to bounce back and forth from brilliant to moron.

GreenMan wrote:
You know there hasn't been a substantial amount of movement in the continents in 1,000,000 years,

GreenMan wrote:
and you also know that it doesn't matter, because ocean currents just move thermal energy around the planet. They therefore do not affect the average temperature of the planet.

GreenMan wrote:
The climate gods want your head. I tried to reason with them, because I wanted to sacrifice someone else. But they said they didn't want a retard. Don't worry, I'll let you choose your method of leaving.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You don't know where anything was a million years ago.

I can tell by comments like this that you are grasping at straws, to discredit any notion that Global Warming can be proven beyond a doubt.

GreenMan wrote:
Sad for you, because you had so much going for you at one time. This is sad. You need to think about what you are doing, and if it is really helping people [as you say].

GreenMan wrote:
Sure, you are helping them feel good about themselves for ignoring what we are doing in regard to future of our planet.

GreenMan wrote:
But is that really helping them, if you are misleading them?

GreenMan wrote:
I don't think so, because people will eventually have to come to grips with the realization that we can't continue business as usual.

GreenMan wrote:
We have to figure out how to survive on this planet without altering the ecosystem.

GreenMan wrote:
Otherwise, we can't continue to live on this planet.

Into the Night wrote: All of this is speculation. We don't even know if the whole Pangea even happened. Continents happen to fit together that way, but it still IS a speculation.

We do know that continents move. We also know they can change speed and direction. We don't know where they've been.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: All of this is speculation. We don't even know if the whole Pangea even happened. Continents happen to fit together that way, but it still IS a speculation.

We do know that continents move. We also know they can change speed and direction. We don't know where they've been.

But we do know that they have moved. And geologically we can tell that the connections between north and south America (Central America) and between Africa and the Asian continent via the Arabian area are fairly new.

With these areas open to ocean currents assuming that this did not have major effects on the climate is pretty stupid. After all, the last major ice age started about 1.8 milion years ago and lasted until about 12,000 years ago. Shades of the Sahara Desert being a heavily forested region that was close to what the Brazilian rain forest is now.

Speaking of slow, it does remind you of Greenman doesn't it?

GreenMan wrote:
There is a LOT of controversy surrounding Satellite and Land Temperature Measurements, some of which is simply confusion induced by scaling differences between the graphs. This graph shows land and satellite graphs scaled the same. and they do seem to agree.

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Won't Wake Up talked in his sleep:

GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.

You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?

That's right, my sleepy friend, I haven't looked at them to "see how implausible they are." How did you guess that?

No, I looked at them to see if there was any chance that could enlighten me on how our Planetary Climate Control System worked.

So why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think is implausible about any of the graphs.

They are manufactured data. They don't mean anything.

In a way they are manufactured data, because I didn't use any raw data. I had to average the raw data so it would line up in time with other data, which was also averaged. But if you are saying that the raw data from the ice was manufactured then I think you are in error.

Oh! So you admit that you are using manufactured data to produce manufactured data and charts of manufactured data.

The ONLY thing allowed in statistical analysis is the RAW data. ANY adjustment of data before statistical analysis is using adjustments that are just made up, since the statistics have never been run!

The raw data from the ice is in question, since the source of that data and the method of instrumentation used to obtain it are in question. The speculation that the raw data from the ice represents temperature or climate in any way IS manufactured data.

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... how implausible....

We already know how implausible the mathematics of "wake-me-up" are. "wake-me-up" can't even get exponents right.

His obvious lack of talent in understanding mathematics makes me wonder why he is in the forum, because understanding Climate requires a LOT of mathematical skills. But he is good to have around, since he provides quite a lot of opportunity to laugh.

Climate is weather 'over a long time'. What mathematical skills are there in climate???

You left out a word, Professor. You need to ask, "What mathematical skills are there in understanding climate?". Then I can answer your question. But you don't need the answer now, do you? Ok, just in case you are that dim. You have to understand math [just very basic stuff, like exponents, addition, and division] to mentally visualize how several components act together, each with his own little piece, to force a particular outcome, which can be calculated with math and proven with comparison to actual results. For example, warming of our planet starts with warmth from the sun. You have to subtract a certain amount of warmth from the average output of the sun though to account for how much dust is in the air, because it blocks some of that warmth. So you have to figure out how much warmth is blocked because of the dust. Then you have to add a little warmth to that result to account for the amount of greenhouse gases are present, because greenhouse gases absorb heat radiation from earth and reradiate back. Determining both the greenhouse gas and the dust forcing requires that you understand how exponents work, and how division works. So I'm thinking you can finally get there, if you open your mind to the possibility that you could have been mistaken about some things. But people like Wake will never be able to really comprehend how such a minute amount of something can do anything [except keep the whole world alive].

So you have to start with the solar output of the Sun, subtract out a random number, add in another random number, apply the Magick Bouncing Photon factor, and you have your answer, eh?

This is known as an argument from randU. It is a fallacy.

Earth has no global climate. There is no 'global' weather. You can't even define 'a long time'. There is no starting point in time, there is no ending point in time. You need these to even begin to describe a change.

Now let's talk about a few global values:

You don't know how much dust is in the air at any given moment. You don't know how much water vapor is in the air at any given moment. Our measurement of CO2 is from just a few stations. We really don't know it's global value. The measurement technique has problems. CH4 measurement is even worse.

We DO know that neither CO2, nor CH4, nor water vapor have any ability to add to the energy of anything (unless you burn the methane). They are not energy sources. They do not heat anything. They are colder than the surface beneath them. You cannot heat a hotter object with a colder one. You cannot make hot coffee with ice.

Follow Me Into the Darkness Troll wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Won't Wake Up talked in his sleep:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.

In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim

Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.

Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

OMG! California next to Oregon??? Oh...wait...California IS next to Oregon! Maybe you had better look at a map!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

GreenMan wrote:
NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet.

There is NOT climate for the planet. There is no such thing as a 'global' weather. Your manufactured numbers do not change that.

GreenMan wrote:
So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

Did you know oceans are heated by the Sun? That's right! Liquid water absorbs infrared energy!

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: What mathematical skills are there in climate???

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" agrees it has no mathematical skills.

ROFLMAO

Thank you litesong. I needed a good laugh.

And you are probably right. If a person doesn't have math skills then they aren't what is considered "intelligent," because intelligence requires problem solving skills. These parrots we play with are just walking talking textbooks, spouting out whatever their masters have told them to spout.

No one tells me what to say. You are really operating from a paranoid position here.

GreenMan wrote: I don't think I care if you think the data I used in "manufactured," because it is the only data we have and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth, because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy." The data I used was meticulously averaged. The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data. It just means that some of Satan's High Priests are busy confusing everyone.

GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Won't Wake Up talked in his sleep:
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
The Climate Model's Calculations are shown in this graph, which makes it easy to see the accuracy of the model.

You haven't looked at these charts to see how implausible they are have you?

That's right, my sleepy friend, I haven't looked at them to "see how implausible they are." How did you guess that?

No, I looked at them to see if there was any chance that could enlighten me on how our Planetary Climate Control System worked.

So why don't you go ahead and tell us what you think is implausible about any of the graphs.

They are manufactured data. They don't mean anything.

In a way they are manufactured data, because I didn't use any raw data. I had to average the raw data so it would line up in time with other data, which was also averaged. But if you are saying that the raw data from the ice was manufactured then I think you are in error.

Oh! So you admit that you are using manufactured data to produce manufactured data and charts of manufactured data.

The ONLY thing allowed in statistical analysis is the RAW data. ANY adjustment of data before statistical analysis is using adjustments that are just made up, since the statistics have never been run!

The raw data from the ice is in question, since the source of that data and the method of instrumentation used to obtain it are in question. The speculation that the raw data from the ice represents temperature or climate in any way IS manufactured data.

GreenMan wrote:
I knew I was doing something wrong. I should have been doing statistical analysis, instead of worrying about things like data alignment so that it can be used with or compared to other data from its same time period. At least that way all you could say is that my statistical analysis means nothing.

I don't think I care if you think the data I used in "manufactured,"

GreenMan wrote:
because it is the only data we have

GreenMan wrote:
and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth,

GreenMan wrote:
because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

GreenMan wrote:
The data I used was meticulously averaged.

GreenMan wrote:
The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data.

GreenMan wrote:
It just means that some of Satan's High Priests are busy confusing everyone.

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... how implausible....

We already know how implausible the mathematics of "wake-me-up" are. "wake-me-up" can't even get exponents right.

His obvious lack of talent in understanding mathematics makes me wonder why he is in the forum, because understanding Climate requires a LOT of mathematical skills. But he is good to have around, since he provides quite a lot of opportunity to laugh.

Climate is weather 'over a long time'. What mathematical skills are there in climate???

You left out a word, Professor. You need to ask, "What mathematical skills are there in understanding climate?". Then I can answer your question. But you don't need the answer now, do you? Ok, just in case you are that dim. You have to understand math [just very basic stuff, like exponents, addition, and division] to mentally visualize how several components act together, each with his own little piece, to force a particular outcome, which can be calculated with math and proven with comparison to actual results. For example, warming of our planet starts with warmth from the sun. You have to subtract a certain amount of warmth from the average output of the sun though to account for how much dust is in the air, because it blocks some of that warmth. So you have to figure out how much warmth is blocked because of the dust. Then you have to add a little warmth to that result to account for the amount of greenhouse gases are present, because greenhouse gases absorb heat radiation from earth and reradiate back. Determining both the greenhouse gas and the dust forcing requires that you understand how exponents work, and how division works. So I'm thinking you can finally get there, if you open your mind to the possibility that you could have been mistaken about some things. But people like Wake will never be able to really comprehend how such a minute amount of something can do anything [except keep the whole world alive].

So you have to start with the solar output of the Sun, subtract out a random number, add in another random number, apply the Magick Bouncing Photon factor, and you have your answer, eh?

This is known as an argument from randU. It is a fallacy.

Earth has no global climate. There is no 'global' weather. You can't even define 'a long time'. There is no starting point in time, there is no ending point in time. You need these to even begin to describe a change.

Now let's talk about a few global values:

You don't know how much dust is in the air at any given moment. You don't know how much water vapor is in the air at any given moment. Our measurement of CO2 is from just a few stations. We really don't know it's global value. The measurement technique has problems. CH4 measurement is even worse.

We DO know that neither CO2, nor CH4, nor water vapor have any ability to add to the energy of anything (unless you burn the methane). They are not energy sources. They do not heat anything. They are colder than the surface beneath them. You cannot heat a hotter object with a colder one. You cannot make hot coffee with ice.

No, you over-educated moron, I don't add and subtract random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
How could the calculations be even remotely close to what really happened, if I was just using random numbers?

GreenMan wrote:
The graph would look like gobbly gook.

GreenMan wrote:
And yes, I know that greenhouse gases don't create energy, if that is what you are trying to imply. They are just redirecting it, after absorbing it from earth's longwave radiation. It came from the sun originally, in the form of shortwave radiation. Smashed into the earth and bounced back into space as longwave radiation, which the sneaky greenhouse gases started gobbling up. When greenhouse gases gobble up longwave radiation, they get warm, and that warmth radiates out from them. It may seem like just a little bit, but if there are a lot of those sneaky little critters out there their heat adds up quickly.

GreenMan wrote:
You may not be able to cook supper over a block of ice, but you can melt that ice and put it in a bucket, and then cook supper in it.

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness Troll wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Won't Wake Up talked in his sleep:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the gas locked in ice cores retrieved from EPICA Dome C indicate the CO2 levels were over the last 800,000 years.

In a sense there is nothing surprising about this. It is known that depending on the temperatures of our oceans whether CO2 will be absorbed or released. This is why I think more research should be done to verify CO2's role in our atmosphere.
Ice core researchers are now saying that an increase in CO2 in our atmosphere follows warming by 800 years. The primary argument being made by scientists is that CO2 increases or intensifies natural warming. At the moment they have stated what the primary cause of warming is.
One thing I do consider is that our planet rotates more quickly during an Ice Age. If so this would allow it to move closer to the Sun because it's orbit would be less elliptical. Jim

Jim, among Greenman's other errors is his completely ignoring the results of continental drift on the climate. Using records of temperatures from a time when Central America and the connections between Asia and Africa didn't exist tells you next to nothing.

Don't you mean continental shift? Because you got the continents moving a little to fast for the kid, lol. My model only goes back about 1 million years. Your time frame has California sitting next to Oregon in just a few years.

OMG! California next to Oregon??? Oh...wait...California IS next to Oregon! Maybe you had better look at a map!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

GreenMan wrote:
NaNaNaNaPooPoo, you moron.

And besides that, I'm not trying to calculate the climate for North America, or for anywhere specifically. I'm merely calculating the climate for the planet.

There is NOT climate for the planet. There is no such thing as a 'global' weather. Your manufactured numbers do not change that.

GreenMan wrote:
So the ocean currents shouldn't affect it, because the oceans are merely moving heat around, not adding to it or subtracting from it.

Did you know oceans are heated by the Sun? That's right! Liquid water absorbs infrared energy!

Whoa, do you mean that the heat I was talking about the oceans carrying around, comes from the sun? You don't say. I would have never figured that one out in a million years. But what about my skin? Does it absorb infrared energy? Is that why I get hot when I'm out in the sun, cool off a little when I'm in the shade? Wow. Who would have ever thunk it?

GreenMan wrote:

And yes, I know that greenhouse gases don't create energy, if that is what you are trying to imply. They are just redirecting it, after absorbing it from earth's longwave radiation. It came from the sun originally, in the form of shortwave radiation. Smashed into the earth and bounced back into space as longwave radiation, which the sneaky greenhouse gases started gobbling up. When greenhouse gases gobble up longwave radiation, they get warm, and that warmth radiates out from them. It may seem like just a little bit, but if there are a lot of those sneaky little critters out there their heat adds up quickly.

You may not be able to cook supper over a block of ice, but you can melt that ice and put it in a bucket, and then cook supper in it. Malik-Ung-Chung Third Dynasty Proverb Maker Upper

GreenMan wrote:

Follow Me Into the Darkness wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

litesong wrote:

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: What mathematical skills are there in climate???

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" agrees it has no mathematical skills.

ROFLMAO

Thank you litesong. I needed a good laugh.

And you are probably right. If a person doesn't have math skills then they aren't what is considered "intelligent," because intelligence requires problem solving skills. These parrots we play with are just walking talking textbooks, spouting out whatever their masters have told them to spout.

No one tells me what to say. You are really operating from a paranoid position here.

Then why do you repeat the same talking points as all the other Church of AGW Denial missionaries? Are you trying to say that you are the Church of AGW Denial High Priest, and everyone else is repeating your BS?

GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: I don't think I care if you think the data I used in "manufactured," because it is the only data we have and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth, because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy." The data I used was meticulously averaged. The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data. It just means that some of Satan's High Priests are busy confusing everyone.

I'm not in the least surprised that you would think that since manufactured data is the only data you have you have to use it.

GreenMan wrote:
There is a LOT of controversy surrounding Satellite and Land Temperature Measurements, some of which is simply confusion induced by scaling differences between the graphs. This graph shows land and satellite graphs scaled the same. and they do seem to agree.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You don't know where anything was a million years ago.

I can tell by comments like this that you are grasping at straws, to discredit any notion that Global Warming can be proven beyond a doubt.

It can't. I don't need to grasp at straws. That is what YOU do. You can't even define 'global warming' without using a circular definition.

Did you know there are no proofs in science?

GreenMan wrote:
Sad for you, because you had so much going for you at one time. This is sad. You need to think about what you are doing, and if it is really helping people [as you say].

It is. It is showing them the fallacy of your religion.

GreenMan wrote:
Sure, you are helping them feel good about themselves for ignoring what we are doing in regard to future of our planet.

Not being a member of the Church of Global Warming does not automatically make someone a planet destroyer.

GreenMan wrote:
But is that really helping them, if you are misleading them?

I'm going to call this one an inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is being misleading.

GreenMan wrote:
I don't think so, because people will eventually have to come to grips with the realization that we can't continue business as usual.

Why not? More people than ever are able to eat, drink, and house themselves in better conditions than before. This is despite the press reports to the contrary.

We are healthier, wealthier, and having more fun than anyone in history has ever had. Why not more of the same?

Your doom and gloom has worn thin. Fewer people are believing you. This is good, because your religion continually ignores existing theories of science, namely the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

GreenMan wrote:
We have to figure out how to survive on this planet without altering the ecosystem.

Ah the old religious word: 'ecosystem'.

We have altered our environment ever since we've had fire and built homes.

Even animals build homes.

GreenMan wrote:
Otherwise, we can't continue to live on this planet.

The planet is fine. It is NOT going to hell in a handbasket. Your stories of doom and gloom are just that...stories. It is nothing more than the 'end of the world is nigh' as modified by the Church of Global Warming.

Rather than enjoying the beauty that Earth is, you would rather sit on your computer and tell people about doom and gloom awaiting Earth. You're missing out on a lot.

GreenMan wrote:

You sure do speculate a lot, for someone who runs around beating people up for speculating. The planet is not "fine," bozo. People are already dying because of Global Warming [that's an increase in the planet's average global temperature that continues until the planet's surface is as warm as the heat source]. Forests are burning up. Floods are occurring much more frequently and more severely. Many animal species are disappearing before our eyes. But you think everything is just fine, nothing to worry about, all those scientists are conspiring to destroy the economy of our planet. .

Won't Wake Up mumbled something about:

GreenMan wrote: I don't think I care if you think the data I used in "manufactured," because it is the only data we have and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth, because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy." The data I used was meticulously averaged. The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data. It just means that some of Satan's High Priests are busy confusing everyone.

I'm not in the least surprised that you would think that since manufactured data is the only data you have you have to use it.