Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Data 800,000 years



Page 2 of 5<1234>>>
13-08-2017 21:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 21:30
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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].


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.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-08-2017 21:32
13-08-2017 21:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.

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!


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 21:38
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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?


He's just saying you have put a continent in first gear to get it to move before you put it in 2nd gear.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 21:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.

I was asking Wake, since he made the argument, but you're free to try to answer that one too.
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.

Not an answer. Just insults. All you see in this question is an opportunity to insult people, eh?
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.

It's actually approaching Spring 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.

Uncomplete sentence. Unspecified which Spring you are talking about.
GreenMan wrote:
It's so cold down there that you still need a jacket on, even in the middle of Summer.

Depends on where you are. Antarctica is a big continent. Some parts of it can be quite comfortable in summer without a jacket on.
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.

No, you don't. Ice, you see, not only forms, it melts or sublimates away.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 21:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 22:06
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.

Dome Cis not the temperature of the Earth. It is not even the temperature at Dome C.
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.

If event A is after event B, event A is NOT the cause of event B.
GreenMan wrote:
The CO2 then aids the sun in warming the planet, so it gets even warmer.

CO2 does not aid in warming anything. It is not an energy source.
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.

You really like your random numbers, don't you?
GreenMan wrote:
You can see from the graph below, that the model I built closely follows the actual climate of the planet.

There is no climate of the planet. There is no 'global' weather. You don't know what the temperature of Earth was or even is now. It is not possible to determine it this accurately.
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.

So you model, which itself is made of random numbers deviates from another set of random numbers by only 3 points.

...astounding!
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...

You have no way to determine the amount of global water vapor is today, not just back then.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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?


You don't know where anything was a million years ago.


The Parrot Killer
13-08-2017 22:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.


No, that is not what he is saying. Don't get ridiculous.


The Parrot Killer
14-08-2017 01:13
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


That's a good idea Tim, thanks. And yup, the Church of the AGW Denial missionaries are doing a good job at keeping the Church of Global Warming missionaries run off. Not much here but a few that are interested but not real scientific [like me], and a few that are scientific, not really interested.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-08-2017 01:32
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
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.


Greenman just told us that NOAA and NASA are wrong and that no heating is a lot of heating.
14-08-2017 01:53
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-08-2017 02:16
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 14-08-2017 02:18
14-08-2017 02:29
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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. 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]. Sure, you are helping them feel good about themselves for ignoring what we are doing in regard to future of our planet. But is that really helping them, if you are misleading them? 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. We have to figure out how to survive on this planet without altering the ecosystem. Otherwise, we can't continue to live on this planet.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-08-2017 16:03
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
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.


At least he doesn't invent reality as you do.
14-08-2017 20:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.


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.


The Parrot Killer
14-08-2017 20:26
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.

Apparently he did. Not Mr. Cooper's fault particularly, high school teachers typically are not well versed in this stuff.
GreenMan wrote:
But you surprise me, with your lack of logic, at times.

This is not about logic, it's about what we know vs what we don't know.
GreenMan wrote:
I think it's a convenience for you. You seem to bounce back and forth from brilliant to moron.

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

No, we don't. We have no idea what the positions of continents were a million years ago.
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.

Oceans absorb sunlight just the same as any other part of the Earth. They are mass. Of course they affect the average temperature of the planet. Water has a higher specific heat than dry land. It takes longer to heat it up or cool it down.

Perhaps you are having trouble with the term 'average'.

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.

Ah...the usual string of insults. *yawn*


The Parrot Killer
14-08-2017 20:45
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.


The Parrot Killer
14-08-2017 21:31
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
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?
14-08-2017 22:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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?


He doesn't move. His attitude it locked tight in the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
RE: Satellite and Land Graph15-08-2017 02:38
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Attached image:

15-08-2017 03:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
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.


All of those records show a straight up climb from '79 to now.

The satellite data shows absolutely nothing of the sort.

But I'm SURE you think that it's just a little confusion with scaling.

Your friend "spot" seems to have left a spot on your trousers.
Edited on 15-08-2017 03:21
15-08-2017 10:31
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


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," 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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 10:52
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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. How could the calculations be even remotely close to what really happened, if I was just using random numbers? The graph would look like gobbly gook, and resemble you thought process.

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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 11:01
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 11:07
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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?

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


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 19:02
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
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.
15-08-2017 21:09
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1054)
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.



Edited on 15-08-2017 21:10
15-08-2017 21:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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,"

I already know you don't.
GreenMan wrote:
because it is the only data we have

Manufactured data is not data. We have no data. It is not possible to determine the temperature of Earth to this accuracy.
GreenMan wrote:
and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth,

You are not determining the truth. You are proselytizing your religion.
GreenMan wrote:
because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy."

So now I'm a 'Satanic missionary' eh? Yet another typical response of a religious fundamentalist. Any Outsider is hopelessly a 'lost sheep' and must be 'rescued', or is a 'Satan worshiper'. You are a fundamentalist in the Church of Global Warming.
GreenMan wrote:
The data I used was meticulously averaged.

1) How do you know? Did you verify the process?
2) What data? How many official thermometers are there in the world? What, don't know?
3) An average is not a statistical analysis. It is just an average. It does not represent the temperature of the Earth. Not even close.
GreenMan wrote:
The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data.

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

There you go again trying to defend against my attacks on your Religion.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 15-08-2017 22:26
15-08-2017 22:05
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
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.


Well he could be like spot who claims to be a telephone man but doesn't know how the interconnections work.

Telephone connections all enter the main interconnect room, which is generally in the basement of a skyscraper, from the ceiling. They drop down to the floor reverse in a 180 degree turn and enter each individual interconnect panel from the bottom. You initially cut the cables so the you have some play at the floor and a 50 or 100 pair cable has the outer insulating layer removed at the entrance to the interconnect box. It is clamped there with the clamp grabbing the insulated cable as a whole. Inside the box you pull the wire pairs up to the top of the row of interconnect blocks align it so that there is a little overhang on the top of the block and cut the entire cable there.

This allows you to tightly connect the top pair and then, as you move down, each pair consecutively has more and more overhang.

The tool that you use to connect these wires to the blocks pushes them into the connectors and then cuts the excess off.

So, done correctly, you have a perfectly aligned interconnect row by row. They are color coded so that you always know what pair. And the pairs are reverse color coded so that you know which polarity of the pair you have.

The telephone lines coming into the building NEVER are changed. And there is no need to change the main interconnect blocks to the specific floor interconnects. If anything needs to be changed it is the cross wires on the specific floor interconnect. And all this requires is for you to pull the cross connect wires which are maybe at longest a couple of feet long (most are may a couple of inches) and are entirely contained inside the interconnect box.

If you wanted to change and entire phone system it would only be on the floor where the new system was being changed over. And that is a separate row of interconnects that again has absolutely nothing to do with "having to change over the phone system."

The telephone company totally wires each building as it is built and that is never changed unless somehow a cable is damaged. And then an entirely new cable has to be run.

But commercial installers aren't allowed to use their interconnects so all of ours are installed from scratch.

So spot saying that you wouldn't have room to change the wiring shows he is a mindless dolt who hasn't done any real phone work.

I only did this for about two years and a well paying engineering position popped up with a VP from a previous firm who was running a start-up. Too bad it turned into a management position and I absolutely HATE babysitting degreed engineers who think that the second they got out of college they never had to learn anything ever again. With 5 engineers working for me I still did half of the design and more than half of the programming.

Human Resources could NOT find me candidates and when the company was about to bite the dust I went into the HR office at night and looked into the files. There were literally dozens of people that were qualified but they had one little thing here or there that wouldn't meet the job qualifications. HR were Indians and instead of presenting these American engineers thought that they could get me to ask for an H2 visa Indian engineer. Now these guys are often VERY good engineers but I would employ Americans where ever I could find them.

This was the job in which I designed and programmed the VME boards for the International Space Stations and would consult with NASA on their other space projects. Also Lockheed Aerospace. NASA engineers do NOT design anything themselves. They specify in broad terms and private companies do the designs.

How they EVER got into false climate research is beyond me.
15-08-2017 22:07
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.

Yes you do. You don't know how much dust is in the air. You don't know the temperature of Earth. You don't know the emissivity of Earth. You don't know how much global water vapor is in the atmosphere.
GreenMan wrote:
How could the calculations be even remotely close to what really happened, if I was just using random numbers?

Bingo.
GreenMan wrote:
The graph would look like gobbly gook.

Bingo.
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.

No matter how many times you try to push the Magick Bouncing Photon theory, it still isn't going to work.

You can't heat a hotter surface using a colder gas (2nd law of thermodynamics).
You can't reduce radiance (by trapping it) and warm the surface (Stefan-Boltzmann law).

You are also continuing to ignore the ISS paradox.
Why is the Earth so much COLDER than the daylit side of the ISS, if carbon dioxide warms the Earth using the mechanism you are describing?

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.

Only if you put a lot of energy into it, such as from a stove. No matter how hot you make the water, it still will never heat the stove.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 22:08
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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?


Then why did you ignore that in your argument?


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 22:20
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
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


If you can't even accurately describe how the energy balance of the Earth operates exactly how do you expect to be able to understand the false claims of global warming?

Why are you commenting on this when you so plainly don't even understand what YOU'RE saying?

Why did you come on this group? You don't have the brains God gave a gnat.
15-08-2017 22:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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?

It is time to describe to you what a religion is.

ALL religions are based on an initial circular argument. In the case of Christianity, for example, it is the argument that Jesus Christ existed and he is who he said he was. It is not possible to prove either way.

The other word for the circular argument is 'faith'.

The Church of Global Warming also is based on an initial circular argument. That argument is simply the assumption that the globe is warming (never mind the undefined terms for 'since when?' or 'how much'?).

The 'greenhouse gas' theory is also part of the same circular argument. It assumes simply that carbon dioxide or other Holy Gas is responsible for warming the globe (back to the 'global warming' theory). This is typically justified by either the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon arguments, both of which violate existing theories of science. The 'greenhouse effect' theory is also not internally consistent, since it builds paradoxes.

At least the Christians call their circular argument 'faith' and openly declare their reliance on it.

The 'church of AGW deniers', as you call it, is NOT based on a circular argument. It is based on showing why the Church of Global Warming is not science, but a religion. It does so by showing conflicting evidence (it only takes one!) to falsify the 'greenhouse effect' theory, or pointing out the theories of science that are being violated or the math errors that are being conducted. Worse still, it is a state sponsored religion in the United States, thus violating the Constitution of the United States.

Even the claim the Church of Global Warming being 'science' is itself a circular argument. They are not able to describe what science (without either changing the equations, and with it the theories) or don't even try, substituting 'data' for 'science', (Science isn't data.) or 'consensus' for 'science' (consensus is not used in science), or through the use of supporting 'evidence' (science does not use supporting evidence), or through the use of the argument by false authority fallacy (science isn't credentials).

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

Inversion fallacy. I'm not paranoid. YOU are. It is YOU that is constantly describing all the horrible things in store for the world.

Don't Panic.


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 22:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6114)
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.


Rather a desperate argument, don't you think?


The Parrot Killer
15-08-2017 22:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.


If you notice that increase between 1910 - 1945, not GHGs. Records indicate it came from around Greenland. From 1978 - 2013 about the same rise in temperatures with about 4 times the increase in CO2 levels. Kind of why I don't think we know all we need to know to say CO2 is the primary reason our climate is warming.
And in all of this warming Greenland has been the place that has warmed first. It's Greenland Sea abyss is warming 10 x's faster than any other body of water while the Arctic is only warming twice as fast as other areas.
16-08-2017 02:37
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


I'm not aware of anything that I'm missing out on, my fine feathered cannibal friend. But I could be. Doesn't matter, because what we are talking about is more serious than your desire to breathe.

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.

You have proven that you are a very educated person. And it is obvious that you know all the things I just mentioned. So your position on this problem indicates severe mental issues. Rational people do not ignore danger. Rational people respond to danger. Of course, there is a silver lining to this cloud, according to Darwin and the Bible. Imagine that, they actually agree on something, after all. do you know what that something is? They both say that irrational people eliminate themselves from the playing field. They lose their posterity.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 16-08-2017 02:39
16-08-2017 02:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3535)
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. .


With all those creditable references WHO could deny you? There are presently more people alive than at any other time in history. More people are living well. More people are eating well. World starvation is at an all time low.

But if you can lie about something we have no doubt that you will. You make a salamander look like Einstein.
16-08-2017 02:56
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


You shouldn't be surprised either, since it was the only thing to do. Only it wasn't manufactured data. The data were produced not manufactured. Produced from ice, where traces of minerals and gases that indicate the climate of our planet were frozen.

To accuse every scientific organization of colluding to manufacture data that shows that the planet is warming is insane.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Page 2 of 5<1234>>>





Join the debate Climate Data 800,000 years:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What would happen to global temperature if the US stopped all CO2 emissions for the next 50 years?1517-09-2018 09:12
After 100 years with ExxonMobil... 20 African countries no better off today1123-06-2018 20:08
WMO confirms 2017 among the three warmest years on record3325-05-2018 05:47
Headed For A New Ice Age? Latest Data Says Yes!1505-05-2018 03:44
The Data Mine22805-05-2018 00:56
▲ 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