Remember me
▼ Content

GreenMan's Climate Model


GreenMan's Climate Model09-10-2017 07:37
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
AGW=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((G5^4)/X$6)+((I5^4)/X$7)+(K5^4)/X$8))

AGW - Average Global Warming W/m2
C5 - Insolation [heat] from the Sun W/m2
D5 - Dust in the Air ng/g
G5 - CO2 Concentration ppmv
X$6 - CO2 Warming Factor Constant [1,000,000,000]
I5 - CH4 Concentration ppbv
X$7 - CH4 Warming Factor Constant [300,000,000,000]
K5 - N2O Concentration ppbv
X$8 - N2O Warming Factor Constant [3,000,000,000,000]

That is the Climate Model Algorithm as used in my climate model, which is built in an Excel Spreadsheet. The algorithm is repeated for each line of data that covers a period of 800,000 years. The data is 1,000 year averages of the data as presented by the team that did the research. So there are 800 lines of calculations, one calculation for each 1,000 year period.

This is the end result.


http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/climatemodel_800kyr.jpg

You can see from the graph that the model is quite capable of backcasting accurately.

The algorithm itself is simple. It starts with the basic conclusion that the primary heating source of the planet is the Sun. I used Gerber et. al.'s insolation calculations to determine what the warmth from the sun was, because Gerber's calculations are based on the Milankovitch Effect. As you can see from the next slide, there must be more to the earth's climate than just orbital variations can account for, because the earth's climate does not follow the Sun's insolation very closely.


http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/insolation800kyrnotinfluenced.jpg

There is some relationship, but there is something else going on. You can see from the next two slides that the CO2 and CH4 concentrations appear to follow the earth's average temperature a lot closer than the temperature follows the insolation.


http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/co2_800kyr.jpg

That's the CO2, and as mentioned many times in the past, it appears to lag a temerature increase by about 5~6 hundred years.


http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/attachments/ch4_800kyr.jpg

Methane [CH4] also appears to follow the average temperature of the planet.

Unless you really get down and do a lot of analyzing, you can easily convince yourself that CO2 and CH4 are just a feedback of the planet's average temperature. As the temperature increases, so do they. But if you look closely, especially at CH4, you can see that it begins to drop ahead of the average temperature. That means that whatever was behind the methane concentrations back then, started declining before the temperature started dropping. Bogs are the primary source of CH4 in an undisturbed by industry world. Little critters eat the rotting vegetation, and burp methane. If it's getting wetter, bogs are growing in size. If it's getting dryer, bogs shrink in size. So as the temperature rises, and water is released by the ice at the poles, methane increases naturally.

The CO2 concentrations appear to drop pretty close with the temperature, though they do lead in temperature drops some of the time, but not as drastically as CH4 does. If you study the CO2 graph closely, you will see that the temperature follows it down very closely. And if you compare that chart to the insolation chart, you will understand why CO2 follows the temperature so closely when it is dropping. It's because the insolation has been fading for quite a while, and the CO2 and CH4 gases have been keeping the temperature held up.

So I began adding weights for each gas, depending on its concentration. Of course, you can't just add 285 ppmv of CO2 directly to Insolation and expect to change much. It looks like adding 190 + 0.000285. The change is so insignificant that it makes no difference. So let's just multiply the gas concentrations by a constant amount. Let's start with multiplying by 1000, and get an increase that amounts to something. So now we are adding 190 + .285. That's almost a quarter watt increase, so it's not really that significant. I tried several numbers before giving up on using a straight constant multiplier. If anyone is interested, I can show some examples of what that looks like. But it gets pretty messy. Ok, here's an example.

That's the result you get if you just add the gases straight up, based on their concentrations. As you can see, there is some relationship, but it doesn't follow even remotely close.
It's not until you give the gases the influence they deserve [^4] that the model's output resembles the actual temperature.


The totally alarming thing is that when the next line in the model, which would be 1,000 years from now, the global average temperature is predicted to be about 50C. We know that the global average temperature is rising at about 0.15C/decade, so in 1,000 years, we should expect the temperature to be about 350C warmer than it is now, unless the warming trend increases. But it will still be increasing, even then, since there is 15C more to go, before the average temperature levels back off. So, in about 1,500 years, the temperature will be close to what the model is actually projecting.

Note that those predictions are based on nothing else occurring that will reduce the warming we are getting from either the sun, or the gas concentrations. An big increase in dust would, for example, lower the temperature to less than what the model is predicting, because that prediction is based on current dust levels.

That is all straight forward mathematics, but there are some unknowns. Like for example, how much heat can the world take before it goes belly up? Is it 5C more, or is it 10C more? One thing is for certain, it is not 30c more, which is what we can expect in the long run.

If you knew for certain how much heat the world can take, then you could calculate which century the world would end. But it doesn't really matter which year or century the world ends. All that really matters is the certainty that it will end, if we keep doing what we are doing. In fact, unless something changes to either reduce Greenhouse Gas concentrations, or reduce the amount of heat we get from the sun, then it is too late do do anything, but watch as our world overheats.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
09-10-2017 19:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
AGW=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((G5^4)/X$6)+((I5^4)/X$7)+(K5^4)/X$8))

AGW - Average Global Warming W/m2
C5 - Insolation [heat] from the Sun W/m2
D5 - Dust in the Air ng/g
G5 - CO2 Concentration ppmv
X$6 - CO2 Warming Factor Constant [1,000,000,000]
I5 - CH4 Concentration ppbv
X$7 - CH4 Warming Factor Constant [300,000,000,000]
K5 - N2O Concentration ppbv
X$8 - N2O Warming Factor Constant [3,000,000,000,000]


I see a few problems.

The insolation from the Sun does not necessarily mean it is absorbed by anything. Much of the energy from the Sun is reflected. You are using a random number.

You don't know how much dust is in the air. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.

You are just guessing at the values for X$6, 7, and 8. These are random numbers.

You are comparing your accuracy against the Earth's temperature. We don't know the Earth's temperature. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.

So the calculated value of AGW is calculated from random numbers.

Not impressed.


The Parrot Killer
10-10-2017 05:06
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
AGW=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((G5^4)/X$6)+((I5^4)/X$7)+(K5^4)/X$8))

AGW - Average Global Warming W/m2
C5 - Insolation [heat] from the Sun W/m2
D5 - Dust in the Air ng/g
G5 - CO2 Concentration ppmv
X$6 - CO2 Warming Factor Constant [1,000,000,000]
I5 - CH4 Concentration ppbv
X$7 - CH4 Warming Factor Constant [300,000,000,000]
K5 - N2O Concentration ppbv
X$8 - N2O Warming Factor Constant [3,000,000,000,000]


I see a few problems.

The insolation from the Sun does not necessarily mean it is absorbed by anything. Much of the energy from the Sun is reflected. You are using a random number.

Not a random number. The values that I am using originated with Berger's calculations. His calculations were for each month, and for different latitude zones. I had to average the months for each of the latitude zones that he broke it down to, and then figure out how much influence each of the zones had on the average temperature. So there was a bit of tweaking involved, before determining what the insolation actually was.

Into the Night wrote:

You don't know how much dust is in the air. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.

Dust in the air settles on the ice, and gets trapped. They looked at the dust in the ice for each layer, to determine how much dust fell during that period.
Not a random number.

Into the Night wrote:

You are just guessing at the values for X$6, 7, and 8. These are random numbers.


Those are not guesses, nor are they random numbers. They were worked out through tweaking, to determine their values. Their values also coincide with the GWP [Global Warming Potential] values that were published by the EPA.
https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/understanding-global-warming-potentials
I will be glad to go into this in more detail, if you are interested.

Into the Night wrote:

You are comparing your accuracy against the Earth's temperature. We don't know the Earth's temperature. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.


Not a random number. I am using the temperature of the air when the snow formed, to determine the earth's average global temperature. The ice in Antarctica is a good proxy for the earth's average temperature, because the climate at the poles always reflects what the average climate of the planet is.

Into the Night wrote:

So the calculated value of AGW is calculated from random numbers.

Not impressed.


It's a good thing I didn't build that model to impress you, or anyone else. I built that model so I would know the truth, so that when people like you come around talking bull shit I can tell them the truth. It doesn't matter if they listen. I'm not anyone's mommy, or daddy.

But it does sound like you need your mommy, to help you get a grip on the reality of Global Warming and Climate Change. I heard California was now going to burn up, instead of breaking off and falling into the ocean. Ten people died today. Are you keeping track?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
10-10-2017 18:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
AGW=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((G5^4)/X$6)+((I5^4)/X$7)+(K5^4)/X$8))

AGW - Average Global Warming W/m2
C5 - Insolation [heat] from the Sun W/m2
D5 - Dust in the Air ng/g
G5 - CO2 Concentration ppmv
X$6 - CO2 Warming Factor Constant [1,000,000,000]
I5 - CH4 Concentration ppbv
X$7 - CH4 Warming Factor Constant [300,000,000,000]
K5 - N2O Concentration ppbv
X$8 - N2O Warming Factor Constant [3,000,000,000,000]


I see a few problems.

The insolation from the Sun does not necessarily mean it is absorbed by anything. Much of the energy from the Sun is reflected. You are using a random number.

Not a random number. The values that I am using originated with Berger's calculations. His calculations were for each month, and for different latitude zones. I had to average the months for each of the latitude zones that he broke it down to, and then figure out how much influence each of the zones had on the average temperature. So there was a bit of tweaking involved, before determining what the insolation actually was.

You do not know how much is being absorbed. You are using tweaking. You are using a random number.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You don't know how much dust is in the air. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.

Dust in the air settles on the ice, and gets trapped. They looked at the dust in the ice for each layer, to determine how much dust fell during that period.
Not a random number.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are just guessing at the values for X$6, 7, and 8. These are random numbers.


Those are not guesses, nor are they random numbers. They were worked out through tweaking, to determine their values. Their values also coincide with the GWP [Global Warming Potential] values that were published by the EPA.
...deleted Holy Link...
I will be glad to go into this in more detail, if you are interested.

So you are using tweaked numbers from the EPA. Random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are comparing your accuracy against the Earth's temperature. We don't know the Earth's temperature. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.


Not a random number. I am using the temperature of the air when the snow formed, to determine the earth's average global temperature.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
The ice in Antarctica is a good proxy for the earth's average temperature, because the climate at the poles always reflects what the average climate of the planet is.

No, it doesn't. One thermometer can't measure the temperature of the Earth. You are using a random number.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So the calculated value of AGW is calculated from random numbers.

Not impressed.


It's a good thing I didn't build that model to impress you, or anyone else. I built that model so I would know the truth, so that when people like you come around talking bull shit I can tell them the truth. It doesn't matter if they listen. I'm not anyone's mommy, or daddy.

You're a liar, dude. You built that model to impress people with your bullshit. It is formed out of random numbers. It is not the truth.

GreenMan wrote:
But it does sound like you need your mommy, to help you get a grip on the reality

Don't try philosophy. You suck at math, logic, and science.
GreenMan wrote:
of Global Warming and Climate Change.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

GreenMan wrote:
I heard California was now going to burn up,

No, it won't.
GreenMan wrote:
instead of breaking off and falling into the ocean.

It won't do that either.
GreenMan wrote:
Ten people died today. Are you keeping track?

Of the fires in Sonoma county? Yeah, I know of them and the damage they are causing. The leading possible cause is arson. They spread quickly due to winds caused by a strong high pressure moving over southern Nevada and Arizona, and a low pressure area off the coast of Northern California (known as Santa Ana winds there. Here, that pattern is called a Chinook wind.)

The fires hit the town of Santa Rosa, and quite a few homes were lost before firefighters could build a protective line. It's rough terrain in there.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2017 08:48
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
AGW=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((G5^4)/X$6)+((I5^4)/X$7)+(K5^4)/X$8))

AGW - Average Global Warming W/m2
C5 - Insolation [heat] from the Sun W/m2
D5 - Dust in the Air ng/g
G5 - CO2 Concentration ppmv
X$6 - CO2 Warming Factor Constant [1,000,000,000]
I5 - CH4 Concentration ppbv
X$7 - CH4 Warming Factor Constant [300,000,000,000]
K5 - N2O Concentration ppbv
X$8 - N2O Warming Factor Constant [3,000,000,000,000]


I see a few problems.

The insolation from the Sun does not necessarily mean it is absorbed by anything. Much of the energy from the Sun is reflected. You are using a random number.

Not a random number. The values that I am using originated with Berger's calculations. His calculations were for each month, and for different latitude zones. I had to average the months for each of the latitude zones that he broke it down to, and then figure out how much influence each of the zones had on the average temperature. So there was a bit of tweaking involved, before determining what the insolation actually was.

You do not know how much is being absorbed. You are using tweaking. You are using a random number.

Tweaking can begin with a random number, or it can begin with a guestimate [second cousin (but twice removed) to a random number]. But after the tweaking is done, and the results are as expected and stable, then the tweaked number becomes a "constant." Many constants are determined this way, an example of which can be found in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which you are quite familiar with. Do you know which part of that equation began as a "tweaked" number?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You don't know how much dust is in the air. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.

Dust in the air settles on the ice, and gets trapped. They looked at the dust in the ice for each layer, to determine how much dust fell during that period.
Not a random number.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.


No math error. The scientists that did the study performed all of those things, I'm sure. If there had been a math error on my part, then my model would not have been able to calculate the temperature accurately. And if there had been a gross error on the scientists' part, then my model would not have been able to calculate the temperature accurately. And, as anyone can see from the graph I presented, my model does calculate the temperature accurately for 800,000 years.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are just guessing at the values for X$6, 7, and 8. These are random numbers.


Those are not guesses, nor are they random numbers. They were worked out through tweaking, to determine their values. Their values also coincide with the GWP [Global Warming Potential] values that were published by the EPA.
...deleted Holy Link...
I will be glad to go into this in more detail, if you are interested.

So you are using tweaked numbers from the EPA. Random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are comparing your accuracy against the Earth's temperature. We don't know the Earth's temperature. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.


Not a random number. I am using the temperature of the air when the snow formed, to determine the earth's average global temperature.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
The ice in Antarctica is a good proxy for the earth's average temperature, because the climate at the poles always reflects what the average climate of the planet is.

No, it doesn't. One thermometer can't measure the temperature of the Earth. You are using a random number.


An entire community of scientists whose goal is to know more about the past climate of the planet, so that they can predict the future climate of the planet, are using that "one thermometer" for the same purpose I used it for. So I guess we must all be a bunch of idiots in your opinion.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So the calculated value of AGW is calculated from random numbers.

Not impressed.


It's a good thing I didn't build that model to impress you, or anyone else. I built that model so I would know the truth, so that when people like you come around talking bull shit I can tell them the truth. It doesn't matter if they listen. I'm not anyone's mommy, or daddy.

You're a liar, dude. You built that model to impress people with your bullshit. It is formed out of random numbers. It is not the truth.


I built that model so that I would know the truth. I suppose that would impress people, in this particular part of time, when we have just found out that our lifestyles are killing the planet. We are at a time when information flows freely from one person to another, over vast distances. And there are quite a lot of people who are just interested in one thing, and that is getting richer. Some of those people have waged a war against humanity. They will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo, including calling others liars when they are telling the truth. It's you that is a liar, Parrot.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
But it does sound like you need your mommy, to help you get a grip on the reality

Don't try philosophy. You suck at math, logic, and science.
GreenMan wrote:
of Global Warming and Climate Change.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.


The words used in the terms define the terms.
Global Warming = Makes the Globe Warmer
Climate Change = Climate is Changing

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I heard California was now going to burn up,

No, it won't.
GreenMan wrote:
instead of breaking off and falling into the ocean.

It won't do that either.
GreenMan wrote:
Ten people died today. Are you keeping track?

Of the fires in Sonoma county? Yeah, I know of them and the damage they are causing. The leading possible cause is arson. They spread quickly due to winds caused by a strong high pressure moving over southern Nevada and Arizona, and a low pressure area off the coast of Northern California (known as Santa Ana winds there. Here, that pattern is called a Chinook wind.)

The fires hit the town of Santa Rosa, and quite a few homes were lost before firefighters could build a protective line. It's rough terrain in there.


None of that is due to the drying out of land that was once very moist? Did the Chinook wind just start recently, or has it been here all along? I'm thinking there has always been a Chinook wind, and California didn't burn as much 20 years ago, so something changed.

I hope you are right, for your sake Parrot, because you know what? If you are one of those evil people that are waging war against the future of humanity, then you are playing with your very spiritual being. Did you know that those who don't care about life on the planet get to be destroyed permanently? You see, they have made it all the way up to the highest order of life on the planet. They are human. They have made it to the time of God's Judgement. And guess what God's Judgement is about. If you guess whether people give a shit about life, or not, then you guessed correctly, since that is what we were told to consider when we got here.

Well you know what? We are here. We are facing the destruction of the human race. I suppose there had to be someone who would grab the shitty end of the stick, because someone had to, or there wouldn't have been a need for God's Judgement.

If I were you, I would turn loose of that end of the stick.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
12-10-2017 19:41
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(744)
So, I don't put much stock in charts anymore. You never know who has been "tweeking" the data. However, there are those of us, such as Greenthings, that do put a lot of faith in these charts, especially his own self tweeked version.

Each circle on his chart below shows a time period when CO2 was breaking the rules. Temps were rising when CO2 was crashing or CO2 was spiking and temps were unresponsive or falling. These may look like small blinks of time in history, and they are. But look at the timetable on the chart. Each notch is 12,500 years, and I have circled no period smaller than that. Isn't 12,000 years about the same time period of this inter glacial? And Greenthings is trying to sell us on warming of just 100 years.....Ha! And CO2 is off the chart higher than ever, but temps are just not responding. Bummer dude.

Can you please explain why the circled time periods did not follow CO2 protocol?
Attached image:

12-10-2017 20:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not know how much is being absorbed. You are using tweaking. You are using a random number.

Tweaking can begin with a random number, or it can begin with a guestimate [second cousin (but twice removed) to a random number].

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Can you HEAR yourself??? You are using words like 'tweaking' and 'guestimates'! You are using random numbers of type randU!
GreenMan wrote:
But after the tweaking is done, and the results are as expected and stable, then the tweaked number becomes a "constant."

So the results calculated from your random numbers are what you expect, eh? What does THAT have to do with anything???
GreenMan wrote:
Many constants are determined this way,

No constants are determined that way.
GreenMan wrote:
an example of which can be found in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which you are quite familiar with.

There is no term in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation determined that way.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you know which part of that equation began as a "tweaked" number?

None.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You don't know how much dust is in the air. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.

Dust in the air settles on the ice, and gets trapped. They looked at the dust in the ice for each layer, to determine how much dust fell during that period.
Not a random number.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

No math error.

Math error, as I described.
GreenMan wrote:
The scientists that did the study performed all of those things, I'm sure.

Some scientists have the same math error in their work, yes. Most scientists aren't great mathematicians. Other scientists are better at it.
GreenMan wrote:
If there had been a math error on my part, then my model would not have been able to calculate the temperature accurately.

You can't calculate the temperature accurately. Your 'temperature' is the result of random numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
And if there had been a gross error on the scientists' part, then my model would not have been able to calculate the temperature accurately.

Any scientist that figures you can determine the temperature of the Earth from one thermometer has the same math error.
GreenMan wrote:
And, as anyone can see from the graph I presented, my model does calculate the temperature accurately for 800,000 years.

No, it doesn't. It is a chart of random numbers.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are just guessing at the values for X$6, 7, and 8. These are random numbers.


Those are not guesses, nor are they random numbers. They were worked out through tweaking, to determine their values. Their values also coincide with the GWP [Global Warming Potential] values that were published by the EPA.
...deleted Holy Link...
I will be glad to go into this in more detail, if you are interested.

So you are using tweaked numbers from the EPA. Random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are comparing your accuracy against the Earth's temperature. We don't know the Earth's temperature. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.


Not a random number. I am using the temperature of the air when the snow formed, to determine the earth's average global temperature.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
The ice in Antarctica is a good proxy for the earth's average temperature, because the climate at the poles always reflects what the average climate of the planet is.

No, it doesn't. One thermometer can't measure the temperature of the Earth. You are using a random number.


An entire community of scientists

Consensus is not used in science.
GreenMan wrote:
whose goal is to know more about the past climate of the planet, so that they can predict the future climate of the planet, are using that "one thermometer" for the same purpose I used it for.

This is neither science nor math. It is a math error used to justify a religion.
GreenMan wrote:
So I guess we must all be a bunch of idiots in your opinion.

Yup.


GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So the calculated value of AGW is calculated from random numbers.

Not impressed.


It's a good thing I didn't build that model to impress you, or anyone else. I built that model so I would know the truth, so that when people like you come around talking bull shit I can tell them the truth. It doesn't matter if they listen. I'm not anyone's mommy, or daddy.

You're a liar, dude. You built that model to impress people with your bullshit. It is formed out of random numbers. It is not the truth.


I built that model so that I would know the truth.

Random numbers is not the 'truth' of anything but the existence of the random number.
GreenMan wrote:
I suppose that would impress people, in this particular part of time, when we have just found out that our lifestyles are killing the planet.

The planet isn't dying.
GreenMan wrote:
We are at a time when information flows freely from one person to another, over vast distances. And there are quite a lot of people who are just interested in one thing, and that is getting richer. Some of those people have waged a war against humanity. They will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo, including calling others liars when they are telling the truth. It's you that is a liar, Parrot.

We are at a time when disinformation flows freely too. We are also at a time when illiteracy is running rampant in the United States, especially illiteracy in mathematics beyond arithmetic and simple algebra. Few understand random number mathematics, probability math, or statistical math. This includes a lot of scientists. It especially includes those folks who call themselves 'climate' scientists. Those folks are neither scientists nor do they understand science.

GreenMan wrote:[/b
[b]Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

The words used in the terms define the terms.
Global Warming = Makes the Globe Warmer
Climate Change = Climate is Changing

Circular definitions.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.


GreenMan wrote:
None of that is due to the drying out of land that was once very moist?

California has always had wet spells and dry spells.
GreenMan wrote:
Did the Chinook wind just start recently, or has it been here all along?

California doesn't call them Chinook winds. Pay attention.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking there has always been a Chinook wind, and California didn't burn as much 20 years ago, so something changed.

Yes. California has moved into one of its many dry spells, had a wet spring producing extra growth, a dry summer that dried it out, and high speed offshore winds that came around at just the right time to fan the flames into a firestorm. The ignition source of the fire itself is not yet determined. There is still the strong possibility of arson.

GreenMan wrote:
I hope you are right, for your sake Parrot, because you know what? If you are one of those evil people that are waging war against the future of humanity, then you are playing with your very spiritual being. Did you know that those who don't care about life on the planet get to be destroyed permanently?
...deleted remaining Pascal's Wager...

You don't get to judge me. You are not God. You don't get to pronounce God's judgements for him either.

Still making the Pascal's Wager fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2017 20:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you please explain why the circled time periods did not follow CO2 protocol?


You're asking him to explain his random numbers? That's what 'tweaking' is!


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2017 20:47
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(744)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you please explain why the circled time periods did not follow CO2 protocol?


You're asking him to explain his random numbers? That's what 'tweaking' is!


May I quote you INT?

"Yup"

Maybe I'm sick minded but I do enjoy watching someone dig a hole.

Edited on 12-10-2017 20:48
12-10-2017 20:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you please explain why the circled time periods did not follow CO2 protocol?


You're asking him to explain his random numbers? That's what 'tweaking' is!


May I quote you INT?

"Yup"

Maybe I'm sick minded but I do enjoy watching someone dig a hole.


I don't have to dig a grave for a dead parrot. They dig their own.



The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-10-2017 20:57
12-10-2017 21:10
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(744)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you please explain why the circled time periods did not follow CO2 protocol?


You're asking him to explain his random numbers? That's what 'tweaking' is!


May I quote you INT?

"Yup"

Maybe I'm sick minded but I do enjoy watching someone dig a hole.


I don't have to dig a grave for a dead parrot. They dig their own.


This is pretty funny stuff!

Imagine a prosecutor standing before the judge and jury. He says ''Your honor, I've gone ahead and tweaked the forensics and now I'm certain we have our killer!"
Edited on 12-10-2017 21:11
12-10-2017 21:51
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you please explain why the circled time periods did not follow CO2 protocol?


You're asking him to explain his random numbers? That's what 'tweaking' is!


May I quote you INT?

"Yup"

Maybe I'm sick minded but I do enjoy watching someone dig a hole.


I don't have to dig a grave for a dead parrot. They dig their own.


This is pretty funny stuff!

Imagine a prosecutor standing before the judge and jury. He says ''Your honor, I've gone ahead and tweaked the forensics and now I'm certain we have our killer!"


Even better, imagine a pilot that had the mechanic tweak the fuel gauge to he could 'fly farther' before it read empty!


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 12-10-2017 21:53
13-10-2017 04:07
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
GasGuzzler wrote:
So, I don't put much stock in charts anymore. You never know who has been "tweeking" the data. However, there are those of us, such as Greenthings, that do put a lot of faith in these charts, especially his own self tweeked version.

Each circle on his chart below shows a time period when CO2 was breaking the rules. Temps were rising when CO2 was crashing or CO2 was spiking and temps were unresponsive or falling. These may look like small blinks of time in history, and they are. But look at the timetable on the chart. Each notch is 12,500 years, and I have circled no period smaller than that. Isn't 12,000 years about the same time period of this inter glacial? And Greenthings is trying to sell us on warming of just 100 years.....Ha! And CO2 is off the chart higher than ever, but temps are just not responding. Bummer dude.

Can you please explain why the circled time periods did not follow CO2 protocol?


Jizzy, I am not aware of the "CO2 protocol" that you are asking about. Before the Industrial Age began, CO2 increased or decreased based on the amount of animal life on the planet, versus plant life. As animal life increases, the CO2 concentration increases with it. When animal life decreases, so does CO2 concentrations, eventually.

The temperature of the planet is affected by things other than CO2 levels, is what I think is the answer to your question though. The sun's radiation, CH4 levels, dust levels, and N2O levels all play a part in the temperature of the earth. So if you just focus on one of those, then you will see "unexplainable" deviations.

If you take a look at the Climate Code Output Chart, and compare it to the gas concentrations, then you can start to see the relationship. If you overlay them one on top of another, so that you can see all of them at the same time [it gets quite confusing] you can confuse yourself out of sanity.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 04:36
GasGuzzler
★★★☆☆
(744)
Greenthings wrote:
The temperature of the planet is affected by things other than CO2 levels, is what I think is the answer to your question though. The sun's radiation, CH4 levels, dust levels, and N2O levels all play a part in the temperature of the earth. So if you just focus on one of those, then you will see "unexplainable" deviations.


You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2. I'm also showing that you are looking at a blink in history and crying wolf. Even your own tweaked chart doesn't support what you say.
13-10-2017 05:49
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You do not know how much is being absorbed. You are using tweaking. You are using a random number.

Tweaking can begin with a random number, or it can begin with a guestimate [second cousin (but twice removed) to a random number].

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Can you HEAR yourself??? You are using words like 'tweaking' and 'guestimates'! You are using random numbers of type randU!

If that is what you want to call the constants that I use, then fine. It just shows you lack of understanding in where algorithms originate.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
But after the tweaking is done, and the results are as expected and stable, then the tweaked number becomes a "constant."

So the results calculated from your random numbers are what you expect, eh? What does THAT have to do with anything???

Well, somehow, those random numbers as you call then, generate a value, when mixed in the correct proportions, produce a number that is very close to the temperature of the air, when the ice was formed.
And that, my evil, brain dead Parrot denier, proves that Greenhouse Gases and the Sun's energy, control the temperature of the planet [which you are too brain dead to realize can even be measured].

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Many constants are determined this way,

No constants are determined that way.

I'm going to make a wild-assed guess here, that you have never, ever, even dreamed of actually writing an algorithm that describes nature. Have you? So you don't have a clue really, about where constants come from, or how they are worked out. I'm thinking you need to learn how to take smarter people's words for some things, which your mental capacity doesn't allow you to explore personally. You know, everyone isn't as evil as you are, and trying to mislead you about everything. Some people can actually be trusted.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
an example of which can be found in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, which you are quite familiar with.

There is no term in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation determined that way.

And how is it that you have a clue about how the Stefan-Boltzmann equation was determined? You don't have a clue about it, any more than you understand what it really means.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Do you know which part of that equation began as a "tweaked" number?

None.

As many times as you have spouted off about the emissivity of earth not being measurable. "Nobody knows the emissivity of earth," I believe is one of your favorite copy/paste lines. And you can't figure out, knowing that, which number is used to tweak the radiation, to account for a "grey body?"
The more I learn about you, the more I agree with your position. If I were as brain dead as you are, I would opt for permanent removal from the human race also. And I don't think anyone would blame you, if you went ahead and got a jump on things, by taking a leap off a high cliff.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You don't know how much dust is in the air. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.

Dust in the air settles on the ice, and gets trapped. They looked at the dust in the ice for each layer, to determine how much dust fell during that period.
Not a random number.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

No math error.

Math error, as I described.

You didn't describe a math error. You just described your inability to comprehend how someone could produce a Climate Model with data that you don't understand. You blame your lack of comprehension on things other than your less than optimal mental capacity, and grasp for whatever excuse you can to criticize.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The scientists that did the study performed all of those things, I'm sure.

Some scientists have the same math error in their work, yes. Most scientists aren't great mathematicians. Other scientists are better at it.

You don't have a clue about what a scientist does, or knows, or anything else. Once thing is for certain, they all have a better understanding of mathematics than you have, or they couldn't comprehend complex ideas [which is what they are supposed to be coming up with, to solve whatever problem they are trying to solve]. So a scientists that doesn't have good mathematical understanding, and skills, would be a washout right out of the starting gates.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
If there had been a math error on my part, then my model would not have been able to calculate the temperature accurately.

You can't calculate the temperature accurately. Your 'temperature' is the result of random numbers.

Perhaps you should look at my graph again. Here it is, so you don't have to scroll back up there.


You can read a graph, can't you? Can you see the white line? Notice how closely it follows the red line. The white line is what my model says the temperature should have been, based on the data for that time. You can call the data, or my constants, "random" numbers if you want. But if you try to say that my Climate Model doesn't accurately calculate the temperature, then that just means that you can't read a chart [which wouldn't surprise me].

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And if there had been a gross error on the scientists' part, then my model would not have been able to calculate the temperature accurately.

Any scientist that figures you can determine the temperature of the Earth from one thermometer has the same math error.

It's not like anyone is trying to determine the temperature of Seattle, with the temperature of Antarctica. If they were, then you would have a legitimate argument. But since they are only concerned about the average temperature of the planet, then it is a good proxy, since the temperature of Antarctica does follow the average global temperature.
And, by the way, if it turns out that Antarctica is not a good proxy for the temperature of the planet, it's not a math error. So please call it something else. Perhaps an error in judgement.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
And, as anyone can see from the graph I presented, my model does calculate the temperature accurately for 800,000 years.

No, it doesn't. It is a chart of random numbers.

Do I need to put my chart back up here again for you to look at and not understand? How about instead of doing that, I just try to explain to you how to read a graph? Because you are really starting to sound like a complete idiot to anyone who can read a graph.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are just guessing at the values for X$6, 7, and 8. These are random numbers.


Those are not guesses, nor are they random numbers. They were worked out through tweaking, to determine their values. Their values also coincide with the GWP [Global Warming Potential] values that were published by the EPA.
...deleted Holy Link...
I will be glad to go into this in more detail, if you are interested.

So you are using tweaked numbers from the EPA. Random numbers.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You are comparing your accuracy against the Earth's temperature. We don't know the Earth's temperature. It is not possible to determine it. You are using a random number.


Not a random number. I am using the temperature of the air when the snow formed, to determine the earth's average global temperature.

Math error. Failure to select independent of influencing factors. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
The ice in Antarctica is a good proxy for the earth's average temperature, because the climate at the poles always reflects what the average climate of the planet is.

No, it doesn't. One thermometer can't measure the temperature of the Earth. You are using a random number.


An entire community of scientists

Consensus is not used in science.

That is true, but it is irrelevant. Seems like you are just full of irrelevant information. The scientific consensus on Climate Change isn't for the scientists' benefit. They don't need to know whether everyone else agrees with them. They just do their work, and show the results. It's the population as a whole that needs to know there is a scientific consensus on Climate Change.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
whose goal is to know more about the past climate of the planet, so that they can predict the future climate of the planet, are using that "one thermometer" for the same purpose I used it for.

This is neither science nor math. It is a math error used to justify a religion.

It's not a math error, and it's not a religion. You call those who are aware of AGW the Church of Global Warming, so you have to discredit the science behind Global Warming in order to consider it a religion. It's a science, and those who are concerned about the planet's future are the ones who will inherit the earth, after the like of you, who don't care about the planet's [or humanity's] future are gone. Oh, that part could actually qualify as a religious argument, since it is from an understanding of prophecy, instead of science.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
So I guess we must all be a bunch of idiots in your opinion.

Yup.

No problem then, since the feeling is mutual.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

So the calculated value of AGW is calculated from random numbers.

Not impressed.


It's a good thing I didn't build that model to impress you, or anyone else. I built that model so I would know the truth, so that when people like you come around talking bull shit I can tell them the truth. It doesn't matter if they listen. I'm not anyone's mommy, or daddy.

You're a liar, dude. You built that model to impress people with your bullshit. It is formed out of random numbers. It is not the truth.


I built that model so that I would know the truth.

Random numbers is not the 'truth' of anything but the existence of the random number.

Funny how I was able to use "random numbers" to accurately calculate another supposed "random number." There might just be a little magic in my algorithm?

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I suppose that would impress people, in this particular part of time, when we have just found out that our lifestyles are killing the planet.

The planet isn't dying.

Maybe not, but life on the planet isn't doing so well. Have you seen the latest death toll from the California fires? I would love to change sides, and I would, if I thought that the majority wins, and if the majority doesn't want Climate Change, then we won't have it. But it doesn't work like that. We have to vote with our actions. Those people out in California: they should have been prepared better. But it's hard for people to decide to prepare for the worse, when there are so many idiots out there [like you] who say there is nothing to prepare for.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
We are at a time when information flows freely from one person to another, over vast distances. And there are quite a lot of people who are just interested in one thing, and that is getting richer. Some of those people have waged a war against humanity. They will stop at nothing to maintain the status quo, including calling others liars when they are telling the truth. It's you that is a liar, Parrot.

We are at a time when disinformation flows freely too. We are also at a time when illiteracy is running rampant in the United States, especially illiteracy in mathematics beyond arithmetic and simple algebra. Few understand random number mathematics, probability math, or statistical math. This includes a lot of scientists. It especially includes those folks who call themselves 'climate' scientists. Those folks are neither scientists nor do they understand science.


You sure don't understand much about mathematics, even though you spout off about it like that. Do you think that if you use a lot of mathematical sounding words that you are fooling anyone? You can't visualize a bunch of numbers in your head, and see how they influence other numbers, can you?
Does it make your head hurt when you try to figure out algorithms?

And I am somewhat in agreement with you about the quality of education in our country. I think too much emphasis is being placed on standardized tests, and not enough on things that help children learn about creativity. Sure, they get to do finger painting in kindergarten, but they aren't really rewarded for figuring out how to use information to solve problems. You are a poster child for that. You had to learn [or should we say memorize] all that physics information, and they did test you on it, which I'm sure you did well. You can repeat all those equations, and even repeat things you are supposed to, to indicate that you know what they actually mean. But you don't know what they actually mean, which is why you can't relate that information to something else, and combine both sets of information to solve a problem. That means you are basically a useless human being, unless someone needs a walking talking textbook.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:[/b
[b]Into the Night wrote:
Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

The words used in the terms define the terms.
Global Warming = Makes the Globe Warmer
Climate Change = Climate is Changing

Circular definitions.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

I don't have to. I understand their meaning. Perhaps you should try to understand them. But maybe not. After knowing more about you, I think your mommy just needs to take your keyboard away.

Into the Night wrote:


GreenMan wrote:
None of that is due to the drying out of land that was once very moist?

California has always had wet spells and dry spells.

Is it getting wetter and dryer than it used to get? I'm thinking it is, because I don't remember that many people getting killed out in California from fires, as I was growing up. And I don't recall entire towns getting wiped out, like we have seen recently, and not just in California.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Did the Chinook wind just start recently, or has it been here all along?

California doesn't call them Chinook winds. Pay attention.

Oh, I like the sound of that name. Does it matter what the people in California call it?

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking there has always been a Chinook wind, and California didn't burn as much 20 years ago, so something changed.

Yes. California has moved into one of its many dry spells, had a wet spring producing extra growth, a dry summer that dried it out, and high speed offshore winds that came around at just the right time to fan the flames into a firestorm. The ignition source of the fire itself is not yet determined. There is still the strong possibility of arson.

What started the fires are irrelevant. There have always been arsonists, careless people in general.
Sounds like California is seeing extreme changes between the seasons. The extremes are becoming more extreme, is what you just described. Seems like that is what the Alarmists were saying would happen over time. Storms would get stormier, droughts would get droughtier, etc, etc.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I hope you are right, for your sake Parrot, because you know what? If you are one of those evil people that are waging war against the future of humanity, then you are playing with your very spiritual being. Did you know that those who don't care about life on the planet get to be destroyed permanently?
...deleted remaining Pascal's Wager...

You don't get to judge me. You are not God. You don't get to pronounce God's judgements for him either.

Still making the Pascal's Wager fallacy.


Nah, it's not Pascal's Wager. And I don't think I get to judge you. As you said, it is God's Judgement about who gets to live on earth when. I'm just passing along the information, since you apparently didn't get the memo. My opinion of you being an evil scum sucking slime of the earth has no bearing on anything other than my attitude towards you.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 06:59
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Can you please explain why the circled time periods did not follow CO2 protocol?


You're asking him to explain his random numbers? That's what 'tweaking' is!


May I quote you INT?

"Yup"

Maybe I'm sick minded but I do enjoy watching someone dig a hole.


I don't have to dig a grave for a dead parrot. They dig their own.


This is pretty funny stuff!

Imagine a prosecutor standing before the judge and jury. He says ''Your honor, I've gone ahead and tweaked the forensics and now I'm certain we have our killer!"


Even better, imagine a pilot that had the mechanic tweak the fuel gauge to he could 'fly farther' before it read empty!


Now aren't you two cute, standing right out in the open having your little celebratory circle jerk.

Jizzy, you do realize that your question wasn't so good after all, and that you are now standing here in public, with your hand on another man's junk [who is openly gay, so he don't care], just because he agreed with you about your stupid question, instead of telling you himself what a stupid question that was.

And Parrot, shame on you for seducing poor Jizzy, who has a hot looking wife at home [that apparently won't give him none]. You know there is no such a thing as what Jizzy was asking about. The Church of AGW as you call them have never said anything about any CO2 protocol, nor have I. Yet you acted like that was a big deal, and took advantage of a dimwit, just so he would give you a hand job in pubic.

We all know what you did, so you can wipe that smile off your face. And Jizzy, get your hand off that man's junk. Or get a room.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 07:10
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenthings wrote:
The temperature of the planet is affected by things other than CO2 levels, is what I think is the answer to your question though. The sun's radiation, CH4 levels, dust levels, and N2O levels all play a part in the temperature of the earth. So if you just focus on one of those, then you will see "unexplainable" deviations.


You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2. I'm also showing that you are looking at a blink in history and crying wolf. Even your own tweaked chart doesn't support what you say.


Now, now, Jizzy, just calm down. I know this is embarrassing for you and all that there, but that is no excuse to go putting words in my mouth. Especially stupid words like that. When I came into the forum, I told you guys about my Climate Model, and how it uses the Sun, Dust, CO2, CH4, and N2O to determine the expected temperature of the earth.

Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 07:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Now aren't you two cute, standing right out in the open having your little celebratory circle jerk.

Jizzy, you do realize that your question wasn't so good after all, and that you are now standing here in public, with your hand on another man's junk [who is openly gay, so he don't care], just because he agreed with you about your stupid question, instead of telling you himself what a stupid question that was.

And Parrot, shame on you for seducing poor Jizzy, who has a hot looking wife at home [that apparently won't give him none]. You know there is no such a thing as what Jizzy was asking about. The Church of AGW as you call them have never said anything about any CO2 protocol, nor have I. Yet you acted like that was a big deal, and took advantage of a dimwit, just so he would give you a hand job in pubic.

We all know what you did, so you can wipe that smile off your face. And Jizzy, get your hand off that man's junk. Or get a room.

Into the NightI don't have to dig a grave for a dead parrot. They dig their own.


Dead and buried. No argument presented. Entire post is an insult fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 08:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenthings wrote:
The temperature of the planet is affected by things other than CO2 levels, is what I think is the answer to your question though. The sun's radiation, CH4 levels, dust levels, and N2O levels all play a part in the temperature of the earth. So if you just focus on one of those, then you will see "unexplainable" deviations.


You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2. I'm also showing that you are looking at a blink in history and crying wolf. Even your own tweaked chart doesn't support what you say.


Now, now, Jizzy, just calm down. I know this is embarrassing for you and all that there, but that is no excuse to go putting words in my mouth. Especially stupid words like that. When I came into the forum, I told you guys about my Climate Model, and how it uses the Sun, Dust, CO2, CH4, and N2O to determine the expected temperature of the earth.

Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?


You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

You don't know the amount of dust in the air.

You don't know the concentration of CO2, CH4, or N2O in the air. We don't have enough stations.

You don't know the 'expected' temperature of the Earth.

You entire climate model is based on random numbers of type randU.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 08:12
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenthings wrote:
The temperature of the planet is affected by things other than CO2 levels, is what I think is the answer to your question though. The sun's radiation, CH4 levels, dust levels, and N2O levels all play a part in the temperature of the earth. So if you just focus on one of those, then you will see "unexplainable" deviations.


You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2. I'm also showing that you are looking at a blink in history and crying wolf. Even your own tweaked chart doesn't support what you say.


Now, now, Jizzy, just calm down. I know this is embarrassing for you and all that there, but that is no excuse to go putting words in my mouth. Especially stupid words like that. When I came into the forum, I told you guys about my Climate Model, and how it uses the Sun, Dust, CO2, CH4, and N2O to determine the expected temperature of the earth.

Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?


You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

You don't know the amount of dust in the air.

You don't know the concentration of CO2, CH4, or N2O in the air. We don't have enough stations.

You don't know the 'expected' temperature of the Earth.

You entire climate model is based on random numbers of type randU.


Oh now look Jizzy, you done went and caused Parrot to pop a vein. Apparently he went crazy and just started spinning around the room with his keyboard, typing nonsense, again. [He does that every time one of you guys says something stupid, and we have to mansplain things to ya.] He just can't handle reality, so he tries to stay in his never never land fantasy, where nobody knows what's going on, but things just keep going on, somehow.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
13-10-2017 09:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenthings wrote:
The temperature of the planet is affected by things other than CO2 levels, is what I think is the answer to your question though. The sun's radiation, CH4 levels, dust levels, and N2O levels all play a part in the temperature of the earth. So if you just focus on one of those, then you will see "unexplainable" deviations.


You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2. I'm also showing that you are looking at a blink in history and crying wolf. Even your own tweaked chart doesn't support what you say.


Now, now, Jizzy, just calm down. I know this is embarrassing for you and all that there, but that is no excuse to go putting words in my mouth. Especially stupid words like that. When I came into the forum, I told you guys about my Climate Model, and how it uses the Sun, Dust, CO2, CH4, and N2O to determine the expected temperature of the earth.

Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?


You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

You don't know the amount of dust in the air.

You don't know the concentration of CO2, CH4, or N2O in the air. We don't have enough stations.

You don't know the 'expected' temperature of the Earth.

You entire climate model is based on random numbers of type randU.


Oh now look Jizzy, you done went and caused Parrot to pop a vein. Apparently he went crazy and just started spinning around the room with his keyboard, typing nonsense, again. [He does that every time one of you guys says something stupid, and we have to mansplain things to ya.] He just can't handle reality, so he tries to stay in his never never land fantasy, where nobody knows what's going on, but things just keep going on, somehow.


This is your 'counterargument'??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 04:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenthings wrote:
The temperature of the planet is affected by things other than CO2 levels, is what I think is the answer to your question though. The sun's radiation, CH4 levels, dust levels, and N2O levels all play a part in the temperature of the earth. So if you just focus on one of those, then you will see "unexplainable" deviations.


You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2. I'm also showing that you are looking at a blink in history and crying wolf. Even your own tweaked chart doesn't support what you say.


Now, now, Jizzy, just calm down. I know this is embarrassing for you and all that there, but that is no excuse to go putting words in my mouth. Especially stupid words like that. When I came into the forum, I told you guys about my Climate Model, and how it uses the Sun, Dust, CO2, CH4, and N2O to determine the expected temperature of the earth.

Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?


You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

You don't know the amount of dust in the air.

You don't know the concentration of CO2, CH4, or N2O in the air. We don't have enough stations.

You don't know the 'expected' temperature of the Earth.

You entire climate model is based on random numbers of type randU.


Oh now look Jizzy, you done went and caused Parrot to pop a vein. Apparently he went crazy and just started spinning around the room with his keyboard, typing nonsense, again. [He does that every time one of you guys says something stupid, and we have to mansplain things to ya.] He just can't handle reality, so he tries to stay in his never never land fantasy, where nobody knows what's going on, but things just keep going on, somehow.


This is your 'counterargument'??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Why try to argue with a person who will not accept anything as factual data? It's like arguing with a woman. Facts don't matter, it's more about how emotional the situation is. Some times you just got to whip it out and calm her down, then talk about it. Can't do that with a guy [gay or not].


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
14-10-2017 07:23
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Now aren't you two cute, standing right out in the open having your little celebratory circle jerk.

Jizzy, you do realize that your question wasn't so good after all, and that you are now standing here in public, with your hand on another man's junk [who is openly gay, so he don't care], just because he agreed with you about your stupid question, instead of telling you himself what a stupid question that was.

And Parrot, shame on you for seducing poor Jizzy, who has a hot looking wife at home [that apparently won't give him none]. You know there is no such a thing as what Jizzy was asking about. The Church of AGW as you call them have never said anything about any CO2 protocol, nor have I. Yet you acted like that was a big deal, and took advantage of a dimwit, just so he would give you a hand job in pubic.

We all know what you did, so you can wipe that smile off your face. And Jizzy, get your hand off that man's junk. Or get a room.

Into the NightI don't have to dig a grave for a dead parrot. They dig their own.


Dead and buried. No argument presented. Entire post is an insult fallacy.


Wasn't trying to argue. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of you two's victory celebration, when you weren't victorious. No, a misunderstanding by a dimwit does not constitute a victory, even if the dimwit is allowed to live.

There is still no such thing as CO2 protocol.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
14-10-2017 18:31
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenthings wrote:
The temperature of the planet is affected by things other than CO2 levels, is what I think is the answer to your question though. The sun's radiation, CH4 levels, dust levels, and N2O levels all play a part in the temperature of the earth. So if you just focus on one of those, then you will see "unexplainable" deviations.


You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2. I'm also showing that you are looking at a blink in history and crying wolf. Even your own tweaked chart doesn't support what you say.


Now, now, Jizzy, just calm down. I know this is embarrassing for you and all that there, but that is no excuse to go putting words in my mouth. Especially stupid words like that. When I came into the forum, I told you guys about my Climate Model, and how it uses the Sun, Dust, CO2, CH4, and N2O to determine the expected temperature of the earth.

Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?


You don't know the emissivity of the Earth.

You don't know the amount of dust in the air.

You don't know the concentration of CO2, CH4, or N2O in the air. We don't have enough stations.

You don't know the 'expected' temperature of the Earth.

You entire climate model is based on random numbers of type randU.


Oh now look Jizzy, you done went and caused Parrot to pop a vein. Apparently he went crazy and just started spinning around the room with his keyboard, typing nonsense, again. [He does that every time one of you guys says something stupid, and we have to mansplain things to ya.] He just can't handle reality, so he tries to stay in his never never land fantasy, where nobody knows what's going on, but things just keep going on, somehow.


This is your 'counterargument'??? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


Why try to argue with a person who will not accept anything as factual data?

But I do. I demand data that is verifiable, that I know the source of, that I know who collected it and why, that I know what the instrumentation was and how it was calibrated, that I know when the data was collected, and that has the raw data available. If a statistical summary is given, I demand all of this AND the calculated margin of error value, since the summary is useless without it.

Learn what a 'fact' is.

GreenMan wrote:
It's like arguing with a woman.

You don't get along well with women, do you?
GreenMan wrote:
Facts don't matter,

Facts DO matter. Learn what a 'fact' is.
GreenMan wrote:
it's more about how emotional the situation is.

Mathematics isn't emotion.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 18:33
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Now aren't you two cute, standing right out in the open having your little celebratory circle jerk.

Jizzy, you do realize that your question wasn't so good after all, and that you are now standing here in public, with your hand on another man's junk [who is openly gay, so he don't care], just because he agreed with you about your stupid question, instead of telling you himself what a stupid question that was.

And Parrot, shame on you for seducing poor Jizzy, who has a hot looking wife at home [that apparently won't give him none]. You know there is no such a thing as what Jizzy was asking about. The Church of AGW as you call them have never said anything about any CO2 protocol, nor have I. Yet you acted like that was a big deal, and took advantage of a dimwit, just so he would give you a hand job in pubic.

We all know what you did, so you can wipe that smile off your face. And Jizzy, get your hand off that man's junk. Or get a room.

Into the NightI don't have to dig a grave for a dead parrot. They dig their own.


Dead and buried. No argument presented. Entire post is an insult fallacy.


Wasn't trying to argue. Just pointing out the ridiculousness of you two's victory celebration, when you weren't victorious. No, a misunderstanding by a dimwit does not constitute a victory, even if the dimwit is allowed to live.

There is still no such thing as CO2 protocol.


YOU made the mistakes. YOU get to pay for them! Now YOU have lost context!


The Parrot Killer
15-10-2017 17:12
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Gasguzzler wrote:
You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2.

Greenhorn said this:
Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?
~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Didn't even have to go back and check the record, he gave me a brand new one!

Greenhorn also said this:
Nobody wants to live without the use of cheap energy. But it produces CO2, so the adults on our planet realize that we have to stop producing it, because it's going to warm our planet beyond our ability to survive.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Edited on 15-10-2017 17:46
16-10-2017 04:02
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
GasGuzler wrote:
Gasguzzler wrote:
You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2.

Greenhorn said this:
Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?
~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Didn't even have to go back and check the record, he gave me a brand new one!

Greenhorn also said this:
Nobody wants to live without the use of cheap energy. But it produces CO2, so the adults on our planet realize that we have to stop producing it, because it's going to warm our planet beyond our ability to survive.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~


Oh, I get it. You think that just because I said we have to stop producing CO2, that it's the ONLY thing that raises the temperature.

Give me a break.

It's not the only gas that effects the earth's climate. So you will see it deviate quite a bit from the temperature. CH4 also has a very strong influence on the climate. And of course, let's not leave out the Sun, or the dust.

We can't do anything about the Sun. We are already doing what we can about the dust/smog. It cools us anyway. But we can do something about the CO2, and CH4. Sorry for leaving CH4 out of picture.

If it makes you feel better, you gonna have to stop stuffing your face with cow paddies. Because the burps and farts that come with those paddies are also causing us to warm up.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
16-10-2017 18:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
Gasguzzler wrote:
You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2.

Greenhorn said this:
Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?
~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Didn't even have to go back and check the record, he gave me a brand new one!

Greenhorn also said this:
Nobody wants to live without the use of cheap energy. But it produces CO2, so the adults on our planet realize that we have to stop producing it, because it's going to warm our planet beyond our ability to survive.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~


Oh, I get it. You think that just because I said we have to stop producing CO2, that it's the ONLY thing that raises the temperature.

Give me a break.

It's not the only gas that effects the earth's climate. So you will see it deviate quite a bit from the temperature. CH4 also has a very strong influence on the climate. And of course, let's not leave out the Sun, or the dust.

Methane does not have the power to warm the Earth either. No gas does. You don't know how much methane or dust is in the atmosphere. Dust does not cool the Earth either.
GreenMan wrote:
We can't do anything about the Sun.

True.
GreenMan wrote:
We are already doing what we can about the dust/smog.

No one is doing anything about dust. Smog is easily handled by modern engine designs. Neither smog nor dust cool the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
It cools us anyway.

No, they don't.
GreenMan wrote:
But we can do something about the CO2, and CH4.

Don't need to.
GreenMan wrote:
Sorry for leaving CH4 out of picture.

Have a brain fart?
GreenMan wrote:
If it makes you feel better, you gonna have to stop stuffing your face with cow paddies. Because the burps and farts that come with those paddies are also causing us to warm up.

Methane does not have the capability of warming the Earth. No gas, vapor, or particulate does. None of them are energy sources. None of them are magick blankets. None of them are magick one way mirrors.


The Parrot Killer
18-10-2017 05:19
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(482)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
Gasguzzler wrote:
You have said several times, "It's the CO2 stupid". I'm simply showing that temp does not, according to your chart, always rise with increased CO2.

Greenhorn said this:
Now how is it that you gonna accuse me of ever saying it was just the CO2, stupid?
~*~ GreenMan ~*~

Didn't even have to go back and check the record, he gave me a brand new one!

Greenhorn also said this:
Nobody wants to live without the use of cheap energy. But it produces CO2, so the adults on our planet realize that we have to stop producing it, because it's going to warm our planet beyond our ability to survive.
~*~ GreenMan ~*~


Oh, I get it. You think that just because I said we have to stop producing CO2, that it's the ONLY thing that raises the temperature.

Give me a break.

It's not the only gas that effects the earth's climate. So you will see it deviate quite a bit from the temperature. CH4 also has a very strong influence on the climate. And of course, let's not leave out the Sun, or the dust.

Methane does not have the power to warm the Earth either. No gas does. You don't know how much methane or dust is in the atmosphere. Dust does not cool the Earth either.
GreenMan wrote:
We can't do anything about the Sun.

True.
GreenMan wrote:
We are already doing what we can about the dust/smog.

No one is doing anything about dust. Smog is easily handled by modern engine designs. Neither smog nor dust cool the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
It cools us anyway.

No, they don't.
GreenMan wrote:
But we can do something about the CO2, and CH4.

Don't need to.
GreenMan wrote:
Sorry for leaving CH4 out of picture.

Have a brain fart?
GreenMan wrote:
If it makes you feel better, you gonna have to stop stuffing your face with cow paddies. Because the burps and farts that come with those paddies are also causing us to warm up.

Methane does not have the capability of warming the Earth. No gas, vapor, or particulate does. None of them are energy sources. None of them are magick blankets. None of them are magick one way mirrors.


You need to come up with some new lines, Parrot. We have been over this at least a dozen times. Greenhouse Gases slow down the earth surface's cooling, thus increasing the temperature of the surface. That's a known reality. It has been proven beyond a doubt.

Can you not come up with something else to justify your negativity with? Some other denier points are that we don't know for sure how much man's influence really is on the climate. Or, how about the one where CO2 is in saturation already. Maybe Wake will let you borrow that one. And don't forget the oldy but goody, "it ain't no hotter now than it was when I was a kid."

Or, you could just come clean and admit that the future of humanity is not worth any effort on your part. That's how you really feel, isn't it?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~
18-10-2017 20:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(4109)
GreenMan wrote:
You need to come up with some new lines, Parrot.

You need to come up with something other than chanting the same scripture.
GreenMan wrote:
We have been over this at least a dozen times.

True, and you still don't get it.
GreenMan wrote:
Greenhouse Gases slow down the earth surface's cooling,

They can't.
GreenMan wrote:
thus increasing the temperature of the surface.

They can't. You are still violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
GreenMan wrote:
That's a known reality. It has been proven beyond a doubt.

An assertion is not a proof.
GreenMan wrote:
Can you not come up with something else to justify your negativity with?

It is YOU that is preaching doom and gloom. It is YOU that is saying the world is going to get too hot to survive in. It is YOU that is predicting the end of civilization due to 'global warming'. It is YOU that is being negative.

Inversion fallacy.

GreenMan wrote:
Some other denier points are that we don't know for sure how much man's influence really is on the climate.

None. There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as global weather.
GreenMan wrote:
Or, how about the one where CO2 is in saturation already.

Who cares? CO2 is incapable of warming the planet.
GreenMan wrote:
Maybe Wake will let you borrow that one. And don't forget the oldy but goody, "it ain't no hotter now than it was when I was a kid."

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. No one does.
GreenMan wrote:
Or, you could just come clean and admit that the future of humanity is not worth any effort on your part. That's how you really feel, isn't it?

And there you go being negative again.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate GreenMan's Climate Model:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate model projections compared to observations1126-04-2017 15:54
The Global Temperature Model4023-07-2016 08:22
Hank Samler's Model3516-02-2016 15:22
Goddard Institute Tide model GOT4.8031-12-2014 14:03
Static and Dynamic Globe model of the Earth022-09-2013 18:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Will Arctic summers be ice-free in this century?

Yes

No

Don't know


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