Remember me
▼ Content

Signing off



Page 1 of 212>
Signing off21-11-2017 03:13
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1026)
It seems that we have lost all the AGW supporters from this forum. Litebrain continues to try to over run this place with baby talk jibberish and quite frankly has embarrassed her side. I refuse to waste one more keystroke on her baseless lies. When asked to simply show the record of her claim, she responds with the copynpaste rubbish. It is a simple and common tactic of liberals when they know they have been defeated. They simply talk over, and talk about nothing so their opponent won't be heard. I would like a discussion with AGW supporters on the climates of the world on an adult level. I am no longer getting that here.

And Monkton? I'm not going to have a link war with a U-tube junkie that tells me I need critical thinking skills. No explanations from him, just U-tube links. Yep, he's a bright one.

Wake? Are we done here? I certainly am until I see some sort of intelligent life.

Good Bye.
21-11-2017 03:50
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Good Bye.
Didn't even have ta use the tactics of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" to get "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling" to leave. "gazzzed & guzzzling" musta been.... old.
Edited on 21-11-2017 04:00
21-11-2017 09:00
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI
21-11-2017 09:12
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
monckton wrote:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI


You are taking the piss.
21-11-2017 15:16
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
monckton wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WChTqYlDjtI
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener gazzzed & guzzzling" doesn't deserve taps.
21-11-2017 17:19
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" plunged: You are taking the piss.
Yeah, "AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" knows where his piss is going.
21-11-2017 23:25
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzzler wrote:
It seems that we have lost all the AGW supporters from this forum. Litebrain continues to try to over run this place with baby talk jibberish and quite frankly has embarrassed her side. I refuse to waste one more keystroke on her baseless lies. When asked to simply show the record of her claim, she responds with the copynpaste rubbish. It is a simple and common tactic of liberals when they know they have been defeated. They simply talk over, and talk about nothing so their opponent won't be heard. I would like a discussion with AGW supporters on the climates of the world on an adult level. I am no longer getting that here.

And Monkton? I'm not going to have a link war with a U-tube junkie that tells me I need critical thinking skills. No explanations from him, just U-tube links. Yep, he's a bright one.

Wake? Are we done here? I certainly am until I see some sort of intelligent life.

Good Bye.


I'm not far behind you. I know climate change is happening and at the same time I know the IPCC, NOAA, NASA, et.al. has manipulated the numbers. When trying to understand how much of climate change is natural and how much is AGW the information needs to be reliable. And when it's not then it becomes either politically correct or .....
I'll give you one example of information being manipulated.

Ozone Absorption
It turns out that the energy levels of electrons in the ozone molecule match the ultraviolet spectrum. Ozone absorbs more than 99 percent of UV-C rays -- the most dangerous portion of the spectrum. Ozone absorbs about 90 percent of the UV-B rays -- but the 10 percent that make it through are a big factor in inducing sunburns and triggering skin cancer. Ozone absorbs about 50 percent of the UV-A rays.
https://sciencing.com/percent-uv-ozone-absorb-20509.html

And yet to consider this graph, how much more solar radiation might be absorbed if it wasn't so badly depleted ?

In the southern spring and summer, when the sun shines for long periods of the day, chlorine reacts with ultraviolet rays, destroying ozone on a massive scale, up to 65 percent.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/global-warming/ozone-depletion/
22-11-2017 01:17
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
And GasGuzzler, with this graph it doesn't seem to account for the increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Maybe that simpler explanation of why it's wrong.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html

Attached image:

22-11-2017 01:22
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
And a graph showing ever increasing water vapor in our atmosphere but NOAA's graph showed little or no increase in energy in the atmosphere since 1998 as the heat is all in the oceans.

Kind of why I think our atmosphere can store heat and yet between the graphs, etc. there seems to be nothing agreeing with anything else. The information being made known does not add up. Increased H2O in the atmosphere means it will have more energy, increased humidity. Yet one graph I just reposted shows no increase in joules (energy). More CO2 in our atmosphere and no increase in energy. Kind of why the question how can all of the increase in energy be restricted to the oceans ? Can't happen, violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Basically, scientists might be lost on how much climate change is AGW.
Attached image:

22-11-2017 03:36
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Have you anything published?
You're wasted here.
I liked the bit about the energy level of the electron.
I'll mention that down the pub when a climate debate starts up.
22-11-2017 05:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
monckton wrote: I liked the bit about the energy level of the electron.
The most important thing is that water vapor is a positive feedback for Earth bio-sphere, man-made GHG warming. AGW denier liar whiner whimping that water vapor is the primary warming GHG is false. Man-made & increasing, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG CO2(& other man-made, increasing non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs) AND their positive feedbacks, are the control valves of water vapor warming.
22-11-2017 12:17
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
James_ wrote:
And GasGuzzler, with this graph it doesn't seem to account for the increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Maybe that simpler explanation of why it's wrong.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html


Given you have used the graph you have do you have the slightest idea what it means?

How much warmer is an extra 22ZJ of heat for the world's oceans? What effect has this had? Is it really measurable?
22-11-2017 12:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
James_ wrote:
And a graph showing ever increasing water vapor in our atmosphere but NOAA's graph showed little or no increase in energy in the atmosphere since 1998 as the heat is all in the oceans.

Kind of why I think our atmosphere can store heat and yet between the graphs, etc. there seems to be nothing agreeing with anything else. The information being made known does not add up. Increased H2O in the atmosphere means it will have more energy, increased humidity. Yet one graph I just reposted shows no increase in joules (energy). More CO2 in our atmosphere and no increase in energy. Kind of why the question how can all of the increase in energy be restricted to the oceans ? Can't happen, violates the laws of thermodynamics.
Basically, scientists might be lost on how much climate change is AGW.


The reason the atmosphere has more water in it is that it is a bit warmer.

It will be a straight forward thing to predice.

The reason that this does not show up on your energy graph is that it amount of heat needed to warm up air, and to evaporate some water into it, is trivial compared to warming the ocean 0.001 degree c.

For an understanding calculate the heat capacity for a square meter of ocean. The air above it and the water below it;

Air, 1 tonne per square meter. Specific heat capacity about 1MJ/k. That is it takes 1 mega joule of energy to warm the air above 1 square meter of earth 1 degree k (same as c).

The water, lets take the Pacific as it's most of the planet, is 6km deep and thus the 1m square has 1 tonne/cubic meter times 6 thousand meters times 4.2 mega joules per degree k(or c) change. 25 Giga joules. 25,000 times as much.
22-11-2017 16:44
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" puffed: The reason the atmosphere has more water in it is that it is a bit warmer.
& you know that because scientists figured it out for you. What you deny, it is due in great part to excess AGW man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs (CO2, methane, oxides of nitrogen, SF6, etc) plus their positive feedbacks. Thus, increased phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor is a direct feedback to the man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs, plus their feedbacks.
It is good to see "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner tipped the leaky plunger" pretend it is good at science, when it is only good at AGW denier liar whiner "sigh-ants".
22-11-2017 18:20
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber ,
If the oceans are warming as much as they say then they should either radiate heat into our atmosphere or have heat transported through water vapor. If we accept what NOAA shows in it's graph that since 1998 the atmosphere isn't warming while the oceans are doesn't show a source for the heat.
With the graph on feedback and forcings, it doesn't agree with NOAA's graph. It should. Yet they say that meteorologists have observed a 4% increase in water vapor in our atmosphere. This would explain the 2 severe hurricanes that hit Texas and Florida this year.
Edited on 22-11-2017 18:41
22-11-2017 20:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James_ wrote:
And GasGuzzler, with this graph it doesn't seem to account for the increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Maybe that simpler explanation of why it's wrong.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html


There is no such thing as 'heat content'.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. That's all. Thermal energy can be measured by thermometers.

We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to measure the temperature either the ocean or the atmosphere, not even statistically.


The Parrot Killer
22-11-2017 21:15
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: There is no such thing...
There is no such thing as old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner science, altho there is AGW denier liar whiner "sigh-ants".
22-11-2017 22:54
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
And GasGuzzler, with this graph it doesn't seem to account for the increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Maybe that simpler explanation of why it's wrong.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html


There is no such thing as 'heat content'.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. That's all. Thermal energy can be measured by thermometers.

We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to measure the temperature either the ocean or the atmosphere, not even statistically.


You're the reason I don't like posting in here. It's my opion that you are racist towards Europeans and only wish to be disruptive to get your vengeance.
23-11-2017 01:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
And GasGuzzler, with this graph it doesn't seem to account for the increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Maybe that simpler explanation of why it's wrong.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html


There is no such thing as 'heat content'.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. That's all. Thermal energy can be measured by thermometers.

We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to measure the temperature either the ocean or the atmosphere, not even statistically.


You're the reason I don't like posting in here.

Too bad. Deal with it.
James_ wrote:
It's my opion that you are racist towards Europeans

I have no problem with Europeans.
James_ wrote:
and only wish to be disruptive to get your vengeance.

I have no desire for vengeance either.

You seem paranoid. Are you European?


The Parrot Killer
23-11-2017 05:50
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight": I have no desire,...
....& continue as an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
23-11-2017 09:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber ,
If the oceans are warming as much as they say then they should either radiate heat into our atmosphere or have heat transported through water vapor. If we accept what NOAA shows in it's graph that since 1998 the atmosphere isn't warming while the oceans are doesn't show a source for the heat.
With the graph on feedback and forcings, it doesn't agree with NOAA's graph. It should. Yet they say that meteorologists have observed a 4% increase in water vapor in our atmosphere. This would explain the 2 severe hurricanes that hit Texas and Florida this year.


The reason why the graph shows a 225ZJ increase in heat content of the ocean is that this is the maximum that can have happened and them not be able to detect it.

It might sound odd but that is the situation. If that amount of heat was all in the top 700m of the ocean it would have raised the temperature by 0.225c. That would be easily detectable. The temperature of the ocean has not risen by that much if at all.

There has been no detectable increase in storm severity or frequency.

Whilst some places have seen such increases others have seen the opposite. As you would expect from natural variability of nature.
23-11-2017 09:55
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
And GasGuzzler, with this graph it doesn't seem to account for the increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Maybe that simpler explanation of why it's wrong.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html


There is no such thing as 'heat content'.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. That's all. Thermal energy can be measured by thermometers.

We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to measure the temperature either the ocean or the atmosphere, not even statistically.


You have no clue about the physics of heat.

A liter of water at 100 degree c has more heat energy than one at 0c. If the water at 100 c is changed to steam it has more heat energy in it.
23-11-2017 11:25
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Oh ok I get it, it's a tribute debate.
Well, yeah I guess it's what he would have wanted.
23-11-2017 12:55
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber ,
If the oceans are warming as much as they say then they should either radiate heat into our atmosphere or have heat transported through water vapor. If we accept what NOAA shows in it's graph that since 1998 the atmosphere isn't warming while the oceans are doesn't show a source for the heat.
With the graph on feedback and forcings, it doesn't agree with NOAA's graph. It should. Yet they say that meteorologists have observed a 4% increase in water vapor in our atmosphere. This would explain the 2 severe hurricanes that hit Texas and Florida this year.


The reason why the graph shows a 225ZJ increase in heat content of the ocean is that this is the maximum that can have happened and them not be able to detect it.

It might sound odd but that is the situation. If that amount of heat was all in the top 700m of the ocean it would have raised the temperature by 0.225c. That would be easily detectable. The temperature of the ocean has not risen by that much if at all.

There has been no detectable increase in storm severity or frequency.

Whilst some places have seen such increases others have seen the opposite. As you would expect from natural variability of nature.


Tim,
If what you say is right then we've had a global warming pause and as you said, the heat in the ocean was properly monitored. That is possible. The graph shows most oceanic warming between 30° North to 30° South. It also shows the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling. With me, I tend to believe that thermal vents or deep faults are opened and closed along the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges.
Attached image:

23-11-2017 14:25
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
monckton wrote:....it's a tribute debate.....it's what he would have wanted.
I didn't know it died!
23-11-2017 20:09
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber ,
If the oceans are warming as much as they say then they should either radiate heat into our atmosphere or have heat transported through water vapor. If we accept what NOAA shows in it's graph that since 1998 the atmosphere isn't warming while the oceans are doesn't show a source for the heat.
With the graph on feedback and forcings, it doesn't agree with NOAA's graph. It should. Yet they say that meteorologists have observed a 4% increase in water vapor in our atmosphere. This would explain the 2 severe hurricanes that hit Texas and Florida this year.


The reason why the graph shows a 225ZJ increase in heat content of the ocean is that this is the maximum that can have happened and them not be able to detect it.

It might sound odd but that is the situation. If that amount of heat was all in the top 700m of the ocean it would have raised the temperature by 0.225c. That would be easily detectable. The temperature of the ocean has not risen by that much if at all.

There has been no detectable increase in storm severity or frequency.

Whilst some places have seen such increases others have seen the opposite. As you would expect from natural variability of nature.


Tim,
If what you say is right then we've had a global warming pause and as you said, the heat in the ocean was properly monitored. That is possible. The graph shows most oceanic warming between 30° North to 30° South. It also shows the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling. With me, I tend to believe that thermal vents or deep faults are opened and closed along the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges.


Your graph has measured the temperature of the whole world ocean to a depth of 2km to 50 thousanths of a degree. That's the overall change not the individual gradients. Good going that.

Or alternatively they have not put on the error bars because they would make the whole thing silly because the errors are much bigger than that.
24-11-2017 00:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
And GasGuzzler, with this graph it doesn't seem to account for the increased CO2 in our atmosphere. Maybe that simpler explanation of why it's wrong.

(PhysOrg.com) -- Water vapor and clouds are the major contributors to Earth's greenhouse effect, but a new atmosphere-ocean climate modeling study shows that the planet's temperature ultimately depends on the atmospheric level of carbon dioxide.

Read more at: https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html#jCp
https://phys.org/news/2010-10-carbon-dioxide-earths-temperature.html


There is no such thing as 'heat content'.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. That's all. Thermal energy can be measured by thermometers.

We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers to measure the temperature either the ocean or the atmosphere, not even statistically.


You have no clue about the physics of heat.

A liter of water at 100 degree c has more heat energy than one at 0c. If the water at 100 c is changed to steam it has more heat energy in it.


You are referring to thermal energy. Heat is not energy. Heat is the movement of thermal energy.


The Parrot Killer
24-11-2017 00:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber ,
If the oceans are warming as much as they say then they should either radiate heat into our atmosphere or have heat transported through water vapor. If we accept what NOAA shows in it's graph that since 1998 the atmosphere isn't warming while the oceans are doesn't show a source for the heat.
With the graph on feedback and forcings, it doesn't agree with NOAA's graph. It should. Yet they say that meteorologists have observed a 4% increase in water vapor in our atmosphere. This would explain the 2 severe hurricanes that hit Texas and Florida this year.


The reason why the graph shows a 225ZJ increase in heat content of the ocean is that this is the maximum that can have happened and them not be able to detect it.

It might sound odd but that is the situation. If that amount of heat was all in the top 700m of the ocean it would have raised the temperature by 0.225c. That would be easily detectable. The temperature of the ocean has not risen by that much if at all.

There has been no detectable increase in storm severity or frequency.

Whilst some places have seen such increases others have seen the opposite. As you would expect from natural variability of nature.


Tim,
If what you say is right then we've had a global warming pause and as you said, the heat in the ocean was properly monitored. That is possible. The graph shows most oceanic warming between 30° North to 30° South. It also shows the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling. With me, I tend to believe that thermal vents or deep faults are opened and closed along the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the oceans. These graphs are essentially random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
24-11-2017 02:09
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:It is not possible to determine the temperature...
Correction: It is not possible for "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" tp determine the temperature....
24-11-2017 17:43
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber ,
If the oceans are warming as much as they say then they should either radiate heat into our atmosphere or have heat transported through water vapor. If we accept what NOAA shows in it's graph that since 1998 the atmosphere isn't warming while the oceans are doesn't show a source for the heat.
With the graph on feedback and forcings, it doesn't agree with NOAA's graph. It should. Yet they say that meteorologists have observed a 4% increase in water vapor in our atmosphere. This would explain the 2 severe hurricanes that hit Texas and Florida this year.


The reason why the graph shows a 225ZJ increase in heat content of the ocean is that this is the maximum that can have happened and them not be able to detect it.

It might sound odd but that is the situation. If that amount of heat was all in the top 700m of the ocean it would have raised the temperature by 0.225c. That would be easily detectable. The temperature of the ocean has not risen by that much if at all.

There has been no detectable increase in storm severity or frequency.

Whilst some places have seen such increases others have seen the opposite. As you would expect from natural variability of nature.


Tim,
If what you say is right then we've had a global warming pause and as you said, the heat in the ocean was properly monitored. That is possible. The graph shows most oceanic warming between 30° North to 30° South. It also shows the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling. With me, I tend to believe that thermal vents or deep faults are opened and closed along the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges.


Your graph has measured the temperature of the whole world ocean to a depth of 2km to 50 thousanths of a degree. That's the overall change not the individual gradients. Good going that.

Or alternatively they have not put on the error bars because they would make the whole thing silly because the errors are much bigger than that.


I think they need to change the way they collect and record data myself. The Arctic is supposed to be warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. At the same time the Greenland Sea abyss is warming 10 times faster than the oceans are. Yet as the graph from climate4you shows, they say the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling. There is one thing that would allow for this and that's the Gulf Stream is starting to turn south instead of emptying into the Arctic. I've not heard of that happening.
One thing I think they could do is use solar powered floats to monitor temperatures in the oceans. The solar power could power a propulsion system so the floats would stay in the same area. And the best way to record temperatures at depth is to attach remote sensors to whales, porpoises, etc.
Then the floats could have receivers that the data could be sent to. Then if warm spots are detected then the flow of heat could be followed to it's source. it will probably take something like that to properly record below surface temperatures.
And since you live in the UK (we have the University of Kentucky goes buy UK) the amount of marine life, ie., fish is threatened by the warming of northern waters and the North Sea as well. And ozone depletion threatens phytoplankton which is at the bottom of the food chain.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/02/fish-conservation-foreign-species-uk-waters-climate-change

https://hub.jhu.edu/2015/11/26/rapid-plankton-growth-could-signal-climate-change/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-dead-sea-global-warming-blamed-for-40-per-cent-decline-in-the-oceans-phytoplankton-2038074.html

In this link, if you scroll down about half way then they discuss how UV-B radiation which the ozone layer reduces harms phytoplankton.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/uvb_radiation2.php

Myself I think different things are happening. Some natural climate change, some ozone depletion, co2 in the oceans increases acidity and then waste heat also dumps a lot of heat into both water ways and our atmosphere.
24-11-2017 20:43
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
James_ wrote:
Tim the plumber ,
If the oceans are warming as much as they say then they should either radiate heat into our atmosphere or have heat transported through water vapor. If we accept what NOAA shows in it's graph that since 1998 the atmosphere isn't warming while the oceans are doesn't show a source for the heat.
With the graph on feedback and forcings, it doesn't agree with NOAA's graph. It should. Yet they say that meteorologists have observed a 4% increase in water vapor in our atmosphere. This would explain the 2 severe hurricanes that hit Texas and Florida this year.


The reason why the graph shows a 225ZJ increase in heat content of the ocean is that this is the maximum that can have happened and them not be able to detect it.

It might sound odd but that is the situation. If that amount of heat was all in the top 700m of the ocean it would have raised the temperature by 0.225c. That would be easily detectable. The temperature of the ocean has not risen by that much if at all.

There has been no detectable increase in storm severity or frequency.

Whilst some places have seen such increases others have seen the opposite. As you would expect from natural variability of nature.


Tim,
If what you say is right then we've had a global warming pause and as you said, the heat in the ocean was properly monitored. That is possible. The graph shows most oceanic warming between 30° North to 30° South. It also shows the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling. With me, I tend to believe that thermal vents or deep faults are opened and closed along the North Atlantic and Gakkel Ridges.


Your graph has measured the temperature of the whole world ocean to a depth of 2km to 50 thousanths of a degree. That's the overall change not the individual gradients. Good going that.

Or alternatively they have not put on the error bars because they would make the whole thing silly because the errors are much bigger than that.


I think they need to change the way they collect and record data myself. The Arctic is supposed to be warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet. At the same time the Greenland Sea abyss is warming 10 times faster than the oceans are. Yet as the graph from climate4you shows, they say the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling. There is one thing that would allow for this and that's the Gulf Stream is starting to turn south instead of emptying into the Arctic. I've not heard of that happening.
One thing I think they could do is use solar powered floats to monitor temperatures in the oceans. The solar power could power a propulsion system so the floats would stay in the same area. And the best way to record temperatures at depth is to attach remote sensors to whales, porpoises, etc.
Then the floats could have receivers that the data could be sent to. Then if warm spots are detected then the flow of heat could be followed to it's source. it will probably take something like that to properly record below surface temperatures.
And since you live in the UK (we have the University of Kentucky goes buy UK) the amount of marine life, ie., fish is threatened by the warming of northern waters and the North Sea as well. And ozone depletion threatens phytoplankton which is at the bottom of the food chain.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/sep/02/fish-conservation-foreign-species-uk-waters-climate-change

https://hub.jhu.edu/2015/11/26/rapid-plankton-growth-could-signal-climate-change/

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/the-dead-sea-global-warming-blamed-for-40-per-cent-decline-in-the-oceans-phytoplankton-2038074.html

In this link, if you scroll down about half way then they discuss how UV-B radiation which the ozone layer reduces harms phytoplankton.
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UVB/uvb_radiation2.php

Myself I think different things are happening. Some natural climate change, some ozone depletion, co2 in the oceans increases acidity and then waste heat also dumps a lot of heat into both water ways and our atmosphere.


http://climate-change.freeforums.net/thread/4/movement-thermal-energy-troposphere
24-11-2017 21:43
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James_ wrote:
I think they need to change the way they collect and record data myself.

Having sufficient instrumentation would be nice for a start. Placing it uniformly across the surface of the Earth would be useful too. It all starts, however, with what you want to define as the temperature of the Earth.

Does it include the oceans? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? Underground? How deep?

James_ wrote:
The Arctic is supposed to be warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Arctic. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to even begin a statistical analysis that makes any sense.
James_ wrote:
At the same time the Greenland Sea abyss is warming 10 times faster than the oceans are.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Greenland Sea.
James_ wrote:
Yet as the graph from climate4you shows,

You mean that graph of random numbers you keep showing?
James_ wrote:
they say the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Arctic ocean.
James_ wrote:
There is one thing that would allow for this and that's the Gulf Stream is starting to turn south instead of emptying into the Arctic.

The Gulf stream does not empty into the Arctic. It never did. It 'empties' into the North Atlantic Drift current, and doesn't even get all that close to Greenland.

The Norway current does empty into the Arctic though. The resulting cold currents help to feed the Labrador cold current, which DOES go past Greenland. The Irminger current, a warm current, also goes past the southern shore of Greenland, flowing from east to west.

You probably should learn the currents of the North Atlantic from somewhere besides the movies.

James_ wrote:
I've not heard of that happening.

Probably because the Gulf stream and the North Atlantic Drift currents are powered by the Sun, which doesn't change much.
James_ wrote:
One thing I think they could do is use solar powered floats to monitor temperatures in the oceans.

We do. They're called buoys.
James_ wrote:
The solar power could power a propulsion system so the floats would stay in the same area.

Since each buoy knows its position (GPS is great!), they don't have to stay in the same location. That location will be measured by another buoy as it passes through.
James_ wrote:
And the best way to record temperatures at depth is to attach remote sensors to whales, porpoises, etc.

Innovative, but there are a few problems.

First, the animal rights people would boil your ass. Porpoises also don't travel very deep. They stay near the surface.

Second, how is the sensor going to transmit? Only a very few frequencies travel underwater and they tend to require large antennas. One solution to that would be to store the data until the animal surfaces again.

Third, we already have submarines that measure deep ocean temperatures.

Fourth, there are not enough whales, even if we had enough thermometers for them to carry. You still would not have anywhere near enough information to even begin a statistical analysis that made any sense.

James_ wrote:
Then the floats could have receivers that the data could be sent to.

What do you want to send to a buoy? Where to go? If you DID power a buoy, what is the source of power? Solar energy isn't sufficient to counter the affects of an ocean current unless the current is very slow. How does the buoy maintain station at night?
James_ wrote:
Then if warm spots are detected then the flow of heat could be followed to it's source.

We already know what powers the ocean currents. Uneven heating of the oceans from sunlight. We've know that since the days of tall ships.
James_ wrote:
it will probably take something like that to properly record below surface temperatures.

We already record below surface temperatures. That's how we found most of the cold currents in the Atlantic.
James_ wrote:
And since you live in the UK (we have the University of Kentucky goes buy UK) the amount of marine life, ie., fish is threatened by the warming of northern waters and the North Sea as well.

Fish swim in all different temperatures. They go where their food is. Fish swim in the tropics too, you know.
James_ wrote:
And ozone depletion threatens phytoplankton which is at the bottom of the food chain.
...deleted Holy Links...

The ozone is not being depleted. As long as you have oxygen and sunlight. The ozone layer remains the same. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.
James_ wrote:
In this link, if you scroll down about half way then they discuss how UV-B radiation which the ozone layer reduces harms phytoplankton.
...deleted Holy Link...

UV-B light destroys you too. It also breaks down all plastics. It also makes ozone out of oxygen.
James_ wrote:
Myself I think different things are happening. Some natural climate change,

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James_ wrote:
some ozone depletion,

The ozone is not being depleted.
James_ wrote:
co2 in the oceans increases acidity

The oceans are alkaline. It is not possible to acidify them, you can only neutralize them.

Almost all of the CO2 in ocean water simply stays as dissolved CO2. The ratio of carbonic acid to dissolved CO2 in typical seawater 1.2*10^-3, or about 0.12% of the CO2. The amount of CO2 in ocean water varies considerably depending on where you are, ranging from 250ppm to 400ppm according to what little we've actually observed. This means the ratio of carbonic acid in ocean water is about 0.000048%.

Don't think we need to worry about neutralizing seawater.

James_ wrote:
and then waste heat

What is 'waste' heat? Are the oceans some kind of industrial process?
James_ wrote:
also dumps a lot of heat into both water ways and our atmosphere.

The atmosphere is heated by the oceans, yes. Is this a problem?


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2017 05:55
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:... not possible to determine the temperature of the Arctic.....
Correction:
The ego of "old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" admits that if it can't determine the temperature of the Arctic, no one can.
25-11-2017 13:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I think they need to change the way they collect and record data myself.

Having sufficient instrumentation would be nice for a start. Placing it uniformly across the surface of the Earth would be useful too. It all starts, however, with what you want to define as the temperature of the Earth.

Does it include the oceans? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? Underground? How deep?

James_ wrote:
The Arctic is supposed to be warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Arctic. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to even begin a statistical analysis that makes any sense.
James_ wrote:
At the same time the Greenland Sea abyss is warming 10 times faster than the oceans are.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Greenland Sea.
James_ wrote:
Yet as the graph from climate4you shows,

You mean that graph of random numbers you keep showing?
James_ wrote:
they say the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Arctic ocean.
James_ wrote:
There is one thing that would allow for this and that's the Gulf Stream is starting to turn south instead of emptying into the Arctic.

The Gulf stream does not empty into the Arctic. It never did. It 'empties' into the North Atlantic Drift current, and doesn't even get all that close to Greenland.

The Norway current does empty into the Arctic though. The resulting cold currents help to feed the Labrador cold current, which DOES go past Greenland. The Irminger current, a warm current, also goes past the southern shore of Greenland, flowing from east to west.

You probably should learn the currents of the North Atlantic from somewhere besides the movies.

James_ wrote:
I've not heard of that happening.

Probably because the Gulf stream and the North Atlantic Drift currents are powered by the Sun, which doesn't change much.
James_ wrote:
One thing I think they could do is use solar powered floats to monitor temperatures in the oceans.

We do. They're called buoys.
James_ wrote:
The solar power could power a propulsion system so the floats would stay in the same area.

Since each buoy knows its position (GPS is great!), they don't have to stay in the same location. That location will be measured by another buoy as it passes through.
James_ wrote:
And the best way to record temperatures at depth is to attach remote sensors to whales, porpoises, etc.

Innovative, but there are a few problems.

First, the animal rights people would boil your ass. Porpoises also don't travel very deep. They stay near the surface.

Second, how is the sensor going to transmit? Only a very few frequencies travel underwater and they tend to require large antennas. One solution to that would be to store the data until the animal surfaces again.

Third, we already have submarines that measure deep ocean temperatures.

Fourth, there are not enough whales, even if we had enough thermometers for them to carry. You still would not have anywhere near enough information to even begin a statistical analysis that made any sense.

James_ wrote:
Then the floats could have receivers that the data could be sent to.

What do you want to send to a buoy? Where to go? If you DID power a buoy, what is the source of power? Solar energy isn't sufficient to counter the affects of an ocean current unless the current is very slow. How does the buoy maintain station at night?
James_ wrote:
Then if warm spots are detected then the flow of heat could be followed to it's source.

We already know what powers the ocean currents. Uneven heating of the oceans from sunlight. We've know that since the days of tall ships.
James_ wrote:
it will probably take something like that to properly record below surface temperatures.

We already record below surface temperatures. That's how we found most of the cold currents in the Atlantic.
James_ wrote:
And since you live in the UK (we have the University of Kentucky goes buy UK) the amount of marine life, ie., fish is threatened by the warming of northern waters and the North Sea as well.

Fish swim in all different temperatures. They go where their food is. Fish swim in the tropics too, you know.
James_ wrote:
And ozone depletion threatens phytoplankton which is at the bottom of the food chain.
...deleted Holy Links...

The ozone is not being depleted. As long as you have oxygen and sunlight. The ozone layer remains the same. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.
James_ wrote:
In this link, if you scroll down about half way then they discuss how UV-B radiation which the ozone layer reduces harms phytoplankton.
...deleted Holy Link...

UV-B light destroys you too. It also breaks down all plastics. It also makes ozone out of oxygen.
James_ wrote:
Myself I think different things are happening. Some natural climate change,

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James_ wrote:
some ozone depletion,

The ozone is not being depleted.
James_ wrote:
co2 in the oceans increases acidity

The oceans are alkaline. It is not possible to acidify them, you can only neutralize them.

Almost all of the CO2 in ocean water simply stays as dissolved CO2. The ratio of carbonic acid to dissolved CO2 in typical seawater 1.2*10^-3, or about 0.12% of the CO2. The amount of CO2 in ocean water varies considerably depending on where you are, ranging from 250ppm to 400ppm according to what little we've actually observed. This means the ratio of carbonic acid in ocean water is about 0.000048%.

Don't think we need to worry about neutralizing seawater.

James_ wrote:
and then waste heat

What is 'waste' heat? Are the oceans some kind of industrial process?
James_ wrote:
also dumps a lot of heat into both water ways and our atmosphere.

The atmosphere is heated by the oceans, yes. Is this a problem?


ItN,
I don't bother to read your posts. You sound like a broken record. Blah blah blah, blah blah !
And then blah blah blah.
It's funny though. You have absolutely nothing better to do with your life. I hope that most of the people in here realize you're just out to play mind games.
Like your last question, according to NOAA the atmosphere isn't warming. You saw the same graph I posted as everyone else did. Don't tell me you're the only person who didn't see that NOAA showed atmospheric warming has basically stopped.
How did you miss that ? Oh you didn't, you just wanted to ask a seemingly innocent question in which you know it disagrees with what has been made on own. Very clever on your part.
Can you even show where scientists are saying that atmospheric warming is happening ? You can't because you don't believe in references, only in what you believe.
Kind of why I think you're only in here to play games with people.
25-11-2017 17:22
moncktonProfile picture★★★☆☆
(436)
Did you hear the one about the climate change denier they prosecuted for sexual predation?
He jumped overboard on the way to Guantanamo Bay.
They found him clutching a buoy.
25-11-2017 21:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
I think they need to change the way they collect and record data myself.

Having sufficient instrumentation would be nice for a start. Placing it uniformly across the surface of the Earth would be useful too. It all starts, however, with what you want to define as the temperature of the Earth.

Does it include the oceans? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? Underground? How deep?

James_ wrote:
The Arctic is supposed to be warming twice as fast as the rest of the planet.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Arctic. We don't have sufficient instrumentation to even begin a statistical analysis that makes any sense.
James_ wrote:
At the same time the Greenland Sea abyss is warming 10 times faster than the oceans are.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Greenland Sea.
James_ wrote:
Yet as the graph from climate4you shows,

You mean that graph of random numbers you keep showing?
James_ wrote:
they say the Arctic Ocean is actually cooling.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Arctic ocean.
James_ wrote:
There is one thing that would allow for this and that's the Gulf Stream is starting to turn south instead of emptying into the Arctic.

The Gulf stream does not empty into the Arctic. It never did. It 'empties' into the North Atlantic Drift current, and doesn't even get all that close to Greenland.

The Norway current does empty into the Arctic though. The resulting cold currents help to feed the Labrador cold current, which DOES go past Greenland. The Irminger current, a warm current, also goes past the southern shore of Greenland, flowing from east to west.

You probably should learn the currents of the North Atlantic from somewhere besides the movies.

James_ wrote:
I've not heard of that happening.

Probably because the Gulf stream and the North Atlantic Drift currents are powered by the Sun, which doesn't change much.
James_ wrote:
One thing I think they could do is use solar powered floats to monitor temperatures in the oceans.

We do. They're called buoys.
James_ wrote:
The solar power could power a propulsion system so the floats would stay in the same area.

Since each buoy knows its position (GPS is great!), they don't have to stay in the same location. That location will be measured by another buoy as it passes through.
James_ wrote:
And the best way to record temperatures at depth is to attach remote sensors to whales, porpoises, etc.

Innovative, but there are a few problems.

First, the animal rights people would boil your ass. Porpoises also don't travel very deep. They stay near the surface.

Second, how is the sensor going to transmit? Only a very few frequencies travel underwater and they tend to require large antennas. One solution to that would be to store the data until the animal surfaces again.

Third, we already have submarines that measure deep ocean temperatures.

Fourth, there are not enough whales, even if we had enough thermometers for them to carry. You still would not have anywhere near enough information to even begin a statistical analysis that made any sense.

James_ wrote:
Then the floats could have receivers that the data could be sent to.

What do you want to send to a buoy? Where to go? If you DID power a buoy, what is the source of power? Solar energy isn't sufficient to counter the affects of an ocean current unless the current is very slow. How does the buoy maintain station at night?
James_ wrote:
Then if warm spots are detected then the flow of heat could be followed to it's source.

We already know what powers the ocean currents. Uneven heating of the oceans from sunlight. We've know that since the days of tall ships.
James_ wrote:
it will probably take something like that to properly record below surface temperatures.

We already record below surface temperatures. That's how we found most of the cold currents in the Atlantic.
James_ wrote:
And since you live in the UK (we have the University of Kentucky goes buy UK) the amount of marine life, ie., fish is threatened by the warming of northern waters and the North Sea as well.

Fish swim in all different temperatures. They go where their food is. Fish swim in the tropics too, you know.
James_ wrote:
And ozone depletion threatens phytoplankton which is at the bottom of the food chain.
...deleted Holy Links...

The ozone is not being depleted. As long as you have oxygen and sunlight. The ozone layer remains the same. We couldn't destroy the ozone layer even if we wanted to.
James_ wrote:
In this link, if you scroll down about half way then they discuss how UV-B radiation which the ozone layer reduces harms phytoplankton.
...deleted Holy Link...

UV-B light destroys you too. It also breaks down all plastics. It also makes ozone out of oxygen.
James_ wrote:
Myself I think different things are happening. Some natural climate change,

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James_ wrote:
some ozone depletion,

The ozone is not being depleted.
James_ wrote:
co2 in the oceans increases acidity

The oceans are alkaline. It is not possible to acidify them, you can only neutralize them.

Almost all of the CO2 in ocean water simply stays as dissolved CO2. The ratio of carbonic acid to dissolved CO2 in typical seawater 1.2*10^-3, or about 0.12% of the CO2. The amount of CO2 in ocean water varies considerably depending on where you are, ranging from 250ppm to 400ppm according to what little we've actually observed. This means the ratio of carbonic acid in ocean water is about 0.000048%.

Don't think we need to worry about neutralizing seawater.

James_ wrote:
and then waste heat

What is 'waste' heat? Are the oceans some kind of industrial process?
James_ wrote:
also dumps a lot of heat into both water ways and our atmosphere.

The atmosphere is heated by the oceans, yes. Is this a problem?


ItN,
I don't bother to read your posts. You sound like a broken record. Blah blah blah, blah blah !
And then blah blah blah.

Argument of the Stone.
James_ wrote:
It's funny though. You have absolutely nothing better to do with your life. I hope that most of the people in here realize you're just out to play mind games.

Science isn't a mind game. Neither is math.
James_ wrote:
Like your last question, according to NOAA the atmosphere isn't warming. You saw the same graph I posted as everyone else did. Don't tell me you're the only person who didn't see that NOAA showed atmospheric warming has basically stopped.

NOAA has no idea what the temperature of Earth is or was. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
How did you miss that ? Oh you didn't, you just wanted to ask a seemingly innocent question in which you know it disagrees with what has been made on own. Very clever on your part.

Hey...it is YOU that brought the concept of 'waste' heat. You're just using it as a buzzword.
James_ wrote:
Can you even show where scientists are saying that atmospheric warming is happening ?

No. It's not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
You can't because you don't believe in references, only in what you believe.

There are no references to what does not exist.
James_ wrote:
Kind of why I think you're only in here to play games with people.

Science isn't a mind game. Neither is math.


The Parrot Killer
25-11-2017 22:20
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:...NOAA has no idea what the temperature of Earth is or was...
Correction:
The ego of "old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" admits that if it can't determine the temperature of the Earth, no one can.
Heat water with "badnight's" hand in it, to 117degF & see if "old sick silly sleepy sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" can determine if its skin is scalded.
26-11-2017 14:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

Science isn't a mind game. Neither is math.


For you science is a mind game. After all what is a circular argument ? Is it you constantly challenging what a person posts while never having an opinion yourself.
As you told me, if in my opinion you are racist and only wish to disrupt this forum that I should get over it and answer your challenges.
Maybe I do not care what a climate is or for that matter what global warming is. Maybe I just want to understand the argument that scientists have presented and how this compares to natural variability of the planet I live on.
After all, if you knew what scientists were saying about the changing weather patterns and why then you would know that has changed. But you don't because you challenge people because you like having other guys dancing for you.
It's a control issue, right ? It's your way of seeking vengeance IMO.
See ? I'm not answering to you and letting you dictate my answers.
Because I am taking time to consider what I am posting it is a response. If I just posted in response to your post then I would be reacting to your stimuli and then you would be in control of me. I don't like that thought.
Who knows, maybe you are Rajneesh after all. I doubt you're Pilchuk, Duwamish or Yakima. It's funny though when Litesong uses the words Silth Sea. Next is she going to say that Seattle, Wa. was named after Chief Sealth ? I mean everyone knows it was.

D@mn, while a highschool is named after him searches call him Chief Seattle.
https://g.co/kgs/wpAXft
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chief_Seattle

@litesong, while you say the Silth Sea I would say the Sealth Sound because I am an American. It's like my great, great, etc. great grandfather Chief Wahunsenacawh, today he's called Chief Powhatan.
FYI ALL, he met John Smith when he (John Smith) came to America. It's believed that Pocahontas's son was actually fathered by Thomas Gates then (1610) Governor of Jamestown.

And ItN, since America is named after Amerigo Vespucci it seems it was meant to be a continent of discovery. And what you might be missing is that in a small population of people all it takes is being there to be significant. In a larger population such as what the world has now a person needs to learn to accept things. That's why the expression "lost in a crowd". The individual seems to vanish just as a person who becomes lost in the woods.
Edited on 26-11-2017 15:16
26-11-2017 15:42
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]James_ wrote: Rajneesh...
I was on the abandoned Rajneesh property once. I followed a sick, curvy, up-&-down gullied dirt road with encroaching cacti, that was the limit for my small road car. Wonderful buildings & aerodrome, all emptied out with a sweet runway. Wasn't even any vandalism years after the abandonment, because it was way off the main roads. It was a major contrast between the murders & poisonings planned & executed by the Indian thugs:
http://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/index.ssf/2011/04/part_one_it_was_worse_than_we.html
Edited on 26-11-2017 15:44
26-11-2017 21:26
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
NOAA has no idea what the temperature of Earth is or was. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.

Hey...it is YOU that brought the concept of 'waste' heat. You're just using it as a buzzword.

No. It's not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.

There are no references to what does not exist.

Science isn't a mind game. Neither is math.


Nightmare hasn't any idea of how to measure the MGT so no one else can. We've watched you stumbling ignorance for far too long.

I see that the concept of waste heat is also beyond you. But then again - what isn't.

Again you're telling us all that you don't know how to measure MGT so no one else can. You really love to demonstrate your total ignorance of science don't you.

In your case science and math aren't mind games because you have to have a mind to begin with.

You haven't even the concept of science. You can't understand what is being said by the world's greatest scientists. Instead you pretend to be oh so much brighter than they are.

You are nothing more than a clown on the keyboard.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Signing off:

Remember me

▲ 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