Remember me
▼ Content

The Argument for AGW



Page 1 of 212>
The Argument for AGW20-12-2017 18:56
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
We all have a good laugh now that the only torch is being carried by monckton nee spot.

With the stupendous scientific knowledge he has he as to resort to nothing more than citing youTube videos the nutcakes in them showing pictures of polar bears walking on broken ice as if the polar bear hasn't survives a million years through both a sea level of 8 meters higher than now and no ice anywhere on the planet to a real ice age.

When you cite youTube videos with real scientists making real points such as the temperature gains from 1886 to 1940 being more than the temperature rise from 1970 to the present day and the virtual absence of heavy industry before 1940. Or the almost perfect relationship to the Sun's sunspot cycles to the warm periods. Or the fact that the atmosphere was getting CO2 poor and that life forms were slowly dying out from the lack of food. Or that using several different forms of research that are designed to compare CO2 levels and mean global temperatures show NO connection.

These things make absolutely NO impact on the True Believers. Without a shred of scientific knowledge they will argue all day long. All night long for that matter. They show not the slightest interest in knowledge because like all religions they are demanded to believe and not actually know.
20-12-2017 19:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.
05-01-2018 18:55
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?
05-01-2018 18:56
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


What has that go to do with anything?


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2018 19:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


What has that go to do with anything?


What has one single thing that litebrain ever written had anything to do with anything you jackass.

I've been looking back through your postings and I simply can't find a single thing that you actually know anything about. You think that light is not heat. You think that fusion is not heat. You think that the Earth returned ALL of the energy obtained from the Sun back to space.

When presented with actual graphs showing the relationship of TEMPERATURE and wavelength you actually deny them as wrong.

You are so incredibly stupid I really don't know how you can feed yourself.
05-01-2018 19:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


What has that go to do with anything?


What has one single thing that litebrain ever written had anything to do with anything you jackass.

So you do the same think as litebeer does and then complain about it???
Wake wrote:
...deleted argument of the Stone...Bulverism...Mantra 2...You think that light is not heat.

It isn't. It is only heat if it is absorbed by something and that causes thermal energy to increase.
Wake wrote:
You think that fusion is not heat.

It isn't.
Wake wrote:
You think that the Earth returned ALL of the energy obtained from the Sun back to space.

It does.
Wake wrote:
When presented with actual graphs showing the relationship of TEMPERATURE and wavelength you actually deny them as wrong.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...

I never denied them wrong. I pointed out that you are making a false equivalence with them.


The Parrot Killer
05-01-2018 23:10
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


What has that go to do with anything?


What has one single thing that litebrain ever written had anything to do with anything you jackass.

So you do the same think as litebeer does and then complain about it???
Wake wrote:
...deleted argument of the Stone...Bulverism...Mantra 2...You think that light is not heat.

It isn't. It is only heat if it is absorbed by something and that causes thermal energy to increase.
Wake wrote:
You think that fusion is not heat.

It isn't.
Wake wrote:
You think that the Earth returned ALL of the energy obtained from the Sun back to space.

It does.
Wake wrote:
When presented with actual graphs showing the relationship of TEMPERATURE and wavelength you actually deny them as wrong.
...deleted Mantra 2...1...

I never denied them wrong. I pointed out that you are making a false equivalence with them.


More idiocy from the man of ashes. On your best day even litebrain is smarter than you.
06-01-2018 12:30
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


Do you think he has ever made the minum wage for more than a week?
06-01-2018 16:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


Do you think he has ever made the minum wage for more than a week?

What does it matter? Why are is Wake so fixated on who makes how much money?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-01-2018 16:38
06-01-2018 19:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


Do you think he has ever made the minum wage for more than a week?

What does it matter? Why are is Wake so fixated on who makes how much money?


The narrow point is that he is an utterly useless jerk.

The wider point is that all those (vertually all) who are in a panic about global warming are useless people. That they have never done anything much.

How many of the green side has ever taken a carrer choice which involved taking more of a risk and putting more effort than the general easy flow of life would expect? Names and examples will be good.
06-01-2018 19:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
We all have a good laugh now that the only torch is being carried by monckton nee spot.

With the stupendous scientific knowledge he has he as to resort to nothing more than citing youTube videos the nutcakes in them showing pictures of polar bears walking on broken ice as if the polar bear hasn't survives a million years through both a sea level of 8 meters higher than now and no ice anywhere on the planet to a real ice age.

When you cite youTube videos with real scientists making real points such as the temperature gains from 1886 to 1940 being more than the temperature rise from 1970 to the present day and the virtual absence of heavy industry before 1940. Or the almost perfect relationship to the Sun's sunspot cycles to the warm periods. Or the fact that the atmosphere was getting CO2 poor and that life forms were slowly dying out from the lack of food. Or that using several different forms of research that are designed to compare CO2 levels and mean global temperatures show NO connection.

These things make absolutely NO impact on the True Believers. Without a shred of scientific knowledge they will argue all day long. All night long for that matter. They show not the slightest interest in knowledge because like all religions they are demanded to believe and not actually know.


The Aral Sea is a good example of how industrialization and increased agricultural production can effect the climate/environment. Those 2 words, climate and environment have an effect on each other.
With the region the Aral Sea is in, the average amount of rainfall has decreased. This means that that region is becoming arid. That is climate change. The image is from NASA;http://www.baias.com/shocking-nasa-pictures-show-how-the-fourth-largest-lake-in-the-world-has-become-almost-completely-dry/
And :https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/aral_sea.php
Attached image:


Edited on 06-01-2018 19:54
06-01-2018 20:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


Do you think he has ever made the minum wage for more than a week?

What does it matter? Why are is Wake so fixated on who makes how much money?


The narrow point is that he is an utterly useless jerk.

Agreed, but rate of pay has nothing to do with that.
Tim the plumber wrote:
The wider point is that all those (vertually all) who are in a panic about global warming are useless people. That they have never done anything much.

I will call an argument of ignorance on this one. Despite their beliefs, there ARE folks in the Church of Global Warming that DO contribute to society. I admit their beliefs stem from the Church of Karl Marx, and everything they push tends to nullify their own career, but it does happen. They just also happen to believe in the Utopia promised by Marxism.
Tim the plumber wrote:
How many of the green side has ever taken a carrer choice which involved taking more of a risk and putting more effort than the general easy flow of life would expect?

Unknown. I will say, however, that they tend to not do this.
Tim the plumber wrote:
Names and examples will be good.

They might, but I'm not going to bother to look them up for anyone.


The Parrot Killer
06-01-2018 20:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
We all have a good laugh now that the only torch is being carried by monckton nee spot.

With the stupendous scientific knowledge he has he as to resort to nothing more than citing youTube videos the nutcakes in them showing pictures of polar bears walking on broken ice as if the polar bear hasn't survives a million years through both a sea level of 8 meters higher than now and no ice anywhere on the planet to a real ice age.

When you cite youTube videos with real scientists making real points such as the temperature gains from 1886 to 1940 being more than the temperature rise from 1970 to the present day and the virtual absence of heavy industry before 1940. Or the almost perfect relationship to the Sun's sunspot cycles to the warm periods. Or the fact that the atmosphere was getting CO2 poor and that life forms were slowly dying out from the lack of food. Or that using several different forms of research that are designed to compare CO2 levels and mean global temperatures show NO connection.

These things make absolutely NO impact on the True Believers. Without a shred of scientific knowledge they will argue all day long. All night long for that matter. They show not the slightest interest in knowledge because like all religions they are demanded to believe and not actually know.


The Aral Sea is a good example of how industrialization and increased agricultural production can effect the climate/environment.

The disaster of the Aral Sea was not because of industrialization, it was because the government of the USSR decided it wanted fisherman to become farmers. Now they have no fish, and the crops are failing.
James_ wrote:
Those 2 words, climate and environment have an effect on each other.

How so?
James_ wrote:
With the region the Aral Sea is in, the average amount of rainfall has decreased.

Actually, it hasn't.
James_ wrote:
This means that that region is becoming arid.

The region has ALWAYS been arid.
James_ wrote:
That is climate change.

That is not climate change. That is a common result of oligarchies and dictatorships.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 06-01-2018 20:59
06-01-2018 23:50
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


Do you think he has ever made the minimum wage for more than a week?


I don't think that he has ever worked an honest job. He is on this group 24 hours a day every day. His actions while here are those of a 15 year old. He has a psychological illness leading me to believe that he doesn't work because he can't.
07-01-2018 00:17
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James_ wrote: The Aral Sea is a good example of how industrialization and increased agricultural production can effect the climate/environment. Those 2 words, climate and environment have an effect on each other.
With the region the Aral Sea is in, the average amount of rainfall has decreased. This means that that region is becoming arid. That is climate change. The image is from NASA;http://www.baias.com/shocking-nasa-pictures-show-how-the-fourth-largest-lake-in-the-world-has-become-almost-completely-dry/
And :https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/aral_sea.php


I am somewhat of a loss as to what you think that proves? That large industrial growth near a shallow lake can dry the lake up?

If you look up the normal rainfall for that area LAST year which was a heavy rain year for that area it was 2" of rainfall. 5" or less rainfall makes an area a desert. The normal rainfall for that area is less than 1".

The San Francisco bay area is about 24" a year. The Central Valley which hollowman (with the brains of a raccoon) calls a desert is sometimes referred to as "semi-arid" and yet the average rainfall at the south end of the Central Valley is 14".

The reason that it's taken a long time for the Aral Sea to dry up like the Great Salt Lake is that it is fed by a couple of rivers but they too come from areas that are desert or on the very edge of being so.

I've said many times that because things occur at or near the same time doesn't mean that they are in any way attached. The average rainfall at the Great Salt Lake, UT with its almost limitless Bonneville Salt Flats is 2" of rain per year. Twice the norm for the Aral Sea.
07-01-2018 05:37
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed:.. He is on this group 24 hours a day every day.
The Ghost of AGW Future is gonna getcha!
07-01-2018 07:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed: Without a shred of scientific knowledge....
....most all old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier LIAR whiners & many time (plus 1) threateners never has science chemistry astronomy physics algebra or pre-calc in poorly (or un-) earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


In my last job I was making a quarter of a million dollars a year. Have you ever made more than minimum wage Chief Loser?


Do you think he has ever made the minimum wage for more than a week?


I don't think that he has ever worked an honest job.

How would you know?
Wake wrote:
He is on this group 24 hours a day every day.

It may seem like it, but he isn't.
Wake wrote:
His actions while here are those of a 15 year old.

Most 15 year old's in the United States have a better command of English.
Wake wrote:
He has a psychological illness leading me to believe that he doesn't work because he can't.

Perhaps, but you really don't know that.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2018 07:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: The Aral Sea is a good example of how industrialization and increased agricultural production can effect the climate/environment. Those 2 words, climate and environment have an effect on each other.
With the region the Aral Sea is in, the average amount of rainfall has decreased. This means that that region is becoming arid. That is climate change. The image is from NASA;http://www.baias.com/shocking-nasa-pictures-show-how-the-fourth-largest-lake-in-the-world-has-become-almost-completely-dry/
And :https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/aral_sea.php


I am somewhat of a loss as to what you think that proves? That large industrial growth near a shallow lake can dry the lake up?

Not what caused the Aral Sea to dry up. The lake water was redirected to agriculture by the government, instead of leaving the people there as fisherman, forcing them to become farmers.
There is insufficient incoming water to that area to sustain agriculture, so now they have no fish and their crops are failing. Good 'ole government in action!
Wake wrote:
If you look up the normal rainfall for that area LAST year which was a heavy rain year for that area it was 2" of rainfall. 5" or less rainfall makes an area a desert. The normal rainfall for that area is less than 1".

WRONG. The normal rainfall for the Aral Sea area is about 4" per year.
Wake wrote:
The San Francisco bay area is about 24" a year. The Central Valley which hollowman (with the brains of a raccoon) calls a desert is sometimes referred to as "semi-arid" and yet the average rainfall at the south end of the Central Valley is 14".

WRONG. The normal rainfall for the Central Valley area (which I never did call a desert) is about 63 inches a year.
Wake wrote:
The reason that it's taken a long time for the Aral Sea to dry up like the Great Salt Lake is that it is fed by a couple of rivers but they too come from areas that are desert or on the very edge of being so.

WRONG. Salt Lake is fed by rivers coming out of the Wasatch Mountains nearby. These are not deserts. These mountains form the main water supply for the entire Salt Lake area.
Wake wrote:
I've said many times that because things occur at or near the same time doesn't mean that they are in any way attached.

This is true.
Wake wrote:
The average rainfall at the Great Salt Lake, UT with its almost limitless Bonneville Salt Flats is 2" of rain per year. Twice the norm for the Aral Sea.

WRONG. The average rainfall in Salt Lake, UT is about 17 inches a year. Much more falls in the Wasatch Mountains.

You really should get your figures right. There are weather stations at each of these locations with these records.

You should also look up the history of the Aral Sea and how the government destroyed it.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2018 12:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
We all have a good laugh now that the only torch is being carried by monckton nee spot.

With the stupendous scientific knowledge he has he as to resort to nothing more than citing youTube videos the nutcakes in them showing pictures of polar bears walking on broken ice as if the polar bear hasn't survives a million years through both a sea level of 8 meters higher than now and no ice anywhere on the planet to a real ice age.

When you cite youTube videos with real scientists making real points such as the temperature gains from 1886 to 1940 being more than the temperature rise from 1970 to the present day and the virtual absence of heavy industry before 1940. Or the almost perfect relationship to the Sun's sunspot cycles to the warm periods. Or the fact that the atmosphere was getting CO2 poor and that life forms were slowly dying out from the lack of food. Or that using several different forms of research that are designed to compare CO2 levels and mean global temperatures show NO connection.

These things make absolutely NO impact on the True Believers. Without a shred of scientific knowledge they will argue all day long. All night long for that matter. They show not the slightest interest in knowledge because like all religions they are demanded to believe and not actually know.


The Aral Sea is a good example of how industrialization and increased agricultural production can effect the climate/environment. Those 2 words, climate and environment have an effect on each other.
With the region the Aral Sea is in, the average amount of rainfall has decreased. This means that that region is becoming arid. That is climate change. The image is from NASA;http://www.baias.com/shocking-nasa-pictures-show-how-the-fourth-largest-lake-in-the-world-has-become-almost-completely-dry/
And :https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/aral_sea.php


Yes, the Soviets have messed up central Asia.

The Chineese communists have also done bad stuff to outer Mongolia.

The lack of water there will have contributed significantly to world sea levels.

Put more water into the oceans than the increased ice mass being deposited on Greenland and Antarctica.

That has now stopped and we should slowly see sea levels being to not climb at all. Then where will the panic come from?
07-01-2018 17:04
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: The Aral Sea is a good example of how industrialization and increased agricultural production can effect the climate/environment. Those 2 words, climate and environment have an effect on each other.
With the region the Aral Sea is in, the average amount of rainfall has decreased. This means that that region is becoming arid. That is climate change. The image is from NASA;http://www.baias.com/shocking-nasa-pictures-show-how-the-fourth-largest-lake-in-the-world-has-become-almost-completely-dry/
And :https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/aral_sea.php


I am somewhat of a loss as to what you think that proves? That large industrial growth near a shallow lake can dry the lake up?

Not what caused the Aral Sea to dry up. The lake water was redirected to agriculture by the government, instead of leaving the people there as fisherman, forcing them to become farmers.
There is insufficient incoming water to that area to sustain agriculture, so now they have no fish and their crops are failing. Good 'ole government in action!
Wake wrote:
If you look up the normal rainfall for that area LAST year which was a heavy rain year for that area it was 2" of rainfall. 5" or less rainfall makes an area a desert. The normal rainfall for that area is less than 1".

WRONG. The normal rainfall for the Aral Sea area is about 4" per year.
Wake wrote:
The San Francisco bay area is about 24" a year. The Central Valley which hollowman (with the brains of a raccoon) calls a desert is sometimes referred to as "semi-arid" and yet the average rainfall at the south end of the Central Valley is 14".

WRONG. The normal rainfall for the Central Valley area (which I never did call a desert) is about 63 inches a year.
Wake wrote:
The reason that it's taken a long time for the Aral Sea to dry up like the Great Salt Lake is that it is fed by a couple of rivers but they too come from areas that are desert or on the very edge of being so.

WRONG. Salt Lake is fed by rivers coming out of the Wasatch Mountains nearby. These are not deserts. These mountains form the main water supply for the entire Salt Lake area.
Wake wrote:
I've said many times that because things occur at or near the same time doesn't mean that they are in any way attached.

This is true.
Wake wrote:
The average rainfall at the Great Salt Lake, UT with its almost limitless Bonneville Salt Flats is 2" of rain per year. Twice the norm for the Aral Sea.

WRONG. The average rainfall in Salt Lake, UT is about 17 inches a year. Much more falls in the Wasatch Mountains.

You really should get your figures right. There are weather stations at each of these locations with these records.

You should also look up the history of the Aral Sea and how the government destroyed it.


Why don't you invent more things hollowman? You haven't the slightest idea what you're talking about but you'll continue because you actually believe anyone is going to pay attention to you.

Your moronic belief that the people who live there don't know what they're doing because you're so much smarter.

You haven't explained how an average of a plot isn't the same as statistical analysis. Is that because you don't understand what my point was? Jackasses like you look at a long term temperature graph and think that some 30 year averaging makes sense without even knowing what the hell you're talking about.

This group is overflowing with your inept stupidity. Go play with your legos in your hanger where you're an "operating engineer".
07-01-2018 18:25
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.
07-01-2018 18:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Tim the plumber wrote: 63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Where he comes up with these things only heavens knows. This jackass lives in Seattle where it rains 10 mouths out of the year and THERE they only average 37.5" a year.
07-01-2018 21:49
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


The Parrot Killer
07-01-2018 21:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote: 63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Where he comes up with these things only heavens knows. This jackass lives in Seattle where it rains 10 mouths out of the year and THERE they only average 37.5" a year.


It rains every month of the year here. Our drizzle through our 'winter' lasts about 8 months out of the year.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 11:18
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1147)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.
08-01-2018 16:00
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.


It is indeed like trying to speak to a parrot where he only knows a couple of phrases and continues to repeat them over and over no matter that they mean nothing. hollowman strikes again.
08-01-2018 19:16
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote: The Aral Sea is a good example of how industrialization and increased agricultural production can effect the climate/environment. Those 2 words, climate and environment have an effect on each other.
With the region the Aral Sea is in, the average amount of rainfall has decreased. This means that that region is becoming arid. That is climate change. The image is from NASA;http://www.baias.com/shocking-nasa-pictures-show-how-the-fourth-largest-lake-in-the-world-has-become-almost-completely-dry/
And :https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/aral_sea.php


I am somewhat of a loss as to what you think that proves? That large industrial growth near a shallow lake can dry the lake up?

If you look up the normal rainfall for that area LAST year which was a heavy rain year for that area it was 2" of rainfall. 5" or less rainfall makes an area a desert. The normal rainfall for that area is less than 1".

The San Francisco bay area is about 24" a year. The Central Valley which hollowman (with the brains of a raccoon) calls a desert is sometimes referred to as "semi-arid" and yet the average rainfall at the south end of the Central Valley is 14".

The reason that it's taken a long time for the Aral Sea to dry up like the Great Salt Lake is that it is fed by a couple of rivers but they too come from areas that are desert or on the very edge of being so.

I've said many times that because things occur at or near the same time doesn't mean that they are in any way attached. The average rainfall at the Great Salt Lake, UT with its almost limitless Bonneville Salt Flats is 2" of rain per year. Twice the norm for the Aral Sea.


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebarf filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner & many time (plus 1) threatener wake-me-up" wiffed:..

The Ghost of AGW Future is gonna getcha!
08-01-2018 19:44
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.


Such is your school. Thanks for letting us know where you got this from.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 19:49
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
James_ wrote: The Ghost of AGW Future is gonna getcha!
You do know how to turn a phrase!
08-01-2018 19:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.


It is indeed like trying to speak to a parrot where he only knows a couple of phrases and continues to repeat them over and over no matter that they mean nothing. hollowman strikes again.


It is YOU that insists on rewriting the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is YOU that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your belief in the Church of Global Warming is preventing YOU from accepting existing theories of science.

In the UK, they apparently consider 60 inches a year a rainforest. Does the Central Valley look like a rainforest to you? How about nearby Donner pass, which receives 51 inches a year? Do you consider it close to a rainforest?

Can't image what he thinks Scotland is.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-01-2018 19:54
08-01-2018 19:57
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.


Such is your school. Thanks for letting us know where you got this from.


It must come as a surprise that people normally go to school. Obviously it never happened to you.
08-01-2018 20:19
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.


It is indeed like trying to speak to a parrot where he only knows a couple of phrases and continues to repeat them over and over no matter that they mean nothing. hollowman strikes again.


It is YOU that insists on rewriting the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is YOU that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your belief in the Church of Global Warming is preventing YOU from accepting existing theories of science.

In the UK, they apparently consider 60 inches a year a rainforest. Does the Central Valley look like a rainforest to you? How about nearby Donner pass, which receives 51 inches a year? Do you consider it close to a rainforest?

Can't image what he thinks Scotland is.


hollowman, you should stop talking about things you know nothing about. The second law of thermodynamics is a general rule and not a specific one. But you couldn't even envision what I mean.

Here's an explanation that while designed for 12 year olds is far above your ability to understand:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/scientists-reverse-arrow-of-time-in-quantum-experiment/

http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/

Since it contradicts your ignorance of the world around you you can delete it at your convenience.

Your remarkable ignorance of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and what it means is pretty funny as well. "Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature."

That "radiant heat energy" is the color of the light being radiated from any surface and you don't need to know the "radiance" of any surface whatsoever.

Give us some more of your increasingly panic stricken stupidly. Tell us how the Central Valley of California is a desert where they ship in water to grow nut trees and then tell us you never said that. Then tell us that the Central Valley which averages 20" of rainfall in the northern end and 5" in the far south into the Imperial Valley gets 67" of rain.

You're stupid and every time you write things you demonstrate just how stupid you are.
Edited on 08-01-2018 20:27
08-01-2018 20:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.


It is indeed like trying to speak to a parrot where he only knows a couple of phrases and continues to repeat them over and over no matter that they mean nothing. hollowman strikes again.


It is YOU that insists on rewriting the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is YOU that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your belief in the Church of Global Warming is preventing YOU from accepting existing theories of science.

In the UK, they apparently consider 60 inches a year a rainforest. Does the Central Valley look like a rainforest to you? How about nearby Donner pass, which receives 51 inches a year? Do you consider it close to a rainforest?

Can't image what he thinks Scotland is.


hollowman, you should stop talking about things you know nothing about. The second law of thermodynamics is a general rule and not a specific one. But you couldn't even envision what I mean.

No, it is not a rule at all. It is a theory of science. It is specific. It is falsifiable. It has been tested and it still survives as a theory of science.
Wake wrote:
Here's an explanation that while designed for 12 year olds is far above your ability to understand:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/scientists-reverse-arrow-of-time-in-quantum-experiment/

Correlating matter essentially makes them the same matter in quantum physics. Entropy was not decreased, because there are no longer two regions.
Wake wrote:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/

You really should read the papers you quote. It explains why your false equivalence you are trying to make is wrong.
Wake wrote:
Since it contradicts your ignorance of the world around you you can delete it at your convenience.

Normally I delete Holy Links, but I will leave them up this time for people to read them at their leisure without having to go back through to your post.
Wake wrote:
Your remarkable ignorance of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and what it means is pretty funny as well. "Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature."

Going to try to rewrite this law again, eh?
Wake wrote:
That "radiant heat energy" is the color of the light being radiated from any surface and you don't need to know the "radiance" of any surface whatsoever.

You have denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to rewrite it.

There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is color blind. ALL light of all frequencies is considered. Radiance is total radiance, an intensity, not a color.

You also dropped the term for the emissivity constant again. You can't just change the equation and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Wake wrote:
Give us some more of your increasingly panic stricken stupidly. Tell us how the Central Valley of California is a desert where they ship in water to grow nut trees and then tell us you never said that.

A fair amount of it IS a desert.
Wake wrote:
Then tell us that the Central Valley which averages 20" of rainfall in the northern end and 5" in the far south into the Imperial Valley gets 67" of rain.
...deleted mantra 2...2...1...

WRONG. The Imperial valley averages only about 3 inches of rain per year. The northern valley averages about 39 inches per year.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 21:59
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.


It is indeed like trying to speak to a parrot where he only knows a couple of phrases and continues to repeat them over and over no matter that they mean nothing. hollowman strikes again.


It is YOU that insists on rewriting the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is YOU that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your belief in the Church of Global Warming is preventing YOU from accepting existing theories of science.

In the UK, they apparently consider 60 inches a year a rainforest. Does the Central Valley look like a rainforest to you? How about nearby Donner pass, which receives 51 inches a year? Do you consider it close to a rainforest?

Can't image what he thinks Scotland is.


hollowman, you should stop talking about things you know nothing about. The second law of thermodynamics is a general rule and not a specific one. But you couldn't even envision what I mean.

No, it is not a rule at all. It is a theory of science. It is specific. It is falsifiable. It has been tested and it still survives as a theory of science.
Wake wrote:
Here's an explanation that while designed for 12 year olds is far above your ability to understand:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/scientists-reverse-arrow-of-time-in-quantum-experiment/

Correlating matter essentially makes them the same matter in quantum physics. Entropy was not decreased, because there are no longer two regions.
Wake wrote:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/

You really should read the papers you quote. It explains why your false equivalence you are trying to make is wrong.
Wake wrote:
Since it contradicts your ignorance of the world around you you can delete it at your convenience.

Normally I delete Holy Links, but I will leave them up this time for people to read them at their leisure without having to go back through to your post.
Wake wrote:
Your remarkable ignorance of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and what it means is pretty funny as well. "Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature."

Going to try to rewrite this law again, eh?
Wake wrote:
That "radiant heat energy" is the color of the light being radiated from any surface and you don't need to know the "radiance" of any surface whatsoever.

You have denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to rewrite it.

There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is color blind. ALL light of all frequencies is considered. Radiance is total radiance, an intensity, not a color.

You also dropped the term for the emissivity constant again. You can't just change the equation and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Wake wrote:
Give us some more of your increasingly panic stricken stupidly. Tell us how the Central Valley of California is a desert where they ship in water to grow nut trees and then tell us you never said that.

A fair amount of it IS a desert.
Wake wrote:
Then tell us that the Central Valley which averages 20" of rainfall in the northern end and 5" in the far south into the Imperial Valley gets 67" of rain.
...deleted mantra 2...2...1...

WRONG. The Imperial valley averages only about 3 inches of rain per year. The northern valley averages about 39 inches per year.


The hollowman strikes again. After proclaiming "It is YOU that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics." you are now telling us that it isn't a law at all. Smooth move. You go into rather several paragraphs telling us that it isn't a law now.

I see you really hate it when someone throws your own ignorant misunderstandings of things back in your face. S-B for the SOB.

Why are you now trying to change the subject about your claim of 67" of rain in the Central Valley? You seem to do this often. After sticking your foot in your mouth you either don't mention it again or you wait awhile and then say you already explained it. Like your clown act that you explained the difference between "statistical math" and any other math.

Do you do the old soft shoe as well?
08-01-2018 23:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
63 inches is 1600mm. That is rainforrest, jungle, rainfall.


Heh. Not quite. We DO have a rainforest here in Washington. It receives 150 inches of rain a year. I think you will find most jungles are similar.


When i did geography in school 1500mm was the lower limit for rain forrest.

Cheshire has 550mm and thus is a prime dairy region.


It is indeed like trying to speak to a parrot where he only knows a couple of phrases and continues to repeat them over and over no matter that they mean nothing. hollowman strikes again.


It is YOU that insists on rewriting the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is YOU that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Your belief in the Church of Global Warming is preventing YOU from accepting existing theories of science.

In the UK, they apparently consider 60 inches a year a rainforest. Does the Central Valley look like a rainforest to you? How about nearby Donner pass, which receives 51 inches a year? Do you consider it close to a rainforest?

Can't image what he thinks Scotland is.


hollowman, you should stop talking about things you know nothing about. The second law of thermodynamics is a general rule and not a specific one. But you couldn't even envision what I mean.

No, it is not a rule at all. It is a theory of science. It is specific. It is falsifiable. It has been tested and it still survives as a theory of science.
Wake wrote:
Here's an explanation that while designed for 12 year olds is far above your ability to understand:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/next/physics/scientists-reverse-arrow-of-time-in-quantum-experiment/

Correlating matter essentially makes them the same matter in quantum physics. Entropy was not decreased, because there are no longer two regions.
Wake wrote:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/

You really should read the papers you quote. It explains why your false equivalence you are trying to make is wrong.
Wake wrote:
Since it contradicts your ignorance of the world around you you can delete it at your convenience.

Normally I delete Holy Links, but I will leave them up this time for people to read them at their leisure without having to go back through to your post.
Wake wrote:
Your remarkable ignorance of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and what it means is pretty funny as well. "Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature."

Going to try to rewrite this law again, eh?
Wake wrote:
That "radiant heat energy" is the color of the light being radiated from any surface and you don't need to know the "radiance" of any surface whatsoever.

You have denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to rewrite it.

There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is color blind. ALL light of all frequencies is considered. Radiance is total radiance, an intensity, not a color.

You also dropped the term for the emissivity constant again. You can't just change the equation and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Wake wrote:
Give us some more of your increasingly panic stricken stupidly. Tell us how the Central Valley of California is a desert where they ship in water to grow nut trees and then tell us you never said that.

A fair amount of it IS a desert.
Wake wrote:
Then tell us that the Central Valley which averages 20" of rainfall in the northern end and 5" in the far south into the Imperial Valley gets 67" of rain.
...deleted mantra 2...2...1...

WRONG. The Imperial valley averages only about 3 inches of rain per year. The northern valley averages about 39 inches per year.


The hollowman strikes again. After proclaiming "It is YOU that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics." you are now telling us that it isn't a law at all.

It is a law. It is also a theory. It is not a rule. A law is nothing more then a theory formalized into a closed system such as mathematics or logic.
Wake wrote:
Smooth move. You go into rather several paragraphs telling us that it isn't a law now.

Why? It is.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...6...1...
Why are you now trying to change the subject about your claim of 67" of rain in the Central Valley?
...deleted lies...

I'm not.
Wake wrote:
Like your clown act that you explained the difference between "statistical math" and any other math. ...deleted Mantra 1...

I have explained statistical math multiple times to you. False equivalence and argument of the Stone.


The Parrot Killer
08-01-2018 23:48
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Correlating matter essentially makes them the same matter in quantum physics. Entropy was not decreased, because there are no longer two regions.
Wake wrote:
http://www.askamathematician.com/2013/03/q-why-doesnt-life-and-evolution-violate-the-second-law-of-thermodynamics-dont-living-things-reverse-entropy/

You really should read the papers you quote. It explains why your false equivalence you are trying to make is wrong.
Wake wrote:
Since it contradicts your ignorance of the world around you you can delete it at your convenience.

Normally I delete Holy Links, but I will leave them up this time for people to read them at their leisure without having to go back through to your post.
Wake wrote:
Your remarkable ignorance of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and what it means is pretty funny as well. "Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat energy emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature."

Going to try to rewrite this law again, eh?
Wake wrote:
That "radiant heat energy" is the color of the light being radiated from any surface and you don't need to know the "radiance" of any surface whatsoever.

You have denied the Stefan-Boltzmann law by attempting to rewrite it.

There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is color blind. ALL light of all frequencies is considered. Radiance is total radiance, an intensity, not a color.

You also dropped the term for the emissivity constant again. You can't just change the equation and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Wake wrote:
Give us some more of your increasingly panic stricken stupidly. Tell us how the Central Valley of California is a desert where they ship in water to grow nut trees and then tell us you never said that.

A fair amount of it IS a desert.
Wake wrote:
Then tell us that the Central Valley which averages 20" of rainfall in the northern end and 5" in the far south into the Imperial Valley gets 67" of rain.
...deleted mantra 2...2...1...

WRONG. The Imperial valley averages only about 3 inches of rain per year. The northern valley averages about 39 inches per year.


The hollowman strikes again. After proclaiming "It is YOU that denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics." you are now telling us that it isn't a law at all.[/quote]
It is a law. It is also a theory. It is not a rule. A law is nothing more then a theory formalized into a closed system such as mathematics or logic.
Wake wrote:
Smooth move. You go into rather several paragraphs telling us that it isn't a law now.

Why? It is.
Wake wrote:
...deleted Mantra 2...6...1...
Why are you now trying to change the subject about your claim of 67" of rain in the Central Valley?
...deleted lies...

I'm not.
Wake wrote:
Like your clown act that you explained the difference between "statistical math" and any other math. ...deleted Mantra 1...

I have explained statistical math multiple times to you. False equivalence and argument of the Stone.[/quote]

Correlation is not entanglement. Please cease your ignorant praddle.

You are the one declaring that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can't be broken. You're the traffic cop here. Now don't try to back out of it with your cowardly ways.

As I noted - you don't need emissivity when you are using spectrometry.

Or don't you remember screaming that ALL of the incoming energy leaves the Earth? That means that it has emissivity of 1.

Now you're changing your mind and telling us that the Central Valley doesn't get 67" of rain?

"The Central Valley watershed comprises 60,000 square miles (160,000 km2), or over a third of California. Its three main drainage systems are the Sacramento Valley in the north, which receives well over 20 inches (510 mm) of rain annually; the drier San Joaquin Valley in the south, and the Tulare Basin and its semi-arid desert climate at the southernmost end."

Are you attempting to define "well over 20" annually" to 67"? Or are you redefining "semi-arid" to "desert"? Last year that "semi-arid desert climate Tulare Basin" had 46" of rain and since that happens often enough to maintain a significant water table it is only semi-arid and not desert. Tells us all you know about at least something.

"I have explained statistical math multiple times to you."

More lies. You have shown that you don't even know what it is since it only take a single short sentence to explain.
09-01-2018 02:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5558)
Wake wrote:
Correlation is not entanglement. Please cease your ignorant praddle.

Makes no difference for this case.
Wake wrote:
You are the one declaring that the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics can't be broken.

You are saying you have falsified the 2nd law of thermodynamics???
Wake wrote:
You're the traffic cop here. Now don't try to back out of it with your cowardly ways.

Hey...YOU are the one that made THAT fantastic claim!
Wake wrote:
As I noted - you don't need emissivity when you are using spectrometry.

You are not measuring radiant power either. That is not the purpose of the instrument. I thought you said you worked on these things.
Wake wrote:
Or don't you remember screaming that ALL of the incoming energy leaves the Earth? That means that it has emissivity of 1.

Nope. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law completely now. You are STILL trying to change the equation to eliminate the emissivity constant.
Wake wrote:
Now you're changing your mind and telling us that the Central Valley doesn't get 67" of rain?
...deleted Holy Quote...
Nope. It gets 67 inches of rain on average.
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
I have explained statistical math multiple times to you.

...deleted Mantra 5...2...non-sequitur...6...

Argument of the Stone. You continue to deny statistical mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
09-01-2018 04:33
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Again you said everything there needs to be said to show you for the hollowman you are.
09-01-2018 23:51
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
litesong wrote:
James_ wrote: The Ghost of AGW Future is gonna getcha!
You do know how to turn a phrase!


I like to think I know a good quote when I see one
10-01-2018 18:32
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
The Aral Sea is a good example of how industrialization and increased agricultural production can effect the climate/environment.

The disaster of the Aral Sea was not because of industrialization, it was because the government of the USSR decided it wanted fisherman to become farmers.


ITN,
Industrialization allows for increased farm production.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The Argument for AGW:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
No AGW Conspiracy?122-09-2017 07:16
Support for the AGW Theory - or Not ...8412-09-2017 17:57
AGW will make Canada a global super power907-07-2017 23:46
CO2 is but one factor in the climate change argument1013-06-2017 03:23
97% Consensis on AGW?4425-02-2017 01:48
▲ 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