Remember me
▼ Content

Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating



Page 5 of 9<<<34567>>>
10-09-2017 09:54
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data? I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.


YOU are the one that asked for NOAA!! I provided NOAA data with proof of my point crawling up your ass and out through your eyeballs and you still can't see it? What data would you like to see next time so you can deny it? ITN is so right...all religions are faith based and yours is no exception.

And to be completely honest, I googled "Key West current sea temp" and it popped up 87. I did some more digging and found the 85s along with some 86s, 87s, 88s and 89s. Average is 87 and so it kind of blows holes in your overheated water theory.


Nah, it doesn't blow holes in anything of mine. It's just your admission that you did surf around until you found the lowest reported temperature, and then posted it, without even saying that the average was 87, as you did just now. That means that you were intentionally trying to mislead people. That means that you are blowing holes in your own credibility.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
10-09-2017 09:56
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.

Mmmm.....is there more or less property available for destruction than there was 100 years ago?

You may have to write new Algorizm for this one.


Good point, lol. Sorry about sending you down that rabbit hole.

I guess we can't determine anything, for a couple more hundred years. And we can't take those evil climate scientist's word for it either. So we might as well just party on, right?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
10-09-2017 18:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Well, Mr. Greenlite came out swinging this morning....and then took a proper beat down. He's been awful quiet today. Hope he's doing some soul searching. That said, I normally wouldn't kick a man when he's down, but I was looking over this entire thread again. I saw the very first post and just about came unglued again. As we know, Greenery has accused me of stacking the deck and posting made up stuff. He has expressed a faith in the National Weather Service data, and says I should use that to back up my claims. So, here is the first image he posted on this thread.


Hey Jizzy, do you remember when you were a kid, and you were watching wrestling on TV with your dad, and that big bad bully was kicking the shit out of old Dusty Rhodes? Oh yeah, that big bad bully would have him down and trying to get a count out, and old Dusty Rhodes would stick a fist into the air. Oh shit, you knew what was about to happen next. Old Dusty Rhodes would just stand up, with the big bad bully still hanging on, and then commence to beating the pure shit out of the big bad bully.

You remember that, don't you?

Well, I hope so, because now that I've had my sleep for the day [I work, if you can call it that, on graveyard shift, so my lack of posts for a while don't mean I'm down, lol], I'm gonna pummel your mentally deficient ass, lol.

Watch this.


Chris, you don't have the mental capacity to understand a book of fairy tales. So perhaps you should do the watching.
10-09-2017 20:45
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]GasGuzzler wrote:I googled "Key West current sea temp" and it popped up 87. Average is 87....

Your close:
http://www.water-temperature.com/key-west Key West currect temp is 88. Normally, Key West is 85-86deg, on its way down.
Edited on 10-09-2017 20:46
10-09-2017 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Now which one do you suppose is made up stuff?


Remember that greenman doesn't understand anything about science so he will google until he finds something that proves his point. Since he doesn't understand science he very often pulls his own plug.

Not a science issue. A data issue. Science is not data. It is also a math issue. Science is not math. He uses fake data and bad math to deny science.
Wake wrote:
This is the same with spot and greenman both. litebrain is stuck trying to convince the entire world that a reduction in the polar ice means something despite the fact that we really have no history to show that there even is a reduction and not a cyclic advance and recession. I showed that in 1954 and 1955 nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the north pole.

Litebeer just quotes manufactured data endlessly. He thinks he is done some kind of Holy service to the world for it.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare continues to believe that if he makes up enough "science" that somehow he will be smart.

I have made up no science. I have not changed the wording or the equations of any part of physics.
Wake wrote:
You HAND him an explanation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and what it means and not only does he deny it but then turns around and threatens others with it as if he has a magic baseball bat.

You deny the very law you are trying to support now. Your paradox is just continuing an irrational argument.
Wake wrote:
The most basic algebra demonstrates what it means and extensions to it but he is incapable of that.

Your 'algebra' is ignoring dependent and independent variables. You are also ignoring important constants. Your 'algebra' is adding and subtracting terms to the equation. You are making a math error.
Wake wrote:
While AGW is plainly incorrect the theory of it is so basic that anyone could understand it.

Not a theory. No theory can exist based on a fallacy. No one has yet been able to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
Wake wrote:
It is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in action.

WRONG. The Magick Bouncing Photon argument violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The problem is that the theory requires additional CO2 to decrease the irradiance of the Earth and it can't.

WRONG. The problem is that CO2, even it's present concentration, decreases the radiance of the Earth while increasing Earth's temperature. The bit that CO2 somehow changes the emissivity of Earth is just an extension of that same argument.
Wake wrote:
The most basic understanding of heat motion in the troposphere shows two things:

1. There isn't any energy in the single open absorption band of CO2 so total saturation of that wavelength occurred at about 200 ppm - 280 ppm. This is what keeps CO2 at those levels as a minimum - at 180 ppm to 200 ppm photosynthesis ceases and plant extraction of CO2 no longer occurs. CO2 can then begin building up from all of the natural sources from volcanic to animal life. In any case since there is no energy in this band additional CO2 cannot effect irradiance.

It doesn't matter how much CO2 there is when it comes to 'saturation'. The 'saturation' experiment is a parlor trick.
Wake wrote:
2. The density of the atmosphere in the troposphere is such that virtually ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth from the troposphere into the stratosphere is via conduction and convection.

WRONG. Most energy from the Earth is radiance from the Earth's surface. The atmosphere emits also, but it is far less dense than the surface.
Wake wrote:
Even were CO2 able to find some energy it is a trace gas of such small percentages that since H20 vapor in the atmosphere is some 200 times greater volume, again conduction from CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere and most especially into water vapor is completely assured.

Heh. CO2 conducts into anything cooler than itself. It sure doesn't need water around to do that!
Wake wrote:
The counter-science that has been used to support AGW is literally staggering.

It is not science at all. I wouldn't use the name 'counter-science'.
Wake wrote:
NASA and NOAA both have gone so far and to totally falsely scaled the effects of water vapor vs. CO2.

They've gone further than that! They've given water vapor the same Magick properties as CO2. NONE of them are capable of warming the Earth. NONE of them are 'greenhouse' gases.
Wake wrote:
Dr. Michael Mann totally eliminated the last two warm periods so as to make his "hockey stick" look impressive.

Meh. No one knows the temperature of the Earth. Not now, and not during the last so-called 'warm' periods (which were more about great weather across Europe than anything else).
Wake wrote:
Despite totally accurate MGT data from satellites

Satellites can't measure absolute temperature.
Wake wrote:
that show no warming since the satellites could gather data (38 years!)

Big deal. Satellites can't measure absolute temperature. You can't determine the temperature of the Earth that way.
Wake wrote:
NOAA and NASA have relied upon ground sites that measure temperature.

The only way to measure temperature. Each station has an accurate log of it's measurements. These are publicly available.

NOAA and NASA then cook this data using bad math to produce the charts you see on their central websites. (Actually, NASA just copies the NOAA info).

Wake wrote:
At least one study has shown that of the American sites only 10% or so could measure temperature within 1 degree C.

NOAA weather stations can measure to within fractions of a degree. Their thermometers (and other equipment) is checked annually.
Wake wrote:
A large segment had errors of 5 degree C and higher.

BS. NOAA weather stations have very accurate thermometers that are annually checked. So does every airport that reports weather conditions (although their thermometers are only accurate to within a degree).
Wake wrote:
The sites over most of the rest of the world have exactly the same sorts of problems.

Argument from randU and a compositional error fallacy. Thermometers at official stations vary in their accuracy. Some are really good, others, not so much.
Wake wrote:
This makes NOAA and NASA historic data sets a laughing stock.

No, it is ACCURATE. The individual station logs are completely accurate. Only the central websites and agencies cook the data using bad math. That part is NOT data. Is it manufactured.
Wake wrote:
When will this global warming hoax cease?

Probably not for quite awhile. This particular religion seems deeply entrenched in many nations, thanks to the efforts of the IPCC.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenshit wrote;
And AGW [not AWG, that's a wire size unit] is adding to the strength of all hurricanes, and tornadoes, and even thunder storms, for that matter.

Please explain.


All I can conclude is that the special ed teachers at your elementary school did a wonderful job of teaching a kid born with half a brain to copy and paste irrelevant propaganda on the Internet.


I've got a life to live a not much time today, so I'll just address this one for now.

You said man made global warming is adding strength to tornadoes.

I showed you a chart from your beloved NOAA clearly showing you are wrong. You have said you trust them, have faith in them, and believe them.

You call it irrelevant propaganda and credit my elementary teachers.

Is that your argument?


Yes, that is m argument, but I am really starting to feel bad now, because I just realized that you really do only have half a brain, and here I am making fun of you. Shame on me.

Your chart is irrelevant for a couple of reasons. It doesn't go back far enough in time to really see if Climate Change is increasing the severity of storms. And my argument can't even be disputed, unless you are trying to dispute the well known fact that tornadoes are fueled by heat. I don't think your chart is disputing that, are you?


We began measuring carbon dioxide in 1956. We began measuring hurricanes using aircraft since 1947. We have data to compare the two starting from 1956.

So...you are arguing that 'climate change' has not occurred for 61 years??? You DO realize you are going against the teachings of the Church of Global Warming here, don't you?

Then you say your argument can't be disputed??? What argument are you making now???

You can't even DEFINE 'climate change' without using circular definitions!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
I've got a life to live a not much time today, so I'll just address this one for now.

You said man made global warming is adding strength to tornadoes.

I showed you a chart from your beloved NOAA clearly showing you are wrong. You have said you trust them, have faith in them, and believe them.

You call it irrelevant propaganda and credit my elementary teachers.

Is that your argument?


You can't expect a vicious fool to make any sort of honest answer do you?


Appears to me that one just did, even though the question wasn't directed at him.

Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted long rant against Rush Limbaugh...

So you expect Rush Limbaugh to sacrifice himself to a hurricane now? He has a radio show to do. He left to do it. You can't do it in the middle of a hurricane!
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted long rant prediction the extinction of the Republican party...

You are using your chicken entrails as a wish list. The Republican party is going nowhere for quite awhile. It may split into two parties, one that wants to restore a republican form of government that honors its Constitution, and the other a RINO type of party that wants to destroy the Constitution, but not as quickly as the Democrats want to.
GreenMan wrote:
people will eventually realize that NOAA and NASA weren't making it up. And they will then destroy the party of misleaders.

They ARE making it up. The math errors in there 'data' is obvious to anyone that understands statistical math.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
Your hero Rush Limbaugh even evacuated, after putting the media down for reporting the storm, lol.

Did you bother to go listen to what Rush said after you heard about it on CNN? I did. He simply was raising the question of whether or not the Media was scratching the backs of it's supporters(advertisers) such as Lowes and Home DePot. He did not accuse anyone of anything, as you like to do. Like when you claimed I made an east coast hurricane route prediction. I did no such thing. I was simply reporting what the flip flopping models were doing. I wondered if the media would report the model discrepancy. I'm a decent writer, learn to read.


It is obvious he never listened to Rush Limbaugh to see what he said. He never bothered to look at historical audio of it either. He does the same with Trump. He only listens to the fake news media like CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press.

It's truly amazing the propaganda these guys push now. Tokyo Rose would have been proud.

He probably never even heard Rush's show or actually listened to any of Trumps speeches in full.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
...and you can chew on this one for a while too since you said hurricanes are also gaining energy from global warming. It also has your beloved NOAA credentials on it.


Again, it's irrelevant. But here's a deal I'll make with you. Put the Harvey and Irma on it, and let's take another look, because it might just show a little increase. But it still wouldn't be relevant.

If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.


Not due to 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Due to building more in forests, the mismanagement of forests (allowing low level brush to grow and not thinning trees properly), and the falling value of the dollar.

What did a nice split level home in downtown Klamath Falls cost in 1967? What does it cost now?

Don't know about Klamath Falls? Okay. Answer the same question for a house about 3 miles from the center of Houston.

The dollar amount of property damage that you see is speculation by media. The actual cost is not known for several years after the storm. Most of that is private money, not government money. No one can track all off the money spent as a result of any storm completely.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;
...and you can't WAIT to hear about the destruction! You can almost pee yourself with excitement!


ITN you've nailed it here. At long last, the 12 year hurricane drought is over, and the "proof" they've needed for over a decade has finally come. They are pissing their pants they're so freikin giddy. Wonder if Al Joker pooped his pants again. Google that one.
Shit happens Al, but I really didn't need to know about it....what a moron.

Sidenote...The 00Z NAM is in and it has taken a jump back out to sea, farther east than it was before, never landfalling ANYWHERE, only brushing Miami with 40-50 MPH outer band winds. That would be a major disappointment to some if that verified. I'll look for this report on the news tonight. Any bets?


Yes, I'll take that bet. If Irma goes east of Florida, you win. If Irma follow the west coast of Florida, the alarmist media wins. I'm putting my money on the alarmist media, because of the water temperature from Key West and up the west coast of Florida. Water temperature is 89 in Key West, and 87 up the west coast, versus 86 up the east coast for a little then drops back to 85 in open ocean more east. But Tampa is sitting there with 87 degree water.

You can see that information here:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/satl_tmap.html
You can see all the current ocean temps there.

You can see the alarmist media projection here:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/dangerous-winds-storm-surge-threaten-florida-even-hurricane-092608392--abc-news-topstories.html

So far, the tract of Irma is following the heat. Could be coincidental, but you might recall that I suggested that the heat island around Houston could have drawn Harvey in. Now we get to see if there is any relationship between sea temp and Irma's path. The warm water up the west coast of Florida I think is a little more appetizing for Irma than the east coast, or land. That's because the heat is causing more air to rise, creating a low pressure, right up the west coast.

Watch this.


Hurricanes don't 'follow the heat'. They follow the winds produced by different pressure areas. The reason Harvey stalled was that the storm got caught between two high pressure areas that weren't moving.


You don't know that hurricanes don't follow the heated waters. What I am saying is that the heated waters could be causing the low pressure and the winds that do direct the hurricanes.


WRONG. High and low pressure areas are brought about by uneven heating of the surface of the Earth...land or sea.

The two high pressure areas that formed near Houston that stalled Harvey formed from two storm systems well to the north of Houston that had recently passed through. They both formed over land.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;
...and you can't WAIT to hear about the destruction! You can almost pee yourself with excitement!


ITN you've nailed it here. At long last, the 12 year hurricane drought is over, and the "proof" they've needed for over a decade has finally come. They are pissing their pants they're so freikin giddy. Wonder if Al Joker pooped his pants again. Google that one.
Shit happens Al, but I really didn't need to know about it....what a moron.

Sidenote...The 00Z NAM is in and it has taken a jump back out to sea, farther east than it was before, never landfalling ANYWHERE, only brushing Miami with 40-50 MPH outer band winds. That would be a major disappointment to some if that verified. I'll look for this report on the news tonight. Any bets?


Yes, I'll take that bet. If Irma goes east of Florida, you win. If Irma follow the west coast of Florida, the alarmist media wins. I'm putting my money on the alarmist media, because of the water temperature from Key West and up the west coast of Florida. Water temperature is 89 in Key West, and 87 up the west coast, versus 86 up the east coast for a little then drops back to 85 in open ocean more east. But Tampa is sitting there with 87 degree water.

You can see that information here:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/satl_tmap.html
You can see all the current ocean temps there.

You can see the alarmist media projection here:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/dangerous-winds-storm-surge-threaten-florida-even-hurricane-092608392--abc-news-topstories.html

So far, the tract of Irma is following the heat. Could be coincidental, but you might recall that I suggested that the heat island around Houston could have drawn Harvey in. Now we get to see if there is any relationship between sea temp and Irma's path. The warm water up the west coast of Florida I think is a little more appetizing for Irma than the east coast, or land. That's because the heat is causing more air to rise, creating a low pressure, right up the west coast.

Watch this.


Hurricanes don't 'follow the heat'. They follow the winds produced by different pressure areas. The reason Harvey stalled was that the storm got caught between two high pressure areas that weren't moving.


You don't know that hurricanes don't follow the heated waters. What I am saying is that the heated waters could be causing the low pressure and the winds that do direct the hurricanes.


...and your ignorance is of astronomical proportions.

Look up cyclogenesis. Once you understand that you won't be any smarter really, but you might know how stupid you've been.


He still believes that the scene in Day After Tomorrow with multiple tornadoes touching down in close vicinity to one another in Los Angeles and newscopters flying between them is actually possible!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Yeah. He used an actual station log. That just sticks in your craw, doesn't it?
GreenMan wrote:
Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data?

Yup. The individual station log is his source data, the log BEFORE it was cooked by NOAA. He is showing you the raw data (which is the only data).
GreenMan wrote:
I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.


So you want to ignore NOAA station data, ignore buoy data, and ignore the hurricane center data???

You would rather believe the cooked shit on the central NOAA website???

You don't believe in actual data...you believe in bad math. Such is the result of your faith in the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 10-09-2017 21:41
10-09-2017 21:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data? I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.


YOU are the one that asked for NOAA!! I provided NOAA data with proof of my point crawling up your ass and out through your eyeballs and you still can't see it? What data would you like to see next time so you can deny it? ITN is so right...all religions are faith based and yours is no exception.

And to be completely honest, I googled "Key West current sea temp" and it popped up 87. I did some more digging and found the 85s along with some 86s, 87s, 88s and 89s. Average is 87 and so it kind of blows holes in your overheated water theory.


It actually destroys it completely. All you need is one exception...one piece of conflicting evidence...to utterly destroy a theory.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.

Mmmm.....is there more or less property available for destruction than there was 100 years ago?

You may have to write new Algorizm for this one.


Heh. Guess he forgot the effects of a larger population and the falling dollar.



The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
You left out the real thing that CO2 does, that makes it a Greenhouse Gas.
...deleted lengthy insult stream...
And what is that, dumbass? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?
GreenMan wrote:
CO2 produces thermal energy when it absorbs light at the right frequency.

CO2 produces nothing. I can convert electromagnetic energy to thermal energy and back again, same as any gas in the atmosphere, and the same as any substance.
GreenMan wrote:
That thermal energy heats the surrounding air, making it a little bit warmer. Nitrogen and Oxygen do not have that ability, which is what differentiates the two types of gases.

Yes they do. ALL substances absorb and emit light. Most them absorb and emit infrared light. (I actually can't think of any exceptions, offhand).
GreenMan wrote:
But calling it a Holy Gas is actually correct,

At least you admit that now.
GreenMan wrote:
since if it weren't for Greenhouse Gases, we wouldn't be able to live on this planet, due to the extreme cold.

No gas warms the Earth. Not oxygen, nitrogen, or any Holy Gas.

The ONLY way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 21:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Because there's always a bigger fish. There's always a biggest hurricane.


Now it turns out that Irma isn't the strongest hurricane on record. Now they are using the phrase "The only hurricane to hold level 5 for so long."

The records previous to about 2005 were recorded using the atmospheric pressure in the EYE of the storm. This is not an accurate gauge of the strength of a storm. Moreover unless you had a landfall or ship where this pressure could be measured you didn't have any records.

So previous to 1969 or so there are extremely few records and the records they have are not particularly indicative of hurricane strength since a very low pressure hurricane can also be very small but with extremely high winds since they are mostly wrapped around the eye wall.

The end result of this is that AS USUAL the media is lying through it's teeth. Greenman will accept anything that he feels will prove that the world is dying. I wish I could see what he has to say when he hits 70 years old.


You will have to wait a few more years, numb nuts. Holding Category 5 for so long is a record. Wind speed while in the Atlantic before getting to the Caribbean Sea or the Gulf of Mexico is also a record. It's tied at 2nd for the strongest wind speed anywhere in the Atlantic basin.

Here's some good up to date information on it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/weather/2017/09/07/all-records-hurricane-irma-has-already-broken/642948001/
http://mashable.com/2017/09/06/how-hurricane-irma-got-so-strong/#Aj5obWcIOmqD

I didn't check to see if those sites are typical fear mongering media sites or not. Seems like any news organisation that reports on the weather lately is suspect, lately, by the Church of AGW Denial congregation.


No such church. The argument of the Outsider of your church is not based on a circular argument.

Yours is.


Yes, your argument is circular, and in the worst way. Your only argument is your emotional reaction to this threat, which is denial.


Inversion fallacy and a denial of formal logic.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 22:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
I don't use "manufactured data."

Yes you do.
GreenMan wrote:
The data I use is from reliable sources.

No, it isn't. It's from an argument from randU and compounded with bad math.
GreenMan wrote:
Just because AGW Deniers try to cast doubt on any climate data that is used to determine AGW doesn't mean the data is "manufactured."

YOU have used manufactured data. You are making a compositional error here (a fallacy). You want to be careful with this particular fallacy. It is the root fallacy of bigotry and racism.
GreenMan wrote:
It just shows the lengths people will go to ignore things they don't want to do anything about.

There is nothing to do about manufactured data except to point it out when it occurs. I have done that.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't reject any data from verifiable sources.

Yes you do. You reject NOAA and other weather station logs. You reject temperature buoy measurement logs, you reject national hurricane center records.
GreenMan wrote:
Though I do often reject the interpretations of that data from unreliable sources, such as yourself.

I have created no data. I am only saying the station log data that has been shown is valid data. It is verifiable, the instrumentation is known, the time and method of collecting the data is known, the reliability and reference points for the instrumentation are known, and the purpose of collection is known. You reject this data.
GreenMan wrote:
None of the laws of thermodynamics is broken by the Global Warming Theory

There is no 'global warming theory'. No theory can be based on a fallacy. Define 'global warming' without using circular definitions.

The Magick Blanket argument and the Magick Bouncing Photon argument you keep using DOES violate the laws of thermodynamics.

GreenMan wrote:
and neither is the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Magick Bouncing Photon argument you keep using DOES violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It also violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You have even violated the 1st law of thermodynamics in trying to justify your argument.
GreenMan wrote:
That has been explained to you already, yet you still bring it up.

Because you keep making the same stupid arguments.
GreenMan wrote:
And the problem is that you are the one who doesn't understand what the theory actually says,

I know what the theory says. YOU keep trying to change it or ignore it completely.
GreenMan wrote:
because you aren't trying to figure out if the alarmists are right or not,

Alarmists don't write theories. They spend their time pushing their opinions, usually religiously based.
GreenMan wrote:
you are simply grasping at straws to try to prove that they are wrong.

I don't have to prove a negative. No one does. This is part of formal logic, which you are illiterate in.

YOU have to show why your argument is a theory, and that your theory is falsifiable, how it has been formalized into a closed system, and how that theory was tested against the null hypothesis.

At present, you can't even define what 'global warming' means without resorting to circular definitions.

GreenMan wrote:
And you are doing that willfully, because you have proven yourself to be a knowledgeable person

At least you admit that I am knowledgeable now.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you know what you are doing to your own karma?

Yes. It's just fine.
GreenMan wrote:
What do you think a good learning opportunity would be for someone who propagated the destruction of the entire human race?

I don't base my karma on reading chicken entrails like you do.
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted length predictions of gloom and doom...
So anyway, feel free to do what you want to do, because you do have the free will to destroy your inner being if you want to.

You have been warned.

Ooooooo. A *warning* from you no less!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 22:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
ITN wrote;
...and you can't WAIT to hear about the destruction! You can almost pee yourself with excitement!


ITN you've nailed it here. At long last, the 12 year hurricane drought is over, and the "proof" they've needed for over a decade has finally come. They are pissing their pants they're so freikin giddy. Wonder if Al Joker pooped his pants again. Google that one.
Shit happens Al, but I really didn't need to know about it....what a moron.

Sidenote...The 00Z NAM is in and it has taken a jump back out to sea, farther east than it was before, never landfalling ANYWHERE, only brushing Miami with 40-50 MPH outer band winds. That would be a major disappointment to some if that verified. I'll look for this report on the news tonight. Any bets?


Yes, I'll take that bet. If Irma goes east of Florida, you win. If Irma follow the west coast of Florida, the alarmist media wins. I'm putting my money on the alarmist media, because of the water temperature from Key West and up the west coast of Florida. Water temperature is 89 in Key West, and 87 up the west coast, versus 86 up the east coast for a little then drops back to 85 in open ocean more east. But Tampa is sitting there with 87 degree water.

You can see that information here:
https://www.nodc.noaa.gov/dsdt/cwtg/satl_tmap.html
You can see all the current ocean temps there.

You can see the alarmist media projection here:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/dangerous-winds-storm-surge-threaten-florida-even-hurricane-092608392--abc-news-topstories.html

So far, the tract of Irma is following the heat. Could be coincidental, but you might recall that I suggested that the heat island around Houston could have drawn Harvey in. Now we get to see if there is any relationship between sea temp and Irma's path. The warm water up the west coast of Florida I think is a little more appetizing for Irma than the east coast, or land. That's because the heat is causing more air to rise, creating a low pressure, right up the west coast.

Watch this.


You've lost already. Now the media is threatening Tampa with Irma. Though by he time it gets there they are sorry to admit it will only be a Cat 3. I'll bet you cried yourself to sleep last night the millions of people weren't destroyed. I'll bet your dreams of death and carnage being destroyed by a careless mother nature just broke your heart. It is also possible that Irma won't make landfall until it drops to a tropical storm. You can then get drunk and kill yourself in your misery. Hopefully.


You are truly a sick puppy, Wake. And did you know that your name makes a lot of sense. I have to compliment you on such a fitting name for yourself, but you had to have someone else help you with it, because it is so fitting. Wake is a party for a dead person, before they are buried. You are the big party for those who will die because they ignored the warnings of Global Warming.


Still crying that widespread death and looting hasn't taken over? People in New Hampshire are said to be all like you. Disgusting.


Bigotry again. You want to watch that.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 22:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Now which one do you suppose is made up stuff?


I'm going to revert back to my original explanation. The special ed teachers did a wonderful job, considering that you only have half a brain. It would have been nice if they could have went a little further, and actually taught you how to think. But it might not have been their fault, because the half that you are missing might be where the thought process originates. Let's see. Let's go over the two charts, and see if we can figure out where the discrepancy is.

Let's start with your chart.


Oh, I can feel the excitement you must have felt, when you posted that piece of irrelevant information. Your heart was just a pounding, wasn't it? You thought that you were about to deliver the fatal blow to the mighty Greenman, didn't you? Yes sir, you thought you were about to teach him a lesson about using made up data, didn't you.

I'm thinking your hottie wife didn't marry you for your intellectual skills, did she?

Take a look at the top of your graph. What does it say?

Now take a look at the top of my graph.


What does it say?

It says 'Alaska Climate Research Center' an institution well known for it's propaganda and manufactured data.

GreenMan wrote:

Do you know what the difference between an Annual Mean and a Monthly Mean temperature is?

...deleted length insult stream....

So tell me, please. Do you really think you should compare the monthly mean temperature to the annual mean temperature, or has enough been said?

Yes...they can be compared. Again, you don't understand statistical math, or even what an 'average' is.

The only problem of course, is that the Alaska Climate Research Center never used any station data. They just manufacture their data as part of their propaganda campaign.

So while such a comparison is mathematically sensible, it false apart due to a false equivalence.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of Alaska. Weather stations in Alaska area ONLY capable of measuring the temperature AT THE STATION itself, where the thermometer bulb is actually located. That's good enough to assume a reasonable accuracy of temperature in an area extending 250 ft from the station, +- 1 degree, using the assumed possible temperature gradient so far observed.

...deleted childish remarks about how you 'won' the debate...


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 22:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenlite wrote;
Your chart is irrelevant for a couple of reasons. It doesn't go back far enough in time to really see if Climate Change is increasing the severity of storms. And my argument can't even be disputed, unless you are trying to dispute the well known fact that tornadoes are fueled by heat. I don't think your chart is disputing that, are you?


62 years isn't enough to show a trend???? ...and no, tornadoes are not fueled by heat. Showing your ignorance again. Useful idiot.


No, 62 years isn't enough to show a trend in tornado frequency due to Climate Change. You need to go back to before the climate began to be affected by the Industrial Revolution, if you seriously want to determine whether or not they are becoming more frequent. But yes, from your chart, it does look like the more we warm, the less frequently they occur.


Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.

What are the starting and ending times of measurement for the 'change'? Why are these times important? Why are any other times NOT important?

GreenMan wrote:
Do you know where tornadoes come from?

It is obvious you don't.

Note: for the remainder of this post, I am assuming Greenman's definition of 'heat' which is actually 'thermal energy', to simplify responses.

GreenMan wrote:
If you said they are spawned by severe thunderstorms, then you are right.

But if you knew that, then I have to really dig deep to figure out how you can be so sure that heat doesn't fuel them? Does heat not fuel thunderstorms?

No. Heat does not fuel thunderstorms. Thunderstorms can occur at any temperature. Have you not heard of thundersnow?
GreenMan wrote:
I can assure you that heat does fuel thunderstorms, after growing up in south Georgia.

South Georgia is not the only place thunderstorms occur.
GreenMan wrote:
Therefor, heat fuels tornadoes.

Compositional error, a fallacy. Heat does not fuel tornadoes. Tornadoes, like thunderstorms, can occur at any temperature.
GreenMan wrote:
And additional heat should fuel more tornadoes.

WRONG. Unstable air causes tornadoes. That can occur at any temperature.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps the reason is isn't is because it is heating the air and the earth, so there isn't a big enough difference between the two, to generate more storms.

Both thunderstorms and tornadoes occur at any temperature. There are even cold water hurricanes.
GreenMan wrote:
Let's hope that is what is going on, and that they don't pick up steam in the future.

Ignoring the national hurricane center data again?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 22:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What? has Greenery done the old hit and run like hell too?
2 questions for him.

1. Is it possible to have a tornado with temps in the 30s? (it is) What fuels it?

Heat, dumbass. I already told you.

Oh, I see the problem, you think that 30 isn't hot, because you feel cold at 30 degrees. So you don't understand what's going on, do you? Is that because you don't want to understand, my mentally challenged challenger?

It's easy to understand really, but you might have to wait a few months to actually do this. Stand outside on a cold day. I'm sure you guys have them out in Iowa. Wait until it is about 20 below. Get a good feel for that, and then wait till next spring, when it gets back up to 30. Then go stand outside again. See if you can feel a difference. That difference in the way it feels, is called heat, you blubbering idiot.


Not the definition of 'heat'. You seem to have no clue what 'heat' actually is.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 23:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
Your hero Rush Limbaugh even evacuated, after putting the media down for reporting the storm, lol.

Did you bother to go listen to what Rush said after you heard about it on CNN? I did. He simply was raising the question of whether or not the Media was scratching the backs of it's supporters(advertisers) such as Lowes and Home DePot. He did not accuse anyone of anything, as you like to do. Like when you claimed I made an east coast hurricane route prediction. I did no such thing. I was simply reporting what the flip flopping models were doing. I wondered if the media would report the model discrepancy. I'm a decent writer, learn to read.


His accusation was that the media was over-hyping the storm, just to make money, basically.

WRONG. He was simply saying the media doesn't know, and can't know where the hurricane was going to go, but that they like to speculate to make money.
GreenMan wrote:
In doing that he was implying that there was no reason for people to stock up on supplies, to ride out the storm with, or to protect their property with.

WRONG. You have to listen to the guy, not CNN.
GreenMan wrote:
Just a hyped up fake news story, is how he was presented coverage of Irma.

It WAS fake news too. Rush was quite correct that the news media has no clue where the storm is going to go. Like you, they were practically peeing their pants in anticipation of the storm hitting Miami directly (which it didn't).

GreenMan wrote:
Then, ironically as hell, he had to pack his bags and head out of town, because of the "Liberal Media's reports."

No, because of evacuation orders from the government, and he has a radio show to do. He can't do it with the power out and the antenna down. He didn't know where the hurricane was going to hit. He even said so.

You are just making continued references to false authority, a fallacy.

Your big problem is that you have no idea how to determine line of authority for a reference. You just cut and paste anything that supports your faith in the Church of Global Warming, including arguments of others (which you present as your own), manufactured data, and heresay from others who have a political agenda which includes misquoting Rush Limbaugh.

Your cut and pasting, and your faith in the Church of Global Warming has left you without the ability to critically analyze any argument. You just take it on faith. You discard arguments or accept them because of who is making them, not on the content of the argument itself (Bulverism).

You gloss over circular definitions and try to build theories from them. You continually depend on arguments of false authority, arguments of the Stone, compositional errors, proof of negatives demands, math errors, and a confusion about basic terms like 'heat' and 'temperature'.

You continually try to redefine the theories and equations of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and you also ignore Planck's law by doing so.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 23:10
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, looks like I'm right. Heat is what fuels tornadoes, and other forms of cyclones. Do you think you can have a difference in temperature without any heat?


False equivalence. You are trying to associate hot regions such as warm ocean water with 'heat'. At the same time you correctly use 'heat' here, but you can't see your false equivalence.

A cyclone (or a tornado) is convective activity. That IS heat. Heat does not cause the storm. It IS heat itself.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 23:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data? I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.


YOU are the one that asked for NOAA!! I provided NOAA data with proof of my point crawling up your ass and out through your eyeballs and you still can't see it? What data would you like to see next time so you can deny it? ITN is so right...all religions are faith based and yours is no exception.

And to be completely honest, I googled "Key West current sea temp" and it popped up 87. I did some more digging and found the 85s along with some 86s, 87s, 88s and 89s. Average is 87 and so it kind of blows holes in your overheated water theory.


Nah, it doesn't blow holes in anything of mine. It's just your admission that you did surf around until you found the lowest reported temperature, and then posted it, without even saying that the average was 87, as you did just now. That means that you were intentionally trying to mislead people. That means that you are blowing holes in your own credibility.


That station does exist, dumbass. It's a NOAA station. The ocean water is NOT warmer than usual.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
10-09-2017 23:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13268)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.

Mmmm.....is there more or less property available for destruction than there was 100 years ago?

You may have to write new Algorizm for this one.


Good point, lol. Sorry about sending you down that rabbit hole.

I guess we can't determine anything, for a couple more hundred years. And we can't take those evil climate scientist's word for it either. So we might as well just party on, right?


Statistics by its nature is not capable of prediction. Unlike the rest of mathematics, it loses its power of prediction because of the probability math it's based upon, and the random number mathematics that probability itself is based upon. It is due to the cross Domain nature of random number mathematics.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
11-09-2017 00:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: More garbage


There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.
11-09-2017 07:13
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Now which one do you suppose is made up stuff?


Remember that greenman doesn't understand anything about science so he will google until he finds something that proves his point. Since he doesn't understand science he very often pulls his own plug.

Not a science issue. A data issue. Science is not data. It is also a math issue. Science is not math. He uses fake data and bad math to deny science.

You are the one who is trying to deny science, by deliberately misinterpreting laws of physics.

And you both are so inattentive that you didn't notice that it was Jizz Guzzler that tried to compare a March temperature average with an Annual temperature and got all upset because it was colder in March than the average for the year.

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
This is the same with spot and greenman both. litebrain is stuck trying to convince the entire world that a reduction in the polar ice means something despite the fact that we really have no history to show that there even is a reduction and not a cyclic advance and recession. I showed that in 1954 and 1955 nuclear submarines surfaced in open water at the north pole.

Litebeer just quotes manufactured data endlessly. He thinks he is done some kind of Holy service to the world for it.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare continues to believe that if he makes up enough "science" that somehow he will be smart.

I have made up no science. I have not changed the wording or the equations of any part of physics.

No, what you do is called deliberate misinterpretation. For example, you imply that earth radiation has to be observed from space, in order to satisfy the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. When in reality, the Stefan-Boltzmann Law says nothing about how, or where, or why to observe radiation. It just says how much radiation will be emitted, based on temperature.

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
You HAND him an explanation of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and what it means and not only does he deny it but then turns around and threatens others with it as if he has a magic baseball bat.

You deny the very law you are trying to support now. Your paradox is just continuing an irrational argument.
Wake wrote:
The most basic algebra demonstrates what it means and extensions to it but he is incapable of that.

Your 'algebra' is ignoring dependent and independent variables. You are also ignoring important constants. Your 'algebra' is adding and subtracting terms to the equation. You are making a math error.
Wake wrote:
While AGW is plainly incorrect the theory of it is so basic that anyone could understand it.

Not a theory. No theory can exist based on a fallacy. No one has yet been able to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
Wake wrote:
It is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in action.

WRONG. The Magick Bouncing Photon argument violates the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No one but you has mentioned a "Magick Bouncing Photon argument." The Global Warming Theory says that Greenhouse Gases absorb earth's infrared light at a particular frequency, and generate thermal energy, which heats surrounding air. That has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. The Stefan-Boltzmann law just specifies how much radiation the earth must emit, and it doesn't care what happens to that radiation.

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The problem is that the theory requires additional CO2 to decrease the irradiance of the Earth and it can't.

WRONG. The problem is that CO2, even it's present concentration, decreases the radiance of the Earth while increasing Earth's temperature. The bit that CO2 somehow changes the emissivity of Earth is just an extension of that same argument.

CO2 does not change the emissivity of Earth, nor does it prevent the Earth from emitting radiation. It merely gobbles some of that radiation up, and spits out thermal energy, which is warmer than the surrounding air, so it warms the surrounding air.

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
The most basic understanding of heat motion in the troposphere shows two things:

1. There isn't any energy in the single open absorption band of CO2 so total saturation of that wavelength occurred at about 200 ppm - 280 ppm. This is what keeps CO2 at those levels as a minimum - at 180 ppm to 200 ppm photosynthesis ceases and plant extraction of CO2 no longer occurs. CO2 can then begin building up from all of the natural sources from volcanic to animal life. In any case since there is no energy in this band additional CO2 cannot effect irradiance.

It doesn't matter how much CO2 there is when it comes to 'saturation'. The 'saturation' experiment is a parlor trick.

I'm thinking there is something to what they are saying about CO2 saturation. But the atmosphere is not saturated with it at below 300ppm for sure though, because if it was, then my Climate Model would not work at all. But it does work, through the range of gas concentrations for the last 800,000 years. It would be nice if we were at saturation though, because that would mean that this is as warm as it's going to get. Unfortunately, we know that it has been quite a lot warmer than this, a few million years ago, when the CO2 levels were higher than they are today. But they were not as high as my Climate Model predicted they should be, which is why I'm sure that CO2 does saturate at some point.

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
2. The density of the atmosphere in the troposphere is such that virtually ALL of the energy emitted from the Earth from the troposphere into the stratosphere is via conduction and convection.

WRONG. Most energy from the Earth is radiance from the Earth's surface. The atmosphere emits also, but it is far less dense than the surface.
Wake wrote:
Even were CO2 able to find some energy it is a trace gas of such small percentages that since H20 vapor in the atmosphere is some 200 times greater volume, again conduction from CO2 to the rest of the atmosphere and most especially into water vapor is completely assured.

Heh. CO2 conducts into anything cooler than itself. It sure doesn't need water around to do that!
Wake wrote:
The counter-science that has been used to support AGW is literally staggering.

It is not science at all. I wouldn't use the name 'counter-science'.

Is that because you are ashamed of what you are doing? Because what you are doing is trying to counter climate science, with your stupid misinterpreted version of the laws of physics.

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
NASA and NOAA both have gone so far and to totally falsely scaled the effects of water vapor vs. CO2.

They've gone further than that! They've given water vapor the same Magick properties as CO2. NONE of them are capable of warming the Earth. NONE of them are 'greenhouse' gases.

That sounds like an argument of stoned. Maybe if you say it enough times, it will become real?

Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Dr. Michael Mann totally eliminated the last two warm periods so as to make his "hockey stick" look impressive.

Meh. No one knows the temperature of the Earth. Not now, and not during the last so-called 'warm' periods (which were more about great weather across Europe than anything else).
Wake wrote:
Despite totally accurate MGT data from satellites

Satellites can't measure absolute temperature.
Wake wrote:
that show no warming since the satellites could gather data (38 years!)

Big deal. Satellites can't measure absolute temperature. You can't determine the temperature of the Earth that way.
Wake wrote:
NOAA and NASA have relied upon ground sites that measure temperature.

The only way to measure temperature. Each station has an accurate log of it's measurements. These are publicly available.

NOAA and NASA then cook this data using bad math to produce the charts you see on their central websites. (Actually, NASA just copies the NOAA info).

Wake wrote:
At least one study has shown that of the American sites only 10% or so could measure temperature within 1 degree C.

NOAA weather stations can measure to within fractions of a degree. Their thermometers (and other equipment) is checked annually.
Wake wrote:
A large segment had errors of 5 degree C and higher.

BS. NOAA weather stations have very accurate thermometers that are annually checked. So does every airport that reports weather conditions (although their thermometers are only accurate to within a degree).
Wake wrote:
The sites over most of the rest of the world have exactly the same sorts of problems.

Argument from randU and a compositional error fallacy. Thermometers at official stations vary in their accuracy. Some are really good, others, not so much.
Wake wrote:
This makes NOAA and NASA historic data sets a laughing stock.

No, it is ACCURATE. The individual station logs are completely accurate. Only the central websites and agencies cook the data using bad math. That part is NOT data. Is it manufactured.
Wake wrote:
When will this global warming hoax cease?

Probably not for quite awhile. This particular religion seems deeply entrenched in many nations, thanks to the efforts of the IPCC.


I'm thinking the "hoax" part of it ends soon, but that will be long before Global Warming ends. In fact, it will never end, as long as there are Greenhouse Gases present in the atmosphere. But the additional warming we are getting from Global Warming won't end for several hundred or even a few thousand years, because that's how long it will take for the CO2 to dissipate from the atmosphere. But I'm thinking a Caldera eruption is going to send us into the next Glacial Period before we actually see the peak in Greenhouse Gases.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 07:31
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenshit wrote;
And AGW [not AWG, that's a wire size unit] is adding to the strength of all hurricanes, and tornadoes, and even thunder storms, for that matter.

Please explain.


All I can conclude is that the special ed teachers at your elementary school did a wonderful job of teaching a kid born with half a brain to copy and paste irrelevant propaganda on the Internet.


I've got a life to live a not much time today, so I'll just address this one for now.

You said man made global warming is adding strength to tornadoes.

I showed you a chart from your beloved NOAA clearly showing you are wrong. You have said you trust them, have faith in them, and believe them.

You call it irrelevant propaganda and credit my elementary teachers.

Is that your argument?


Yes, that is m argument, but I am really starting to feel bad now, because I just realized that you really do only have half a brain, and here I am making fun of you. Shame on me.

Your chart is irrelevant for a couple of reasons. It doesn't go back far enough in time to really see if Climate Change is increasing the severity of storms. And my argument can't even be disputed, unless you are trying to dispute the well known fact that tornadoes are fueled by heat. I don't think your chart is disputing that, are you?


We began measuring carbon dioxide in 1956. We began measuring hurricanes using aircraft since 1947. We have data to compare the two starting from 1956.

So...you are arguing that 'climate change' has not occurred for 61 years??? You DO realize you are going against the teachings of the Church of Global Warming here, don't you?

Then you say your argument can't be disputed??? What argument are you making now???

You can't even DEFINE 'climate change' without using circular definitions!


No, I am not arguing that Climate Change has not occurred in 61 years. I am saying that hurricane and tornado records don't go back far enough to compare what we are seeing now, with what was happening before Climate Change began with the Industrial Revolution. If we knew what was happening then, I'm sure we would see a difference.

But my argument is simple. We do know that it has gotten warmer on average than it was before the Industrial Revolution, so we know that there is more energy available for storm generation.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 07:39
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted long rant against Rush Limbaugh...

So you expect Rush Limbaugh to sacrifice himself to a hurricane now? He has a radio show to do. He left to do it. You can't do it in the middle of a hurricane!
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted long rant prediction the extinction of the Republican party...

You are using your chicken entrails as a wish list. The Republican party is going nowhere for quite awhile. It may split into two parties, one that wants to restore a republican form of government that honors its Constitution, and the other a RINO type of party that wants to destroy the Constitution, but not as quickly as the Democrats want to.
GreenMan wrote:
people will eventually realize that NOAA and NASA weren't making it up. And they will then destroy the party of misleaders.

They ARE making it up. The math errors in there 'data' is obvious to anyone that understands statistical math.


NOAA nor NASA are making up Climate Change. The Retardlicans are just gobbling up AGW Denier talking points, intend on confusing the public about the reality of AGW. And they are doing that, because the Retardlicans are the party of the elite upper class, and those who want to be elite upper class. The upper class has plenty of resources, which they use to pay the want to bes to do their bidding. Of course, the want to bes are only happy to spread malicious lies against those who are interested in protecting the earth, because they are stupid, and they do not realize that it doesn't matter what they do, they will never be anything more than a wannabe.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 07:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spoonfedmuffinman wrote;
Your hero Rush Limbaugh even evacuated, after putting the media down for reporting the storm, lol.

Did you bother to go listen to what Rush said after you heard about it on CNN? I did. He simply was raising the question of whether or not the Media was scratching the backs of it's supporters(advertisers) such as Lowes and Home DePot. He did not accuse anyone of anything, as you like to do. Like when you claimed I made an east coast hurricane route prediction. I did no such thing. I was simply reporting what the flip flopping models were doing. I wondered if the media would report the model discrepancy. I'm a decent writer, learn to read.


It is obvious he never listened to Rush Limbaugh to see what he said. He never bothered to look at historical audio of it either. He does the same with Trump. He only listens to the fake news media like CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press.

It's truly amazing the propaganda these guys push now. Tokyo Rose would have been proud.

He probably never even heard Rush's show or actually listened to any of Trumps speeches in full.


Well I did try to listen to one of Trump's speeches, but got tired of him telling us all what a good guy he was. And I did accidentally tune into one of Rush's shows one time, but it was short lived, as I had to pull over almost immediately and barf.

And actually, no, I watch NBC news in the morning, and then get the rest of the headlines off the Internet. Yahoo.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 07:49
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
...and you can chew on this one for a while too since you said hurricanes are also gaining energy from global warming. It also has your beloved NOAA credentials on it.


Again, it's irrelevant. But here's a deal I'll make with you. Put the Harvey and Irma on it, and let's take another look, because it might just show a little increase. But it still wouldn't be relevant.

If you want to see an increase in the last 50 years you can though. Take a look at the increase in property loss in the last 50 years due to storms and forest fires. Or go back 100 years if you want, just make sure to adjust for inflation, so you don't fool yourself into thinking it's even worse.


Not due to 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Due to building more in forests, the mismanagement of forests (allowing low level brush to grow and not thinning trees properly), and the falling value of the dollar.

Yes, I have heard that same argument from other AGW Deniers, who blame poor forest management on the increased frequency of forest fires, parrot. Seems like everywhere around the world applied the same type of mismanagement to their forests too, because there are forest fires all over the world now, even in places that didn't manage their forests at all.

Into the Night wrote:

What did a nice split level home in downtown Klamath Falls cost in 1967? What does it cost now?

Don't know about Klamath Falls? Okay. Answer the same question for a house about 3 miles from the center of Houston.

The dollar amount of property damage that you see is speculation by media. The actual cost is not known for several years after the storm. Most of that is private money, not government money. No one can track all off the money spent as a result of any storm completely.


Oh you don't like to talk about things like dollar amounts of property loss over the last decade, do you? No, no, no, no, because it has been setting new record after new record, lol. That's gotta be bad data, too, huh parrot?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 07:53
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You don't know that hurricanes don't follow the heated waters. What I am saying is that the heated waters could be causing the low pressure and the winds that do direct the hurricanes.


WRONG. High and low pressure areas are brought about by uneven heating of the surface of the Earth...land or sea.

The two high pressure areas that formed near Houston that stalled Harvey formed from two storm systems well to the north of Houston that had recently passed through. They both formed over land.


You are so dense that you said, "WRONG," and then said what I said in different words. What I am saying is that it looks like hurricanes follow the warmer water, which led Harvey to Houston. And you said that "High and low pressure areas are brought about by uneven heating of the surface of the Earth...land or sea."

Duh?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 07:56
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
He still believes that the scene in Day After Tomorrow with multiple tornadoes touching down in close vicinity to one another in Los Angeles and newscopters flying between them is actually possible!


That was the stupidest Climate Change movie ever, lol. But you are giving your desperation away, by posting such nonsense.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 09:09
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You must have missed his failed attempt to show that the current sea temp in Key West was 85, by surfing around until he found the site with the lowest numbers. He even admitted it, dumbass.

Yeah. He used an actual station log. That just sticks in your craw, doesn't it?

If you say so. But it looked [and sounded] like he surfed around sites that post the buoy data from NOAA [since it is NOAA's buoy] and found some that were late in updating their information.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Then he puts a couple charts up there that were from NOAA, and that means that NOAA is his source data?

Yup. The individual station log is his source data, the log BEFORE it was cooked by NOAA. He is showing you the raw data (which is the only data).

The truth is you don't know what he did, or ended up referencing. He just posted a picture that could have been from anywhere. And he even said he searched around and found reports of temperatures from 85-87. I suppose they were all actual "buoy" readings too?
The one I pointed him to, that showed 89 degrees was a NOAA site that showed actual buoy data, and even told you if you were looking at old data. You could hover your mouse over many locations and see what the temperature profile looked like, if you had bothered to go look at the site I listed. Jizzy even commented on what a cool site it was.
And here you go, arguing for someone else, without even knowing what's going on.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
I doubt that. Whatever data he can find that he thinks makes his stupid point is what his source data is, idiot.


So you want to ignore NOAA station data, ignore buoy data, and ignore the hurricane center data???

No, I'm not ignoring anything. I was the one looking at buoy data, and he was the one surfing around to find something to contradict what I was saying, because he didn't know I was looking at raw data, and he was looking at old raw data, lol. And no, I'm not ignoring the hurricane data center at all. I'm paying close attention to it, because I am curious about what's going on. You might recall that I agreed with the alarmist media's predicted path for Irma, based on a hunch I had about hurricane's following warmer channels of water. Oh, the alarmists media was reporting hurricane center data. And Jizzy was reporting one model out of many, to stress his favorite comedians point that the media was hyping the event, when the storm was really going to blow east, like his favorite hurricane model predicted.

Into the Night wrote:

You would rather believe the cooked shit on the central NOAA website???

Seems a tad more tasteful than the raw shit coming out of your mouth.

Into the Night wrote:

You don't believe in actual data...you believe in bad math. Such is the result of your faith in the Church of Global Warming.


Oh, you're just saying that because you are jealous, because you have never been on the leading edge of discovery.

Here's a pretty picture for you to look at. Please explain how the Climate Model's backcast is so precise, if bad data had been used.


Now that is what is really sticking in someone's craw, isn't it? The only way you can refute it is by claiming the data is invalid. But awful strange how even with invalid data [it's not perfect] the model backcasts all the climate swings very accurately.

Anyone can see the precision of that model, so you might as well save some dignity, and learn what it is. But go ahead, play the indignant child, and delete my pretty picture again, instead. Too bad you can't delete it from my original posts, huh?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 09:44
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You left out the real thing that CO2 does, that makes it a Greenhouse Gas.
...deleted lengthy insult stream...AND the argument that he was making, because he is right about that. And well, ok, he is right about the insults too.
And what is that, dumbass? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

No, shit for brains. I want to use the argument that says some gases absorb light, and make heat, as stated. Here is what you deleted, in your childish rage:

"You left out the real thing that CO2 does, that makes it a Greenhouse Gas. And I'm thinking you know that, and you did it on purpose. Because part of your MO is to induce arguments for the other person [which is a twisted version of what they actually said], just so you can shoot down their argument, with irrelevant information.

Not going to work this time, Pigeon Eater.

CO2 produces thermal energy when it absorbs light at the right frequency. That thermal energy heats the surrounding air, making it a little bit warmer. Nitrogen and Oxygen do not have that ability, which is what differentiates the two types of gases."

So which part was so insulting, Pigeon Eater? Do you consider someone calling you in your shit, insulting? You're just a parrot, doing the bidding of the elite, you poor wannabe.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
CO2 produces thermal energy when it absorbs light at the right frequency.

CO2 produces nothing. I can convert electromagnetic energy to thermal energy and back again, same as any gas in the atmosphere, and the same as any substance.

So why do you call it the Magick Photon Theory, if you can do it too? Is it because it is not the same as any substance? Yes, I think that is the part that you are missing [or perhaps the concept just goes over your head] is that earth's radiation has no effect on the more abundant gases in the atmosphere, like nitrogen and oxygen.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That thermal energy heats the surrounding air, making it a little bit warmer. Nitrogen and Oxygen do not have that ability, which is what differentiates the two types of gases.

Yes they do. ALL substances absorb and emit light. Most them absorb and emit infrared light. (I actually can't think of any exceptions, offhand).

That may be true, oh master of the irrelevant fact.

We're talking about substances that absorb light and spit out thermal energy.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
But calling it a Holy Gas is actually correct,

At least you admit that now.
GreenMan wrote:
since if it weren't for Greenhouse Gases, we wouldn't be able to live on this planet, due to the extreme cold.

No gas warms the Earth. Not oxygen, nitrogen, or any Holy Gas.

The ONLY way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun.


No, you pigeon eating parrot, that is not the only way to warm the earth. The Sun's energy can remain constant and you still have fluctuations in climate due to Greenhouse Gases.

I'm thinking that you AGW Deniers need to start focusing on trying to deny that humanity is adding too much gas to the air. That one would give you a little more credibility that taking on an entire planet's team of climate researchers. That one's easy to debunk too though, so you might as well throw down your arms, and join the crowd. Come my son, sniff some of my Holey Gas.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 12:13
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Now which one do you suppose is made up stuff?


I'm going to revert back to my original explanation. The special ed teachers did a wonderful job, considering that you only have half a brain. It would have been nice if they could have went a little further, and actually taught you how to think. But it might not have been their fault, because the half that you are missing might be where the thought process originates. Let's see. Let's go over the two charts, and see if we can figure out where the discrepancy is.

Let's start with your chart.


Oh, I can feel the excitement you must have felt, when you posted that piece of irrelevant information. Your heart was just a pounding, wasn't it? You thought that you were about to deliver the fatal blow to the mighty Greenman, didn't you? Yes sir, you thought you were about to teach him a lesson about using made up data, didn't you.

I'm thinking your hottie wife didn't marry you for your intellectual skills, did she?

Take a look at the top of your graph. What does it say?

Now take a look at the top of my graph.


What does it say?

It says 'Alaska Climate Research Center' an institution well known for it's propaganda and manufactured data.


Aren't you about to wear that one out, parrot breath? People are starting to realize that you make that claim to all climate related data. And believe it or choose to not, people who study or report on climate or the weather, are not involved a big conspiracy to screw you over.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

Do you know what the difference between an Annual Mean and a Monthly Mean temperature is?

...deleted length insult stream....because we already know what a retard Gassy is.

So tell me, please. Do you really think you should compare the monthly mean temperature to the annual mean temperature, or has enough been said?

Yes...they can be compared. Again, you don't understand statistical math, or even what an 'average' is.

At least I know you can't compare one month's average to the annual average, and expect them to be close to the same, unless the month is either May or October, which is what Jizzy was doing, and now you are trying to clean it up for him. What a waste of air you two are.

Into the Night wrote:

The only problem of course, is that the Alaska Climate Research Center never used any station data. They just manufacture their data as part of their propaganda campaign.

More of your conspiracy theory claims again I see.

Into the Night wrote:

So while such a comparison is mathematically sensible, it false apart due to a false equivalence.

Not only that, you can't compare March's average temperature to the year's average temperature and expect them to match.

Into the Night wrote:

It is not possible to determine the temperature of Alaska. Weather stations in Alaska area ONLY capable of measuring the temperature AT THE STATION itself, where the thermometer bulb is actually located. That's good enough to assume a reasonable accuracy of temperature in an area extending 250 ft from the station, +- 1 degree, using the assumed possible temperature gradient so far observed.

Seems like we have heard this before. This must be the part of the song that keeps getting repeated. What do you call it? The chorus?

Into the Night wrote:

...deleted childish remarks about how you 'won' the debate...because you didn't just win the debate, you annihilated a dear friend


Sorry about your friend, parrot. Or is it more accurate to refer to him as your parrot friend?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 11-09-2017 12:16
11-09-2017 12:48
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
What? has Greenery done the old hit and run like hell too?
2 questions for him.

1. Is it possible to have a tornado with temps in the 30s? (it is) What fuels it?

Heat, dumbass. I already told you.

Oh, I see the problem, you think that 30 isn't hot, because you feel cold at 30 degrees. So you don't understand what's going on, do you? Is that because you don't want to understand, my mentally challenged challenger?

It's easy to understand really, but you might have to wait a few months to actually do this. Stand outside on a cold day. I'm sure you guys have them out in Iowa. Wait until it is about 20 below. Get a good feel for that, and then wait till next spring, when it gets back up to 30. Then go stand outside again. See if you can feel a difference. That difference in the way it feels, is called heat, you blubbering idiot.


Not the definition of 'heat'. You seem to have no clue what 'heat' actually is.


Wasn't defining heat, parrot. Was using the word correctly to explain that when you are outside at -20, you are trying to raise the temperature [heat] of the outside air with your body. That cools your body quite a lot more than if you do it at 30 degrees.

You are the one without a clue, you dumbass pigeon eating parrot.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 12:51
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wow, looks like I'm right. Heat is what fuels tornadoes, and other forms of cyclones. Do you think you can have a difference in temperature without any heat?


False equivalence. You are trying to associate hot regions such as warm ocean water with 'heat'. At the same time you correctly use 'heat' here, but you can't see your false equivalence.

A cyclone (or a tornado) is convective activity. That IS heat. Heat does not cause the storm. It IS heat itself.


So you are saying that heat can't cause a cyclone, because a cyclone is heat. Bullshit, lol. And you accuse me of trying to build a perpetual motion machine. Where does the thermal energy come from, dumbass?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
11-09-2017 17:07
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1783)
Greenstuff-
I have so much stuff in files just waiting for you....yes, I put up the wrong chart. My mistake. It was from an old argument someone was trying to say spring was coming earlier in Alaska.

Here's the correct one. Looks just about the same. Cold, warm, cold, warm, cold,


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
Attached image:

Page 5 of 9<<<34567>>>





Join the debate Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Evidence of rapid climate change!012-10-2019 06:09
Alaska Supreme Court1111-10-2019 23:33
Alaska, July, hottest month every recorded...119-08-2019 07:13
Alaska in desperate need, of air conditioners and sunscreen...1308-07-2019 05:20
Was sudden rapid temperature increase in 1980s caused by USSR collapsed and shut off their weather statio213-04-2019 23:34
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact