Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gushed: Here's the correct one.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzed & guzzling" gaffed:
That's cooked data....

GreenMan wrote:

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.

spot wrote:
To be to investors business daily it's outside of their area of expertise and they have to publish something. But it reads as a stream of consciousness, the sort of nutty thing that gets posted to this board from time to time.

[b]Wake wrote: The re-pubic-lick-un party is going nowhere...

Wake wrote:

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.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

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.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
To be to investors business daily it's outside of their area of expertise and they have to publish something. But it reads as a stream of consciousness, the sort of nutty thing that gets posted to this board from time to time.

He composes as stream of consciousness. You are a moron. The level of science you have isn't enough to compose a meal to eat.

But then commentary on the idiotic people like you should be scientific shouldn't it? Your psychosis should be explained in psychiatric terms since you haven't any scientific knowledge and yet continue to tell people who do that they don't know what they're talking about.

[b]spot wrote:....why climate denialists..... listen to talk radio.

litesong wrote:

[b]spot wrote:....why climate denialists..... listen to talk radio.

Correction:
....why old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners....listen to babel radio.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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."

GreenMan wrote:
The Global Warming Theory

GreenMan wrote:
says that Greenhouse Gases

GreenMan wrote:
absorb earth's infrared light at a particular frequency,

GreenMan wrote:
and generate thermal energy,

GreenMan wrote:
which heats surrounding air.

GreenMan wrote:
That has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

GreenMan wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann law just specifies how much radiation the earth must emit, and it doesn't care what happens to that radiation.

GreenMan wrote:

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,

GreenMan wrote:
and spits out thermal energy, which is warmer than the surrounding air, so it warms the surrounding air.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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?

GreenMan wrote:

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,

GreenMan wrote:
but that will be long before Global Warming ends.

GreenMan wrote:
In fact, it will never end,

GreenMan wrote:
as long as there are Greenhouse Gases present in the atmosphere.

GreenMan wrote:
But the additional warming we are getting

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:
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.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
To be to investors business daily it's outside of their area of expertise and they have to publish something. But it reads as a stream of consciousness, the sort of nutty thing that gets posted to this board from time to time.

He composes as stream of consciousness. You are a moron. The level of science you have isn't enough to compose a meal to eat.

But then commentary on the idiotic people like you should be scientific shouldn't it? Your psychosis should be explained in psychiatric terms since you haven't any scientific knowledge and yet continue to tell people who do that they don't know what they're talking about.

Well you don't know what you are talking about, there is a reason why climate denilists are confined to a small region of the world where people listen to talk radio.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[quote]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!

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not arguing that Climate Change has not occurred in 61 years.

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:
If we knew what was happening then, I'm sure we would see a difference.

GreenMan wrote:
But my argument is simple.

GreenMan wrote:
We do know that it has gotten warmer on average than it was before the Industrial Revolution,

GreenMan wrote:
so we know that there is more energy available for storm generation.

GreenMan wrote:
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.

ITN wrote
Then WTF do you care about 'greenhouse' gases and 'global warming'???

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
To be to investors business daily it's outside of their area of expertise and they have to publish something. But it reads as a stream of consciousness, the sort of nutty thing that gets posted to this board from time to time.

He composes as stream of consciousness. You are a moron. The level of science you have isn't enough to compose a meal to eat.

But then commentary on the idiotic people like you should be scientific shouldn't it? Your psychosis should be explained in psychiatric terms since you haven't any scientific knowledge and yet continue to tell people who do that they don't know what they're talking about.

Well you don't know what you are talking about, there is a reason why climate denilists are confined to a small region of the world where people listen to talk radio.

Sure https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/31/a-warm-period-by-any-other-name-the-climatic-optimum/ Well gee, this can't be pertinent because it's written by a PhD and you are so much better educated having read a newspaper.

https://www.nas.org/images/documents/A_Crisis_of_Competence.pdf And again - nothing more than proof that you are so much smarter than a run of the mill real scientist.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lVodjhoP5No&feature=youtu.be
See - this was undoubtedly talk radio.

You could teach stupidity to a donkey.

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
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.

ITN wrote
Then WTF do you care about 'greenhouse' gases and 'global warming'???

I have NO extra time to hanging out here today, however, I felt I needed to respond with a heartfelt NO SHIT!!

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted rant against the Republican party and associated conspiracy theories...

GreenMan wrote:

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.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted rant against the Republican party and associated conspiracy theories...

You don't like the Republican party. I already knew that. I know you are a Marxist that wants to destroy the idea of a republican form of government.

Into the Night wrote:

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

So you prefer the Fake News Service.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:

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?

GreenMan wrote:
No, no, no, no, because it has been setting new record after new record, lol.

GreenMan wrote:
That's gotta be bad data, too, huh parrot?

GreenMan wrote:

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 wrote:

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.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

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.

YOU believe in such nonsense!

Personally, I thought the movie was hilarious. I've never seen so much bad 'science'.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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,

GreenMan wrote:
or ended up referencing.

GreenMan wrote:
He just posted a picture that could have been from anywhere.

GreenMan wrote:
And he even said he searched around and found reports of temperatures from 85-87.

GreenMan wrote:
I suppose they were all actual "buoy" readings too?

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:
I was the one looking at buoy data,

GreenMan wrote:
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,

GreenMan wrote:
and he was looking at old raw data, lol.

GreenMan wrote:
And no, I'm not ignoring the hurricane data center at all.

GreenMan wrote:
I'm paying close attention to it,

GreenMan wrote:
because I am curious about what's going on.

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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,

GreenMan wrote:
because you have never been on the leading edge of discovery.

GreenMan wrote:
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.
...deleted redundant chart...

GreenMan wrote:
Now that is what is really sticking in someone's craw, isn't it?

GreenMan wrote:
The only way you can refute it is by claiming the data is invalid.

GreenMan wrote:
But awful strange how even with invalid data [it's not perfect] the model backcasts all the climate swings very accurately.

GreenMan wrote:
Anyone can see the precision of that model,

GreenMan wrote:
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 wrote:

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:
...deleted Magick Bouncing Photon argument again...
...deleted insult stream...
So you decided to try for the Magick Bouncing Photon argument again, eh?

Same response. You are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Indeed, in your version you are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics as well.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]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,

GreenMan wrote:
if you can do it too?

GreenMan wrote:
Is it because it is not the same as any substance?

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:
The Sun's energy can remain constant and you still have fluctuations in climate due to Greenhouse Gases.

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:
That one would give you a little more credibility that taking on an entire planet's team

GreenMan wrote:
of climate researchers.

GreenMan wrote:
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 wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:

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?

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

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

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:

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.

GreenMan wrote:
Bullshit, lol.

GreenMan wrote:
And you accuse me of trying to build a perpetual motion machine.

GreenMan wrote:
Where does the thermal energy come from, dumbass?

GasGuzzler wrote:
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,

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

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.

http://www.investors.com/politics/commentary/global-warming-alarmists-who-say-end-is-near-reach-mental-tipping-point/

You will never reach the mental tipping point because you've already gone so far over it that you are now a dead body.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

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.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:
To be to investors business daily it's outside of their area of expertise and they have to publish something. But it reads as a stream of consciousness, the sort of nutty thing that gets posted to this board from time to time.

He composes as stream of consciousness. You are a moron. The level of science you have isn't enough to compose a meal to eat.

But then commentary on the idiotic people like you should be scientific shouldn't it? Your psychosis should be explained in psychiatric terms since you haven't any scientific knowledge and yet continue to tell people who do that they don't know what they're talking about.

Well you don't know what you are talking about, there is a reason why climate denilists are confined to a small region of the world where people listen to talk radio.

spot wrote:

litesong wrote:

[b]spot wrote:....why climate denialists..... listen to talk radio.

Correction:
....why old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners....listen to babel radio.

I have no idea what you are trying to say but I agree.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
...deleted rant against the Republican party and associated conspiracy theories...

You don't like the Republican party. I already knew that. I know you are a Marxist that wants to destroy the idea of a republican form of government.

People that live in New Hampshire are almost entirely those who want someone else to do the work for them.

Wake wrote:
Since Greenman is a "controls engineer" who mechanizes paper towel dispensers and hasn't the slightest hope of ever climbing above his station he thinks that it's only right for you and I to support him.

GreenMan 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?

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not arguing that Climate Change has not occurred in 61 years.

GreenMan wrote:
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.

GreenMan wrote:
If we knew what was happening then, I'm sure we would see a difference.

GreenMan wrote:
But my argument is simple.

GreenMan wrote:
We do know that it has gotten warmer on average than it was before the Industrial Revolution,

GreenMan wrote:
so we know that there is more energy available for storm generation.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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

So you prefer the Fake News Service.

All of the news services are fake. All of them are contemptible Marxist.

Granted that NBC makes the rest of them seem almost honest but that is a HUGE "almost".

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

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.

YOU believe in such nonsense!

Personally, I thought the movie was hilarious. I've never seen so much bad 'science'.

We have people like greenman here. They tell us that forest fires are the result of climate change when they were the end result of a lot of rain and scrub brush growing like crazy and the counties and states doing nothing about it.

Along one road on one night a greenman started 8 fires in succession.

While descending a mountain road a cop pulls me over and tells me to ride in the bicycle lane. I ask him how since the trees have completely grown over the bike lane. He tells me that that is my problem and not his. I tell him to give me a ticket then and the judge can ask him directly. He leaves rapidly. Frowning.


The likes of greenman don't like being put on the spot.