Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating

Into the Night wrote:

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.

That's exactly right.

GreenMan wrote:
Bullshit, lol.

Argument of the Stone. A storm is convection. Convection is a type of heat.

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

I have not built a perpetual motion machine of any type.

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

The Sun interacting with material (primarily the surface) on Earth, dumbass.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

That's exactly right.

GreenMan wrote:
Bullshit, lol.

Argument of the Stone. A storm is convection. Convection is a type of heat.

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

I have not built a perpetual motion machine of any type.

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

The Sun interacting with material (primarily the surface) on Earth, dumbass.

Careful now - remember that greenman doesn't think that the Sun's emissions are absorbed by the gases in the atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
Arguing with an idiot doesn't gain you anything.

Wake wrote:
...deleted Holy Link...

This demonstrates that 23% of the Sun's emissions that fall upon the outer atmosphere are absorbed by the atmosphere itself. Some of this is through Raleigh Scattering. But direct absorption from H2O is also present. As well as dust particles in the atmosphere that come anywhere from volcanic activity to the dust falling on Earth from outer space.

Wake wrote:
You COULD use Stefan-Boltzmann's Law to quantize the Earth's temperature

Wake wrote:
but why should you when direct measurements are available?

Wake wrote:
We have direct measurements of the Sun's emissions and can calculate how much energy per square meter strikes the Earth's surface.

Wake wrote:
And we have direct measurements of the temperature of the Earth from satellites.

Wake wrote:
These temperatures agree with each other.

Wake wrote:
Remember - in a balanced system energy in = energy out.

Wake wrote:
A hot object ONLY radiates energy to COOLER surroundings which I was trying to get you to understand when I was attempting to hand you a simplified explanation of what's going on.

Wake wrote:
You were back to the idea of anything radiating to anything as long as it's temperature was above absolute zero.

Wake wrote:
The energy of the Sun striking the Earth only radiates 12% of that 71% of the Sun's emissions falling on the outer edges of the atmosphere back into space.

Wake wrote:
This is a very important concept: while the surface absorbs 48% of the absolute heat it transfers the vast majority of it back into the atmosphere via conduction.

Wake wrote:
Because the heat is moved from the ground to the stratosphere via conduction CO2 can really have virtually no effect due to it's radiative absorption.

Wake wrote:
The 23% of the Sun's energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere must also be moved into the stratosphere by conduction.

Wake wrote:
So in the end here's the way it works: the incoming emissions from the Sun = 340 watts/m^2

Wake wrote:
This is reduced by reflections in the atmosphere to 241 watts/m^2.

Wake wrote:
Of this 23% is absorbed by the atmosphere

Wake wrote:
and only 116 watts/m^2 hits the surface of the Earth.

Wake wrote:
Of this in a 24 hour period 71% of it falls upon water so the hard surface of the Earth absorbs only 29% of the total Sun's emissions.

Wake wrote:
If you look at the satellite rendition of the Earth the actual temperature variation across the entire globe is pretty slight.

Wake wrote:
This is explained thus: while the motion of heat in the troposphere is via conduction the mixing in the troposphere is via convection which does a rather complete job of mixing the heat pretty much over the entire globe.

Wake wrote:
And in the stratosphere the air molecules are now so far apart that the major means of energy expulsion from the Earth is via radiation.

Wake wrote:
Now since the overwhelming majority of heat absorbed by the atmosphere has been moved into the stratosphere via conduction

Wake wrote:
and since that heat has been more or less stabilized by convection

Wake wrote:
what now become important in a gas is its sensible heat capacity.

Wake wrote:
And guess what? CO2 has a higher latent heat capacity than other gases

Wake wrote:
so MOST of the Sun's energy is radiated by N2 and O2.

Wake wrote:
The only way that CO2 can gain enough energy to radiate

Wake wrote:
is from two methods: 1. conduction - though because of how thin the atmosphere is at the top of the stratosphere this is usually unlikely.

Wake wrote:
2. Referring back to the Energy Balance diorama you can see that there is some 29% of the Sun's energy reflected.

Wake wrote:
This is something of a misnomer.

Wake wrote:
Actually specific heat content of oxygen and nitrogen is really low

Wake wrote:
so they are gaining and losing energy though conduction

Wake wrote:
and from the Sun's emissions continuously as they move up through the stratosphere.

Wake wrote:
So they are radiating energy away quite rapidly.

Wake wrote:
CO2 on the other hand has a very high specific heat content

Wake wrote:
and hangs around in the upper stratosphere gaining heat

Wake wrote:
until losing most of it in a flash of radiation.

Wake wrote:
So while it would appear to be reflected energy

Wake wrote:
there's nothing there to reflect off

Wake wrote:
and what it is is the gaining of energy by the gases present and radiating it off into space.

Wake wrote:
Geometry shows that although this radiation is in all directions from this altitude it is mostly away from Earth.

Wake wrote:
CO2 is a COOLANT and not a heat trap.

Wake wrote:
We can carry this on and on but greenman,

Wake wrote:
spot and the other dead Earther's

Wake wrote:
simply won't understand nor believe it.

Wake wrote:
These are the people that are the world's losers and they want to believe that everyone else is going to lose as well.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed:... he's("don'T rump") pretty wealthy, so he's actually a winner. He obtained the White House. He's actually a winner.

Into the Night wrote:More of the continuous nonsense where he understands nothing and tells us all

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:More of the continuous nonsense where he understands nothing and tells us all

I lived in Seattle and what I discovered was that Seattle natives have an opinion of themselves that is directly reflected by you. Know nothings that have higher opinions of themselves than they do of God. And there has been a promise to people like you.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:More of the continuous nonsense where he understands nothing and tells us all

I lived in Seattle and what I discovered was that Seattle natives have an opinion of themselves that is directly reflected by you. Know nothings that have higher opinions of themselves than they do of God. And there has been a promise to people like you.

Bigoted statement. You REALLY like to do that, don't you? Why is it that you consider everyone in a city to be the same? Did you know that's bigotry?

You have not lived in Seattle. You visited for perhaps a year. You know almost nothing about the place.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:More of the continuous nonsense where he understands nothing and tells us all

I lived in Seattle and what I discovered was that Seattle natives have an opinion of themselves that is directly reflected by you. Know nothings that have higher opinions of themselves than they do of God. And there has been a promise to people like you.

Bigoted statement. You REALLY like to do that, don't you? Why is it that you consider everyone in a city to be the same? Did you know that's bigotry?

You have not lived in Seattle. You visited for perhaps a year. You know almost nothing about the place.

"Visited for a year". OK. Another perfect example of people in Seattle. A world unto themselves. And anyone that notices it is "bigoted".

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:More of the continuous nonsense where he understands nothing and tells us all

I lived in Seattle and what I discovered was that Seattle natives have an opinion of themselves that is directly reflected by you. Know nothings that have higher opinions of themselves than they do of God. And there has been a promise to people like you.

Bigoted statement. You REALLY like to do that, don't you? Why is it that you consider everyone in a city to be the same? Did you know that's bigotry?

You have not lived in Seattle. You visited for perhaps a year. You know almost nothing about the place.

"Visited for a year". OK. Another perfect example of people in Seattle. A world unto themselves. And anyone that notices it is "bigoted".

When you apply an element of a class across the entire class improperly, you are making a compositional error. When that class is people. You are being a bigot. When the element is a physical characteristic such as skin color, you are being a racist.

You are still being a bigot.

A year in Seattle (or really any city) does not give anyone good information about that city.

The Pacific Northwest is especially true about this, since there is such a variety of environments, people, cultures, etc. in a relatively small area. It is much like the Bay area or the Los Angeles basin in that way.

You have a real tendency to class everyone in a city and even nations by the characteristics of a few people in it. That is bigotry. There is no other word for it. It is a fallacy.

Now that we've established that you don't like anyone from the Seattle area, or anyone from the UK, I could reverse the fallacy on you and simply claim that everyone from Oakland is a bigot.

I know better of course. Oakland has all kinds of people.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:More of the continuous nonsense where he understands nothing and tells us all

I lived in Seattle and what I discovered was that Seattle natives have an opinion of themselves that is directly reflected by you. Know nothings that have higher opinions of themselves than they do of God. And there has been a promise to people like you.

Bigoted statement. You REALLY like to do that, don't you? Why is it that you consider everyone in a city to be the same? Did you know that's bigotry?

You have not lived in Seattle. You visited for perhaps a year. You know almost nothing about the place.

"Visited for a year". OK. Another perfect example of people in Seattle. A world unto themselves. And anyone that notices it is "bigoted".

When you apply an element of a class across the entire class improperly, you are making a compositional error. When that class is people. You are being a bigot. When the element is a physical characteristic such as skin color, you are being a racist.

You are still being a bigot.

A year in Seattle (or really any city) does not give anyone good information about that city.

The Pacific Northwest is especially true about this, since there is such a variety of environments, people, cultures, etc. in a relatively small area. It is much like the Bay area or the Los Angeles basin in that way.

You have a real tendency to class everyone in a city and even nations by the characteristics of a few people in it. That is bigotry. There is no other word for it. It is a fallacy.

Now that we've established that you don't like anyone from the Seattle area, or anyone from the UK, I could reverse the fallacy on you and simply claim that everyone from Oakland is a bigot.

I know better of course. Oakland has all kinds of people.

It isn't very surprising that you would prefer to discuss bigotry which you are far more experienced with than science which you continually show yourself to be so uneducated that even surface defect sees right through you.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:More of the continuous nonsense where he understands nothing and tells us all

I lived in Seattle and what I discovered was that Seattle natives have an opinion of themselves that is directly reflected by you. Know nothings that have higher opinions of themselves than they do of God. And there has been a promise to people like you.

Bigoted statement. You REALLY like to do that, don't you? Why is it that you consider everyone in a city to be the same? Did you know that's bigotry?

You have not lived in Seattle. You visited for perhaps a year. You know almost nothing about the place.

"Visited for a year". OK. Another perfect example of people in Seattle. A world unto themselves. And anyone that notices it is "bigoted".

When you apply an element of a class across the entire class improperly, you are making a compositional error. When that class is people. You are being a bigot. When the element is a physical characteristic such as skin color, you are being a racist.

You are still being a bigot.

A year in Seattle (or really any city) does not give anyone good information about that city.

The Pacific Northwest is especially true about this, since there is such a variety of environments, people, cultures, etc. in a relatively small area. It is much like the Bay area or the Los Angeles basin in that way.

You have a real tendency to class everyone in a city and even nations by the characteristics of a few people in it. That is bigotry. There is no other word for it. It is a fallacy.

Now that we've established that you don't like anyone from the Seattle area, or anyone from the UK, I could reverse the fallacy on you and simply claim that everyone from Oakland is a bigot.

I know better of course. Oakland has all kinds of people.

It isn't very surprising that you would prefer to discuss bigotry which you are far more experienced with than science which you continually show yourself to be so uneducated that even surface defect sees right through you.

I do not prefer to discuss bigotry. I merely am pointing out your bigotry.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:More of the continuous nonsense where he understands nothing and tells us all

I lived in Seattle and what I discovered was that Seattle natives have an opinion of themselves that is directly reflected by you. Know nothings that have higher opinions of themselves than they do of God. And there has been a promise to people like you.

Bigoted statement. You REALLY like to do that, don't you? Why is it that you consider everyone in a city to be the same? Did you know that's bigotry?

You have not lived in Seattle. You visited for perhaps a year. You know almost nothing about the place.

"Visited for a year". OK. Another perfect example of people in Seattle. A world unto themselves. And anyone that notices it is "bigoted".

When you apply an element of a class across the entire class improperly, you are making a compositional error. When that class is people. You are being a bigot. When the element is a physical characteristic such as skin color, you are being a racist.

You are still being a bigot.

A year in Seattle (or really any city) does not give anyone good information about that city.

The Pacific Northwest is especially true about this, since there is such a variety of environments, people, cultures, etc. in a relatively small area. It is much like the Bay area or the Los Angeles basin in that way.

You have a real tendency to class everyone in a city and even nations by the characteristics of a few people in it. That is bigotry. There is no other word for it. It is a fallacy.

Now that we've established that you don't like anyone from the Seattle area, or anyone from the UK, I could reverse the fallacy on you and simply claim that everyone from Oakland is a bigot.

I know better of course. Oakland has all kinds of people.

It isn't very surprising that you would prefer to discuss bigotry which you are far more experienced with than science which you continually show yourself to be so uneducated that even surface defect sees right through you.

I do not prefer to discuss bigotry. I merely am pointing out your bigotry.

That's strange - it looks to me that you want to change the subject from things you not only do not understand but don't even know about. "Photons are different from one another" or it isn't possible to directly measure the loss of heat from the Earth? To me you are a moron and you fit nicely in with all of the Seattle morons. Do you have any idea what people in the rest of Washington think of people in Seattle? Here's a clue - what do people in Tracy think of people in San Francisco who just passed a law makes it a crime to report that one of your employees is an illegal. Or that women should be able to walk about topless because men can.

Into the Night wrote:
The only one trying to change the subject is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

We weren't even talking about stupid laws some twits on some city council passed!

Photons differ in energy depending on the color. Remember Planck's law?

Intensity differs because the number of photons emitted per second differ.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Statistical math says why. You don't know statistical math. You are already demonstrated this. You also don't understand probability math or random number math. That has nothing to do with what city I live in, dumbass!

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The only one trying to change the subject is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

We weren't even talking about stupid laws some twits on some city council passed!

Photons differ in energy depending on the color. Remember Planck's law?

Intensity differs because the number of photons emitted per second differ.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Statistical math says why. You don't know statistical math. You are already demonstrated this. You also don't understand probability math or random number math. That has nothing to do with what city I live in, dumbass!

More words from the "Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent". You think that people don't look at you doing that and laugh at you?

So THAT is what you think makes photons different? I'm sure that everyone else besides me is laughing at you. "Photons are different because they carry different power....." What a clown.

You've never gotten around to telling us what you do for which you would EVER use statistics. Certainly in the manner you are implying you are entirely incorrect.

Do you know I just got a call from a recruiter that wanted to hire me for a major company in Seattle because they don't want to hire Seattle engineers? Is that you? I could see why.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The only one trying to change the subject is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

We weren't even talking about stupid laws some twits on some city council passed!

Photons differ in energy depending on the color. Remember Planck's law?

Intensity differs because the number of photons emitted per second differ.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Statistical math says why. You don't know statistical math. You are already demonstrated this. You also don't understand probability math or random number math. That has nothing to do with what city I live in, dumbass!

More words from the "Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent". You think that people don't look at you doing that and laugh at you?

So THAT is what you think makes photons different? I'm sure that everyone else besides me is laughing at you. "Photons are different because they carry different power....." What a clown.

You've never gotten around to telling us what you do for which you would EVER use statistics. Certainly in the manner you are implying you are entirely incorrect.

Do you know I just got a call from a recruiter that wanted to hire me for a major company in Seattle because they don't want to hire Seattle engineers? Is that you? I could see why.

I can see you're angry. Why don't you take a stress pill and go lie down for awhile.

If you want to deny Planck's law that's your business. You'll simply be one of the many on here that deny science.

If you want to ignore mathematics that's your business. You'll simply be one of the many on here that do.

If you want to be a bigot and even defend bigotry, that's your business. Don't be surprised if someone winds up damaging you for it. You only make yourself look like an idiot when you do that.

If you don't like Seattle, that's your business. Glad you're not here anyway.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: At the Berkeley City Council last night a woman took off all her cloths and stood on a table....

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The only one trying to change the subject is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

We weren't even talking about stupid laws some twits on some city council passed!

Photons differ in energy depending on the color. Remember Planck's law?

Intensity differs because the number of photons emitted per second differ.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Statistical math says why. You don't know statistical math. You are already demonstrated this. You also don't understand probability math or random number math. That has nothing to do with what city I live in, dumbass!

More words from the "Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent". You think that people don't look at you doing that and laugh at you?

So THAT is what you think makes photons different? I'm sure that everyone else besides me is laughing at you. "Photons are different because they carry different power....." What a clown.

You've never gotten around to telling us what you do for which you would EVER use statistics. Certainly in the manner you are implying you are entirely incorrect.

Do you know I just got a call from a recruiter that wanted to hire me for a major company in Seattle because they don't want to hire Seattle engineers? Is that you? I could see why.

I can see you're angry. Why don't you take a stress pill and go lie down for awhile.

If you want to deny Planck's law that's your business. You'll simply be one of the many on here that deny science.

If you want to ignore mathematics that's your business. You'll simply be one of the many on here that do.

If you want to be a bigot and even defend bigotry, that's your business. Don't be surprised if someone winds up damaging you for it. You only make yourself look like an idiot when you do that.

If you don't like Seattle, that's your business. Glad you're not here anyway.

Since there is only on "major corporation" in Seattle

Wake wrote:
I wonder why you don't call them bigots as well.

Wake wrote:
They were pretty plain about what they thought of the intelligentsia of Seattle.

Wake wrote:
Just like commercial companies have given up on California

Wake wrote:
it appears that Washington and Oregon are closely behind.

Wake wrote:
The only companies that aren't leaving California and the west coast in general are the social media that are going to fall apart as the millennial generation ages.

Wake wrote:
At the Berkeley City Council last night a woman took off all her cloths and stood on a table while screaming that if men could go topless it discriminatory that women cannot as well.

Wake wrote:
Your kind of people.

Wake wrote:
Why don't you explain to us all what Planck's Law has to say about photons?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The only one trying to change the subject is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

We weren't even talking about stupid laws some twits on some city council passed!

Photons differ in energy depending on the color. Remember Planck's law?

Intensity differs because the number of photons emitted per second differ.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Statistical math says why. You don't know statistical math. You are already demonstrated this. You also don't understand probability math or random number math. That has nothing to do with what city I live in, dumbass!

More words from the "Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent". You think that people don't look at you doing that and laugh at you?

So THAT is what you think makes photons different? I'm sure that everyone else besides me is laughing at you. "Photons are different because they carry different power....." What a clown.

You've never gotten around to telling us what you do for which you would EVER use statistics. Certainly in the manner you are implying you are entirely incorrect.

Do you know I just got a call from a recruiter that wanted to hire me for a major company in Seattle because they don't want to hire Seattle engineers? Is that you? I could see why.

I can see you're angry. Why don't you take a stress pill and go lie down for awhile.

If you want to deny Planck's law that's your business. You'll simply be one of the many on here that deny science.

If you want to ignore mathematics that's your business. You'll simply be one of the many on here that do.

If you want to be a bigot and even defend bigotry, that's your business. Don't be surprised if someone winds up damaging you for it. You only make yourself look like an idiot when you do that.

If you don't like Seattle, that's your business. Glad you're not here anyway.

Since there is only on "major corporation" in Seattle

There isn't.

Wake wrote:
I wonder why you don't call them bigots as well.

Who is 'they'?

Wake wrote:
They were pretty plain about what they thought of the intelligentsia of Seattle.

Who is 'they'?

Wake wrote:
Just like commercial companies have given up on California

You have no private companies in California anymore?

Wake wrote:
it appears that Washington and Oregon are closely behind.

Bigoted statement.

Wake wrote:
The only companies that aren't leaving California and the west coast in general are the social media that are going to fall apart as the millennial generation ages.

They may leave too. California, as well as some cities in Calfornia such as San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland, have passed quite a few laws that make it desirable to move a business out of there.

I'm still waiting for these governments to start honoring the constitutions that found them. I am also waiting for California to rejoin the union. As far as I'm concerned, they are no longer a State. They do not honor the Constitution of the United States anymore, or even their own constitution.

I'm not surprised businesses are leaving. They expect a republican form of government and a certain amount of stability.

Wake wrote:
At the Berkeley City Council last night a woman took off all her cloths and stood on a table while screaming that if men could go topless it discriminatory that women cannot as well.

Sounds like some people at Berkeley.

Wake wrote:
Your kind of people.

Not mine. Why would you think that???

Wake wrote:
Why don't you explain to us all what Planck's Law has to say about photons?

Since you just want to practice Bulverism and find an excuse to insult me some more, why don't you go look it up? I mean the theory and the law itself, not some crap site that denies it or tries to modify it.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
The only one trying to change the subject is YOU. Inversion fallacy.

We weren't even talking about stupid laws some twits on some city council passed!

Photons differ in energy depending on the color. Remember Planck's law?

Intensity differs because the number of photons emitted per second differ.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth. Statistical math says why. You don't know statistical math. You are already demonstrated this. You also don't understand probability math or random number math. That has nothing to do with what city I live in, dumbass!

More words from the "Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent". You think that people don't look at you doing that and laugh at you?

So THAT is what you think makes photons different? I'm sure that everyone else besides me is laughing at you. "Photons are different because they carry different power....." What a clown.

You've never gotten around to telling us what you do for which you would EVER use statistics. Certainly in the manner you are implying you are entirely incorrect.

Do you know I just got a call from a recruiter that wanted to hire me for a major company in Seattle because they don't want to hire Seattle engineers? Is that you? I could see why.

I can see you're angry. Why don't you take a stress pill and go lie down for awhile.

If you want to deny Planck's law that's your business. You'll simply be one of the many on here that deny science.

If you want to ignore mathematics that's your business. You'll simply be one of the many on here that do.

If you want to be a bigot and even defend bigotry, that's your business. Don't be surprised if someone winds up damaging you for it. You only make yourself look like an idiot when you do that.

If you don't like Seattle, that's your business. Glad you're not here anyway.

Since there is only on "major corporation" in Seattle

There isn't.

Wake wrote:
I wonder why you don't call them bigots as well.

Who is 'they'?

Wake wrote:
They were pretty plain about what they thought of the intelligentsia of Seattle.

Who is 'they'?

Wake wrote:
Just like commercial companies have given up on California

You have no private companies in California anymore?

Wake wrote:
it appears that Washington and Oregon are closely behind.

Bigoted statement.

Wake wrote:
The only companies that aren't leaving California and the west coast in general are the social media that are going to fall apart as the millennial generation ages.

They may leave too. California, as well as some cities in Calfornia such as San Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland, have passed quite a few laws that make it desirable to move a business out of there.

I'm still waiting for these governments to start honoring the constitutions that found them. I am also waiting for California to rejoin the union. As far as I'm concerned, they are no longer a State. They do not honor the Constitution of the United States anymore, or even their own constitution.

I'm not surprised businesses are leaving. They expect a republican form of government and a certain amount of stability.

Wake wrote:
At the Berkeley City Council last night a woman took off all her cloths and stood on a table while screaming that if men could go topless it discriminatory that women cannot as well.

Sounds like some people at Berkeley.

Wake wrote:
Your kind of people.

Not mine. Why would you think that???

Wake wrote:
Why don't you explain to us all what Planck's Law has to say about photons?

Since you just want to practice Bulverism and find an excuse to insult me some more, why don't you go look it up? I mean the theory and the law itself, not some crap site that denies it or tries to modify it.

Trying to make a point with your phony terms.

Wake wrote:
The definition of Bulverism is where you got you stupid belief in "circular reasoning".

Wake wrote:
So it really couldn't be plainer that you really are coming up with your terms from The Big Book of Word to Make Yourself Look Smart.

Wake wrote:
Then totally ignoring what Planck's law is and thinking that I don't understand it.

Wake wrote:
As I said - this is why I didn't like the people of Seattle,

Wake wrote:
why the rest of the state doesn't like the people of Seattle

Wake wrote:
and why your one major company

Wake wrote:
wants to hire someone from another place.

Wake wrote:
Even one as screwed up as California.

Wake wrote:
I just discovered that they have called my step-son who is in an aerospace company in San Diego.

Wake wrote:
Why they must just be bigots right?

Wake wrote:
Either that or the stench of the ignorance of Seatlites is just too much for companies.

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/?utm_term=.a26434a20ec9

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/?utm_term=.a26434a20ec9

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

It really isn't. With the loss of ice in the area, the much warmer ocean waters become the controlling factor for weather/temperature.

We have no records of the area from before the little ice age and comparisons with the rest of the world suggests that the loss of sea ice and warmer land temperatures because of that is perfectly normal.

GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

GreenMan wrote:
And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

GreenMan wrote:
So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/?utm_term=.a26434a20ec9

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

It really isn't. With the loss of ice in the area, the much warmer ocean waters become the controlling factor for weather/temperature.

We have no records of the area from before the little ice age and comparisons with the rest of the world suggests that the loss of sea ice and warmer land temperatures because of that is perfectly normal.

I'm not sure about the reason why the polar regions are warming more rapidly than the rest of the world. But your reasons sound as good as any I have heard. The loss of sea ice reduces the albeido of the polar regions, thus warming the oceans more than before. And that warming would be felt in the regions near the water.

As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable explanation about why Barrow, Alaska is warming more rapidly than anywhere else in the world.

The reasons why Barrow, Alaska is warming so rapidly are loss of sea ice, and an increase in sea temperature. Those are both quite obviously a result of Global Warming, which are also smoking guns, if anyone is paying attention.

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?

I found the stories of Barrow, AK warming rapidly are false.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/?utm_term=.a26434a20ec9

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

It really isn't. With the loss of ice in the area, the much warmer ocean waters become the controlling factor for weather/temperature.

We have no records of the area from before the little ice age and comparisons with the rest of the world suggests that the loss of sea ice and warmer land temperatures because of that is perfectly normal.

I'm not sure about the reason why the polar regions are warming more rapidly than the rest of the world. But your reasons sound as good as any I have heard. The loss of sea ice reduces the albeido of the polar regions, thus warming the oceans more than before. And that warming would be felt in the regions near the water.

As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable explanation about why Barrow, Alaska is warming more rapidly than anywhere else in the world.

The reasons why Barrow, Alaska is warming so rapidly are loss of sea ice, and an increase in sea temperature. Those are both quite obviously a result of Global Warming, which are also smoking guns, if anyone is paying attention.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

It really isn't. With the loss of ice in the area, the much warmer ocean waters become the controlling factor for weather/temperature.

We have no records of the area from before the little ice age and comparisons with the rest of the world suggests that the loss of sea ice and warmer land temperatures because of that is perfectly normal.

I'm not sure about the reason why the polar regions are warming more rapidly than the rest of the world. But your reasons sound as good as any I have heard. The loss of sea ice reduces the albeido of the polar regions, thus warming the oceans more than before. And that warming would be felt in the regions near the water.

As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable explanation about why Barrow, Alaska is warming more rapidly than anywhere else in the world.

The reasons why Barrow, Alaska is warming so rapidly are loss of sea ice, and an increase in sea temperature. Those are both quite obviously a result of Global Warming, which are also smoking guns, if anyone is paying attention.

Greenman, this thread was started by you with a chart showing what is essentially no change in average weather/climate.

My question to you is: why are you so interested in somehow proving there is man-made global warming?

Wake wrote:
How are they fighting CO2 increases? By electric cars. Electric cars require that you convert mechanical energy to electrical power then back to mechanical energy. This means that electric cars use more energy and generate more CO2 than gasoline or other fossil fueled vehicles.

Wake wrote:
It isn't as if there's no advantage to electric cars - they certainly have a great deal less noise pollution except where they are passing laws to force electric car manufacturers to generate more noise because it's so easy for them to sneak up on pedestrians and bicyclists etc.

Wake wrote:
Wind and solar power effectiveness can be seen on the books of PG&E. It costs 10-15 times MORE to generate power and the construction of the wind and solar farms generates huge amounts of CO2 as well.

Wake wrote:
I want you to think about Al Gore making $100,000 a speech on global warming. Are you aware that originally he was making speeches on the coming ice age? And how does he get to and from these speeches? He flies on a private jet and is chauffeured in limousines to and from. Do you think he believes one single word of what he is saying?

Wake wrote:
You absolutely cannot tell anything about the climate with records only a little over 150 years long.

Wake wrote:
And we do have geological records from as far away as New Zealand and Australia about the Mycenaean, Roman and Medieval warm periods that occurred about every thousand years including the initiation of the Medieval Warm Period around 950 AD.

Wake wrote:
My question to you would be - why are you searching for proof of the AGW theory? Surely there has been some warming but history tells us that this is normal.

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/?utm_term=.a26434a20ec9

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

It really isn't. With the loss of ice in the area, the much warmer ocean waters become the controlling factor for weather/temperature.

We have no records of the area from before the little ice age and comparisons with the rest of the world suggests that the loss of sea ice and warmer land temperatures because of that is perfectly normal.

I'm not sure about the reason why the polar regions are warming more rapidly than the rest of the world. But your reasons sound as good as any I have heard. The loss of sea ice reduces the albeido of the polar regions, thus warming the oceans more than before. And that warming would be felt in the regions near the water.

As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable explanation about why Barrow, Alaska is warming more rapidly than anywhere else in the world.

The reasons why Barrow, Alaska is warming so rapidly are loss of sea ice, and an increase in sea temperature. Those are both quite obviously a result of Global Warming, which are also smoking guns, if anyone is paying attention.

Greenman, this thread was started by you with a chart showing what is essentially no change in average weather/climate.

My question to you is: why are you so interested in somehow proving there is man-made global warming?

How are they fighting CO2 increases? By electric cars. Electric cars require that you convert mechanical energy to electrical power then back to mechanical energy. This means that electric cars use more energy and generate more CO2 than gasoline or other fossil fueled vehicles.

It isn't as if there's no advantage to electric cars - they certainly have a great deal less noise pollution except where they are passing laws to force electric car manufacturers to generate more noise because it's so easy for them to sneak up on pedestrians and bicyclists etc.

Wind and solar power effectiveness can be seen on the books of PG&E. It costs 10-15 times MORE to generate power and the construction of the wind and solar farms generates huge amounts of CO2 as well.

I want you to think about Al Gore making $100,000 a speech on global warming. Are you aware that originally he was making speeches on the coming ice age? And how does he get to and from these speeches? He flies on a private jet and is chauffeured in limousines to and from. Do you think he believes one single word of what he is saying?

You absolutely cannot tell anything about the climate with records only a little over 150 years long. And we do have geological records from as far away as New Zealand and Australia about the Mycenaean, Roman and Medieval warm periods that occurred about every thousand years including the initiation of the Medieval Warm Period around 950 AD.

My question to you would be - why are you searching for proof of the AGW theory? Surely there has been some warming but history tells us that this is normal.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?

I think the millions of people dying comes later. But it eventually gets here. So far, the worst heat related deaths are only in the thousands.

Yes, I did find a little warming [actually, it's quite a lot] in a small part of the world. And no, I didn't go looking for anywhere that is rapidly cooling, since someone surely will attemp to. Why don't you give it a go, and see what you can come up with?

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?

I think the millions of people dying comes later. But it eventually gets here. So far, the worst heat related deaths are only in the thousands.

Yes, I did find a little warming [actually, it's quite a lot] in a small part of the world. And no, I didn't go looking for anywhere that is rapidly cooling, since someone surely will attemp to. Why don't you give it a go, and see what you can come up with?

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/?utm_term=.a26434a20ec9

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

It really isn't. With the loss of ice in the area, the much warmer ocean waters become the controlling factor for weather/temperature.

We have no records of the area from before the little ice age and comparisons with the rest of the world suggests that the loss of sea ice and warmer land temperatures because of that is perfectly normal.

I'm not sure about the reason why the polar regions are warming more rapidly than the rest of the world. But your reasons sound as good as any I have heard. The loss of sea ice reduces the albeido of the polar regions, thus warming the oceans more than before. And that warming would be felt in the regions near the water.

As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable explanation about why Barrow, Alaska is warming more rapidly than anywhere else in the world.

The reasons why Barrow, Alaska is warming so rapidly are loss of sea ice, and an increase in sea temperature. Those are both quite obviously a result of Global Warming, which are also smoking guns, if anyone is paying attention.

Greenman, this thread was started by you with a chart showing what is essentially no change in average weather/climate.

My question to you is: why are you so interested in somehow proving there is man-made global warming?

How are they fighting CO2 increases? By electric cars. Electric cars require that you convert mechanical energy to electrical power then back to mechanical energy. This means that electric cars use more energy and generate more CO2 than gasoline or other fossil fueled vehicles.

It isn't as if there's no advantage to electric cars - they certainly have a great deal less noise pollution except where they are passing laws to force electric car manufacturers to generate more noise because it's so easy for them to sneak up on pedestrians and bicyclists etc.

Wind and solar power effectiveness can be seen on the books of PG&E. It costs 10-15 times MORE to generate power and the construction of the wind and solar farms generates huge amounts of CO2 as well.

I want you to think about Al Gore making $100,000 a speech on global warming. Are you aware that originally he was making speeches on the coming ice age? And how does he get to and from these speeches? He flies on a private jet and is chauffeured in limousines to and from. Do you think he believes one single word of what he is saying?

You absolutely cannot tell anything about the climate with records only a little over 150 years long. And we do have geological records from as far away as New Zealand and Australia about the Mycenaean, Roman and Medieval warm periods that occurred about every thousand years including the initiation of the Medieval Warm Period around 950 AD.

My question to you would be - why are you searching for proof of the AGW theory? Surely there has been some warming but history tells us that this is normal.

You start off by showing your inability to read a chart, again. Maybe you were hoping that no one would bother to go back and look at the chart? Here it is, to make it easier.



The way you read a chart is to first get oriented. Which way is time moving [in the case of this chart]. On this chart, time progresses from the left to the right. After you have figured that part out, then you can look at what the data shows. All you have to do is look to the left of the chart and then move your eyes to the right. Compare the data as you do that. Anyone who knows that, can easily see that the temperature has increased.

GreenMan wrote:
And that is because Barrow is in the polar region, where global warming is most apparent, and is exceeding the rest of the planet by about 4C in rise.

GreenMan wrote:
The rest of your post is just defeatist mentality. Can't never could.

GreenMan wrote:
So people who think we can't figure out how to live without producing Greenhouse Gases probably won't be the ones who figure it out.

GreenMan wrote:
It's easy though, really. We just have to give up most of what we don't really need.

GreenMan wrote:
Either that, or we could begin exterminating half the population of the planet.

GreenMan wrote:
I think we should start with Americans, since they are the most prevalent Greenhouse Gas producers.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/?utm_term=.a26434a20ec9

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

It really isn't. With the loss of ice in the area, the much warmer ocean waters become the controlling factor for weather/temperature.

We have no records of the area from before the little ice age and comparisons with the rest of the world suggests that the loss of sea ice and warmer land temperatures because of that is perfectly normal.

I'm not sure about the reason why the polar regions are warming more rapidly than the rest of the world. But your reasons sound as good as any I have heard. The loss of sea ice reduces the albeido of the polar regions, thus warming the oceans more than before. And that warming would be felt in the regions near the water.

As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable explanation about why Barrow, Alaska is warming more rapidly than anywhere else in the world.

The reasons why Barrow, Alaska is warming so rapidly are loss of sea ice, and an increase in sea temperature. Those are both quite obviously a result of Global Warming, which are also smoking guns, if anyone is paying attention.

Greenman, this thread was started by you with a chart showing what is essentially no change in average weather/climate.

My question to you is: why are you so interested in somehow proving there is man-made global warming?

How are they fighting CO2 increases? By electric cars. Electric cars require that you convert mechanical energy to electrical power then back to mechanical energy. This means that electric cars use more energy and generate more CO2 than gasoline or other fossil fueled vehicles.

It isn't as if there's no advantage to electric cars - they certainly have a great deal less noise pollution except where they are passing laws to force electric car manufacturers to generate more noise because it's so easy for them to sneak up on pedestrians and bicyclists etc.

Wind and solar power effectiveness can be seen on the books of PG&E. It costs 10-15 times MORE to generate power and the construction of the wind and solar farms generates huge amounts of CO2 as well.

I want you to think about Al Gore making $100,000 a speech on global warming. Are you aware that originally he was making speeches on the coming ice age? And how does he get to and from these speeches? He flies on a private jet and is chauffeured in limousines to and from. Do you think he believes one single word of what he is saying?

You absolutely cannot tell anything about the climate with records only a little over 150 years long. And we do have geological records from as far away as New Zealand and Australia about the Mycenaean, Roman and Medieval warm periods that occurred about every thousand years including the initiation of the Medieval Warm Period around 950 AD.

My question to you would be - why are you searching for proof of the AGW theory? Surely there has been some warming but history tells us that this is normal.

You start off by showing your inability to read a chart, again. Maybe you were hoping that no one would bother to go back and look at the chart? Here it is, to make it easier.



The way you read a chart is to first get oriented. Which way is time moving [in the case of this chart]. On this chart, time progresses from the left to the right. After you have figured that part out, then you can look at what the data shows. All you have to do is look to the left of the chart and then move your eyes to the right. Compare the data as you do that. Anyone who knows that, can easily see that the temperature has increased. And that is because Barrow is in the polar region, where global warming is most apparent, and is exceeding the rest of the planet by about 4C in rise.

The rest of your post is just defeatist mentality. Can't never could. So people who think we can't figure out how to live without producing Greenhouse Gases probably won't be the ones who figure it out.

It's easy though, really. We just have to give up most of what we don't really need. Either that, or we could begin exterminating half the population of the planet. I think we should start with Americans, since they are the most prevalent Greenhouse Gas producers.

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?

I found the stories of Barrow, AK warming rapidly are false.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
"a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring".

Now why would a world wide search be needed to find some warming?
I was thinking it was quite obvious that the entire globe was warming with all the millions of people dying and the floods and droughts and record cold and heat.

GreenMan wrote:
quite obviously a result of Global Warming

Oh! There it is! Thank you.

So, you found a little warming in a small part of the world.
I'm sure you are only interested in truth, right?
So naturally due diligence would lead you to a search for any place on Earth with the same amount of cooling.
What did you find?

I found the stories of Barrow, AK warming rapidly are false.

I'm thinking you didn't go there, anymore than you did any actual research. Is there any chance that you could actually provide any supporting evidence that the stories of Barrow warming rapidly are false?

Or should we just take a known lying Denier is actually telling the truth about something?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
This thread began as the result of a search around the world to find out where the warming was occurring. And I did that because there has been very little if any warming in the local regions of our country.

Of course, the Deniers jumped all over me about trying to prove Global Warming with the temperature record of Barrow, Alaska, but I wasn't trying to prove anything. I merely calculated that if it isn't getting warmer in the US lower 48, then it must be getting warmer somewhere, because the average global temperature continues to climb.

And it look like Barrow, Alaska was a good place to find evidence of warming, according to this news article.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/capital-weather-gang/wp/2017/12/12/barrow-is-warming-so-fast-algorithms-removed-the-data-because-it-seemed-unreal/?utm_term=.a26434a20ec9

According to that article, Barrow is warming so fast that the data was disqualified because it was too much of a change.

So, even though I wasn't trying to prove Global Warming with Barrow, Alaska, I should have been, because it apparently is a smoking gun.

It really isn't. With the loss of ice in the area, the much warmer ocean waters become the controlling factor for weather/temperature.

We have no records of the area from before the little ice age and comparisons with the rest of the world suggests that the loss of sea ice and warmer land temperatures because of that is perfectly normal.

I'm not sure about the reason why the polar regions are warming more rapidly than the rest of the world. But your reasons sound as good as any I have heard. The loss of sea ice reduces the albeido of the polar regions, thus warming the oceans more than before. And that warming would be felt in the regions near the water.

As far as I am concerned, that is a reasonable explanation about why Barrow, Alaska is warming more rapidly than anywhere else in the world.

The reasons why Barrow, Alaska is warming so rapidly are loss of sea ice, and an increase in sea temperature. Those are both quite obviously a result of Global Warming, which are also smoking guns, if anyone is paying attention.

Greenman, this thread was started by you with a chart showing what is essentially no change in average weather/climate.

My question to you is: why are you so interested in somehow proving there is man-made global warming?

How are they fighting CO2 increases? By electric cars. Electric cars require that you convert mechanical energy to electrical power then back to mechanical energy. This means that electric cars use more energy and generate more CO2 than gasoline or other fossil fueled vehicles.

It isn't as if there's no advantage to electric cars - they certainly have a great deal less noise pollution except where they are passing laws to force electric car manufacturers to generate more noise because it's so easy for them to sneak up on pedestrians and bicyclists etc.

Wind and solar power effectiveness can be seen on the books of PG&E. It costs 10-15 times MORE to generate power and the construction of the wind and solar farms generates huge amounts of CO2 as well.

I want you to think about Al Gore making $100,000 a speech on global warming. Are you aware that originally he was making speeches on the coming ice age? And how does he get to and from these speeches? He flies on a private jet and is chauffeured in limousines to and from. Do you think he believes one single word of what he is saying?

You absolutely cannot tell anything about the climate with records only a little over 150 years long. And we do have geological records from as far away as New Zealand and Australia about the Mycenaean, Roman and Medieval warm periods that occurred about every thousand years including the initiation of the Medieval Warm Period around 950 AD.

My question to you would be - why are you searching for proof of the AGW theory? Surely there has been some warming but history tells us that this is normal.

You start off by showing your inability to read a chart, again. Maybe you were hoping that no one would bother to go back and look at the chart? Here it is, to make it easier.



The way you read a chart is to first get oriented. Which way is time moving [in the case of this chart]. On this chart, time progresses from the left to the right. After you have figured that part out, then you can look at what the data shows. All you have to do is look to the left of the chart and then move your eyes to the right. Compare the data as you do that. Anyone who knows that, can easily see that the temperature has increased. And that is because Barrow is in the polar region, where global warming is most apparent, and is exceeding the rest of the planet by about 4C in rise.

The rest of your post is just defeatist mentality. Can't never could. So people who think we can't figure out how to live without producing Greenhouse Gases probably won't be the ones who figure it out.

It's easy though, really. We just have to give up most of what we don't really need. Either that, or we could begin exterminating half the population of the planet. I think we should start with Americans, since they are the most prevalent Greenhouse Gas producers.

Greenman - you obviously don't understand mathematics. That chart shows NO average change. Or so little as to be unimportant. You see an increasing temperature pattern where a mathematician sees nothing more than chaos with a zero change.

Wake said

Because it is HOT today doesn't mean that the climate is changing. It was very hot in Southern California but for the first time in 50 years it snowed at the Alamo in Texas. Is that supposed to mean something?

Wake said
OK, I've gone through the trouble of doing a statistical analysis of your chart and what it indicates is that since 1949 the temperature has FALLEN at 0.17 degrees per year overall.

Greensomething wrote:
You must be talking about "New Math," where reality doesn't matter. You can adjust whatever you want, to make the results come out as what you want.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake said
OK, I've gone through the trouble of doing a statistical analysis of your chart and what it indicates is that since 1949 the temperature has FALLEN at 0.17 degrees per year overall.

So you are saying that the temperature has actually dropped 11.56 degrees, according to that chart? [2017-2049*.17 = 11.56].

I think I'll stick with the old new math that I was taught. [-1 - 6 = 7]