Remember me
▼ Content

Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating



Page 7 of 9<<<56789>
12-09-2017 01:14
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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. Arguing with an idiot doesn't gain you anything.

https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/EnergyBalance/page4.php

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.

You COULD use Stefan-Boltzmann's Law to quantize the Earth's temperature but why should you when direct measurements are available?

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

And we have direct measurements of the temperature of the Earth from satellites. These temperatures agree with each other. Remember - in a balanced system energy in = energy out.

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

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.

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

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

This is reduced by reflections in the atmosphere to 241 watts/m^2. Of this 23% is absorbed by the atmosphere and only 116 watts/m^2 hits the surface of the Earth. 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.

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

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.

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.

Now since the overwhelming majority of heat absorbed by the atmosphere has been moved into the stratosphere via conduction and since that heat has been more or less stabilized by convection what now become important in a gas is its sensible heat capacity.

And guess what? CO2 has a higher latent heat capacity than other gases so MOST of the Sun's energy is radiated by N2 and O2. The only way that CO2 can gain enough energy to radiate is from two methods: 1. conduction - though because of how thin the atmosphere is at the top of the stratosphere this is usually unlikely. 2. Referring back to the Energy Balance diorama you can see that there is some 29% of the Sun's energy reflected. This is something of a misnomer. Actually specific heat content of oxygen and nitrogen is really low so they are gaining and losing energy though conduction and from the Sun's emissions continuously as they move up through the stratosphere. So they are radiating energy away quite rapidly. CO2 on the other hand has a very high specific heat content and hangs around in the upper stratosphere gaining heat until losing most of it in a flash of radiation. So while it would appear to be reflected energy there's nothing there to reflect off and what it is is the gaining of energy by the gases present and radiating it off into space.

Geometry shows that although this radiation is in all directions from this altitude it is mostly away from Earth. CO2 is a COOLANT and not a heat trap.

We can carry this on and on but greenman, spot and the other dead Earther's simply won't understand nor believe it. These are the people that are the world's losers and they want to believe that everyone else is going to lose as well.
12-09-2017 03:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

Careful??? I have to worry about what Greenlite thinks? I don't give a rat's ass about his scripture from the Church of Global Warming.

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

I disagree. I have already enlightened quite a few folks here by these conversations (not the religious nut himself, though).

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.

Argument from randU. You don't have any actual numbers. No one does.
Wake wrote:
You COULD use Stefan-Boltzmann's Law to quantize the Earth's temperature

Apparently you don't know what 'quantize' means. The Stefan-Boltzmann law doesn't quantize anything. It is not capable of calculating Earth's temperature either. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
but why should you when direct measurements are available?

Direct measurements are NOT 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.

Striking the Earth's surface does not mean absorption.
Wake wrote:
And we have direct measurements of the temperature of the Earth from satellites.

Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperatures at all.
Wake wrote:
These temperatures agree with each other.

What temperatures agree with what temperatures? Vague statement that doesn't mean anything.
Wake wrote:
Remember - in a balanced system energy in = energy out.

True. In ALL systems where equilibrium is reached, 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.

WRONG. All objects radiate all the time. All objects are above absolute zero.
Wake wrote:
You were back to the idea of anything radiating to anything as long as it's temperature was above absolute zero.

Everything above absolute zero radiates...all the time...continuously...according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All substances are 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.

Argument from randU. You don't know the numbers.
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.

Argument from randU. You don't know any of these numbers either. Sunlight striking the Earth's surface does not mean absorption. It may be absorbed, reflected, or refracted.
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.

You mean thermal energy. You still don't get what 'heat' is, do you?

Surface heating of the atmosphere cools the surface. Air is also a substance, so conduction continues throughout the atmosphere. The air is a fluid. Convection also a factor. All materials radiate. Radiation is also a factor. Heating does not stop at the stratosphere. It continues, all the way into space.

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

Argument from randU.
Conduction is not the only form of heating in play here. You seem to think it is. You are forgetting convection and radiance. Heating does not stop at the stratosphere.
Wake wrote:
So in the end here's the way it works: the incoming emissions from the Sun = 340 watts/m^2

Which may or may not be absorbed.
Wake wrote:
This is reduced by reflections in the atmosphere to 241 watts/m^2.

WRONG. It is reduced by reflection, absorption, refraction, and scattering.
Wake wrote:
Of this 23% is absorbed by the atmosphere

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

Which may be reflected, absorbed, or refracted. Absorption does not necessarily produce a warmer surface either. It may produce a chemical reaction instead.
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.

Argument from randU. Did you know that water absorbs sunlight?
Wake wrote:
If you look at the satellite rendition of the Earth the actual temperature variation across the entire globe is pretty slight.

Satellites are not capable of measuring absolute temperature. They cannot measure the actual temperature.
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.

Heat doesn't 'mix'. It just is...as is...where it is. Are you confusing 'heat' with 'thermal energy' again? If so, then you are forgetting the typical temperatures near the equator with the typical temperatures at the poles. You also seem to be denying the typical temperatures of Death Valley vs the typical temperatures at the top of Mt Everest.
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.

The major means of energy loss from the Earth is via radiance from the surface. The secondary energy loss from the Earth is via radiance from the atmosphere (at all altitudes). Most of THAT is radiance from the troposphere. It is the warmest, and the densest part of the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
Now since the overwhelming majority of heat absorbed by the atmosphere has been moved into the stratosphere via conduction

Heating does not stop at the stratosphere.
Wake wrote:
and since that heat has been more or less stabilized by convection

Heat is neither stable nor unstable. It just is. Convection IS heat. It doesn't modify heat.
Wake wrote:
what now become important in a gas is its sensible heat capacity.

It's 'sensible' heat capacity??? Are you trying to come up with another name for specific heat?
Wake wrote:
And guess what? CO2 has a higher latent heat capacity than other gases

WRONG. CO2 has a specific heat index of around 0.84. This is similar to oxygen at 0.9, or nitrogen at 1.04 (in Kcal/Kg in deg K). Water has a specific heat index of 4.191.

CO2 is quite easy to warm up and cool down So is oxygen and nitrogen. Water is much harder.

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

Everything radiates...all the time...everywhere...according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
The only way that CO2 can gain enough energy to radiate

CO2 is no exception. CO2 radiates all the time...everywhere...according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It doesn't have to 'gain enough energy to radiate'. There is no magick threshold.
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.

Conduction occurs quite easily in the stratosphere. You seem to be forgetting the effects of the Chapman cycle now.
Wake wrote:
2. Referring back to the Energy Balance diorama you can see that there is some 29% of the Sun's energy reflected.

Argument from randU. No one knows this number.
Wake wrote:
This is something of a misnomer.

It is a random number.
Wake wrote:
Actually specific heat content of oxygen and nitrogen is really low

No, it is slightly higher than CO2.
Wake wrote:
so they are gaining and losing energy though conduction

Heat conductivity is not specific heat. These are two separate and independent properties of matter.
Wake wrote:
and from the Sun's emissions continuously as they move up through the stratosphere.

The Sun warms everything. Surface...atmosphere...seawater...etc.
Wake wrote:
So they are radiating energy away quite rapidly.

EVERYTHING is radiating energy...all the time...everywhere...according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
CO2 on the other hand has a very high specific heat content

WRONG. It is slightly below oxygen and nitrogen. It is easier to warm and cool CO2 (by just a bit).
Wake wrote:
and hangs around in the upper stratosphere gaining heat

CO2 doesn't 'hang around anywhere' gaining heat. Heat is not gained just by any substance just sitting anywhere.
Wake wrote:
until losing most of it in a flash of radiation.

CO2 radiates all the time...everywhere...at all temperatures and altitudes...according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
So while it would appear to be reflected energy

CO2 can reflect, absorb, refract, or just be effectively transparent not not interact with light at all. It is the same with ALL gases of the atmosphere, and with all substances, including those that make up the surface.
Wake wrote:
there's nothing there to reflect off

If matter exists, it can reflect.
Wake wrote:
and what it is is the gaining of energy by the gases present and radiating it off into space.

EVERYTHING radiates to space...all the time...everywhere...according to the Stefan-Boltzman law.

The densest and warmest component radiating is the surface itself. It is most of the radiance into space.
Wake wrote:
Geometry shows that although this radiation is in all directions from this altitude it is mostly away from Earth.

Heh. You're gonna get stuck explaining the problem with the Magick Bouncing Photon with that model!

Radiance from all materials is in all directions. Just because a photon strikes something doesn't mean it's going to get absorbed. Photons are not all the same either. Neither is intensity (number of photons per second).

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

True. Just like the rest of the atmosphere.
Wake wrote:
We can carry this on and on but greenman,

You are actually AGREEING with Greenman on this...did you know that?
Wake wrote:
spot and the other dead Earther's

Dead Earther's??? Are you referring to the typical predictions made by the Church of Global Warming of a an overheated Earth killing off everything?
Wake wrote:
simply won't understand nor believe it.

Apparently you don't either. You are ignoring heating in the stratosphere (and indeed the rest of the atmosphere beyond the troposphere), and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
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.

Most people don't consider Bill Gates or Jeff Bezos losers. Yet they believe in the Church of Global Warming.

A fair number of people here consider Trump a loser, but he doesn't believe in the Church of Global Warming. He's an Outsider. Of course, he's pretty wealthy, so he's actually a winner. He obtained the White House. He's actually a winner.

Or maybe you have visions of members of the Church of Global Warming living in their basements with their parents and refusing to work for a living.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-09-2017 06:44
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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.

"don'T rump" ascended to the toilet throne of the kkk(always small letters) to become the "grand wizard" & unites with the neo-nazis. Tho it is wealthy, "it" lost its soul.
Edited on 12-09-2017 06:45
12-09-2017 07:44
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
12-09-2017 20:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
12-09-2017 20:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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".
12-09-2017 21:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-09-2017 00:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
13-09-2017 01:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-09-2017 01:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
13-09-2017 01:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


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!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-09-2017 02:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
13-09-2017 03:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-09-2017 16:39
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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 I wonder why you don't call them bigots as well. They were pretty plain about what they thought of the intelligentsia of Seattle. Just like commercial companies have given up on California it appears that Washington and Oregon are closely behind. 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.

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. Your kind of people.

Why don't you explain to us all what Planck's Law has to say about photons?
13-09-2017 18:36
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"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....

Did her high heels leave marks on the table? Was her screaming (you say) accompanied by music? Might have been a song. Was she a member of the council? You left out the important facts.... which I will detail:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
13-09-2017 22:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-09-2017 22:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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. The definition of Bulverism is where you got you stupid belief in "circular reasoning". 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.

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

As I said - this is why I didn't like the people of Seattle, why the rest of the state doesn't like the people of Seattle and why your one major company wants to hire someone from another place. Even one as screwed up as California. I just discovered that they have called my step-son who is in an aerospace company in San Diego. Why they must just be bigots right?

Either that or the stench of the ignorance of Seatlites is just too much for companies.
14-09-2017 00:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

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

??? No. Bulverism has nothing to do with circular arguments. It has more to do with an argument of the Stone. It is discarding an argument because of who is making it, not because of content of the argument.
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.

Heh. Well now that you've demonstrated that you don't know the difference between Bulverism fallacy and a circular argument (which is not even necessarily a fallacy), it is YOU that is looking pretty stupid right now!
Wake wrote:
Then totally ignoring what Planck's law is and thinking that I don't understand it.

You don't understand it. I haven't ignored it. I have explained it before. You rejected it. You go look it up now for yourself.
Wake wrote:
As I said - this is why I didn't like the people of Seattle,

Going back to your bigotry again? Trying to justify it again?
Wake wrote:
why the rest of the state doesn't like the people of Seattle

Bigoted statement. Some do, some don't.
Wake wrote:
and why your one major company

We have a lot of major companies. Which one are you referring to?
Wake wrote:
wants to hire someone from another place.

Most major companies will hire from anywhere.
Wake wrote:
Even one as screwed up as California.

Why not? Are you saying no one in California is worthy to hold such a job?
Wake wrote:
I just discovered that they have called my step-son who is in an aerospace company in San Diego.

That's nice.
Wake wrote:
Why they must just be bigots right?

Non-sequitur. How do you figure?
Wake wrote:
Either that or the stench of the ignorance of Seatlites is just too much for companies.

Is that why this corporation (whatever it is) is located in the Seattle area???

Major corporations hire from anywhere...even from around here.

You mentioned aerospace. Is this major corporation an aerospace company? If so, which one? We have a lot of aerospace companies here. It sounds like you might be referring to Boeing, but they are located in Illinois.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2017 15:04
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
13-12-2017 18:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
13-12-2017 19:07
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 13-12-2017 19:08
13-12-2017 19:42
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
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?
Edited on 13-12-2017 19:42
13-12-2017 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

You don't know that. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.
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.

It is not possible to 'disqualify' the data at Barrow, AK, because no statistical analysis has been run.
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.

A smoking gun of what? Something you can't define?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2017 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


According to the weather station logs at Barrow, AK, there has been no significant warming at all.

I don't see any smoking anything.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2017 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-12-2017 21:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.


As have I: https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/barrow-alaska-climate-change-action

Neither ice levels or temperatures appear to be anything other than a couple of warmer than average years. "Climate change" really couldn't be detected on time scales less than century scales.
13-12-2017 22:21
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
14-12-2017 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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?

He's a believer in the Church of Global Warming, same as you. The only difference between you two is the sect.
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.

Not necessarily.

Electric cars have the advantage that they can run from fixed power plants, as opposed to mobile ones, by holding a temporary charge for the mobile power plant.

This means you can use fixed power stations to power the electric car. That fixed power can be from any source, wind, solar, hydro, coal fired, nuclear powered, etc.

The disadvantage is the fueling rate. It takes a lot longer to 'refuel' an electric car than a gasoline car. Another disadvantage is the limited range and the decay of battery storage capacity over time as the batteries age. Oh...and the cost.

Keeping stashes of batteries around to swap out at 'fueling' stations is nothing more than a buffering scheme. Sooner or later you run out of buffer as the cars become more popular. In the end it still comes down to the recharge rate vs fueling a gasoline car.

Saying that the electric generates more CO2 (why should anyone really care anyway?) is like saying that all fixed power stations use carbon based fuels.

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.

Bicyclists should be more aware of their surroundings and be less arrogant. They are a tiny mass compared to a car. In any collision, they lose. The arrogance and '**** you' attitude of some of these people are amazing.

Pedestrians would do a lot better (and take a lot fewer trips to the hospital) if they got their head out of their phones while they are walking.

The only real problem with the silence of an electric car is when it begins to move. There is no indication that it's about to do so. They do, however, make as much road noise as any car.

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.

I would say this is a reasonable figure. It is not just the construction of the equipment itself, it's the real estate that must be procured to build the thing. Wind farms are also unsightly and very large. They CAN be quite dangerous to go near, so you have to keep them away from any public roadways. The price per watt of solar and wind is quite high compared to almost any other form of power generation.
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?

No, and he doesn't care. It's always been about everyone but the 'elite' paying the cost of preventing 'global warming'.
Wake wrote:
You absolutely cannot tell anything about the climate with records only a little over 150 years long.

Sure you can. All you have to do is look at a desert to know you are in a desert climate, complete with sagebrush, Joshua trees, or various cacti. All you have to do is look at a temperate coastal climate to know that you will experience frequent fogs, higher winds from the sea, milder temperatures, etc.

Most people can tell pretty fast what kind of climate they are in.

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.
Climate is prevailing weather over a long time.

If you are referring to global temperature records...there aren't any.

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.

Not really. There is no good indicator that these warm periods affected much in New Zealand or Australia at all. We know about the warm periods in Europe from written records that have survived since then.
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.

How do you know there has been warming? It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-12-2017 01:00
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-12-2017 01:14
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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 ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-12-2017 01:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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?


Seattle has gone from 90 deg F as a high temperature to on 40 deg F as a high temperature in ONLY SIX MONTHS!

Las Vegas, NV went from 69 deg F to 48 deg F in LESS THAN 12 HOURS!

Oymakon, Siberia is experiencing much colder temperatures than normal. It is only November, but temperatures have already plummeted to -66 deg F. Normal temperatures this time of year only go as low as -40 degF.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-12-2017 01:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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?


You DIDN'T FIND COOLING???

The Greenland ice cap is gaining more ice than it's losing. The reason that it was having some rapid melting was because the normal recovery from the little ice age uncovered some layers of ice that had a great deal of soot in it from a volcanic eruption hundreds of years ago. This had a lower reflective index and so absorbed more heat and the front edge of the glaciers were melting away rapidly and the retreat of the glaciers were what they were measuring and not the forming clean ice at the tops of the glaciers.

The sea ice in the Arctic is an unknown and means little. According to the articles I eked out the temperatures around northern Alaska do not appear to be anything unusual - that area had been populated for several thousands of years and that means it had to have livable conditions for stone age people.

The ice pack in the Antarctic is at the largest point ever recorded. Not that that means a whole lot since these ranges have only been recorded for about 45 years.

Sea levels in Florida appear to be rising. But the sea levels in the Marianas Islands is falling. This looks to be from tidal conditions around the globe that aren't understood yet.

What you appear to be saying is that DESPITE the fact that everything on Earth is improving at an ever increasing rate you think that millions of people will be killed for reasons unknown.
14-12-2017 01:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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.

This chart is manufactured data. There is no information on the temperature of Alaska. It's not possible to determine the temperature of Alaska.
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.
The individual weather station logs would disagree with you.
GreenMan wrote:
The rest of your post is just defeatist mentality. Can't never could.

Psychobabble.
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.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor have the capability to warm the Earth.
GreenMan wrote:
It's easy though, really. We just have to give up most of what we don't really need.
Who determines what "we don't need"? You? Me? And on what basis?
GreenMan wrote:
Either that, or we could begin exterminating half the population of the planet.
You will find that if you start that shit, the among the first things exterminated will be you.
GreenMan wrote:
I think we should start with Americans, since they are the most prevalent Greenhouse Gas producers.

Now you advocate war. Not just any war...a religious war.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-12-2017 01:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.

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?

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.
Edited on 14-12-2017 01:52
14-12-2017 01:53
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-12-2017 02:30
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
For starters Greenthing, your chart is from the Alaska Climate Research Center...funded by who?

If the chart were to show rapid cooling of the same magnitude, I still wouldn't buy it.

Does a chart that starts in 1949 not seem the slightest odd to you?


By the way...do a little searching for some Alaska station records from the late 1920s to around 1945....think you'll quickly figure out why it's starts in 1949.
14-12-2017 04:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
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?


I looked at the weather station records in Barrow, AK. That kinda overrides a Washington comPost story.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-12-2017 19:50
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
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.


I understand enough about mathematics to know that the difference between -1 and 6 is 7. And that is how much the average temperature in Barrow has risen, according to that chart. 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.

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?

No, it snows in South Georgia every 20 years or so too. Means nothing. Jerry Brown thinks that it is getting so hot in California that all the trees are going to burn. Now that means something. In fact, it means a lot of things. It means he at least recognizes the need to do something, even if it's wrong. It also means that your statistical analysis is wrong. And it means that your governor is smarter than you are.

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]


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-12-2017 20:02
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1790)
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.


Ha!!!


You mean like this math, right?

[url]https://www.carbonbrief.org/major-correction-to-satellite-data-shows-140-faster-warming-since-1998[/url]
15-12-2017 20:35
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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]


Why do I not find any surprise that you do not understand simple statistical analysis. It must be that math degree you have.
Page 7 of 9<<<56789>





Join the debate Barrow Alaska Rapid Heating:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Evidence of rapid climate change!012-10-2019 06:09
Alaska Supreme Court1111-10-2019 23:33
Alaska, July, hottest month every recorded...119-08-2019 07:13
Alaska in desperate need, of air conditioners and sunscreen...1308-07-2019 05:20
Was sudden rapid temperature increase in 1980s caused by USSR collapsed and shut off their weather statio213-04-2019 23:34
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact