Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change denier crosses from the dark side



Page 2 of 2<12
04-05-2017 20:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.


Since the ice age where did it move from?

You are so full of shit.

Rocket Scientist my arse.

Africa has been moving (and still is) eastward. At one time it was thought to be rotated about 90 deg to its present position. This is all conjecture of course.


AND SINCE THE ICE AGE HOW FAR HAS IT MOVED????

When you were doing top secrete work on rockets did you show such a clear inability to answer simple questions before they basically put peoples lives in your hands or was the rocket scientist bit all made up?

Or are you senile?


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-05-2017 20:42
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.


Since the ice age where did it move from?

You are so full of shit.

Rocket Scientist my arse.

Africa has been moving (and still is) eastward. At one time it was thought to be rotated about 90 deg to its present position. This is all conjecture of course.


Remember several months ago when I said that I thought that the continents had reached a state pretty much of balance and probably wouldn't move much more?

One of the latest articles in Science (I believe it was) is that tectonic activity is only a short part of the life of a planet like Earth and that it is likely that we are near the end of this period. So it is unlikely that there will be any huge changes in the positions nor sizes of the continents.

Since the lifespans of this tectonic activity isn't well known, that remains to be seen. But what another article showed was the the upper crust has cooled three times faster than had been originally estimated. This also suggests that tectonic activity will slow substantially if not stop.
04-05-2017 20:51
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
04-05-2017 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?


As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

That simply doesn't make sense. If that bit of land wasn't always a desert climate, then it must previously have had a different (i.e. not desert) climate. Hence its climate must have changed.


Nope. The westher changed. You can have different climates, but they cannot change. You have no way to describe a 'change' in a climate. There is no way to describe a delta by any unit that makes sense.

Still trying to define 'climate change' in a circular manner. Keep trying.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2017 21:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.
04-05-2017 22:15
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

More reality denial from Wake.

CU Sea Level Research Group

The graph on that page shows how mean global sea level has risen over the past few decades. The sea level measurements have been made by the TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. The links on that page point to information detailing how the measurements are made. Why not read it and educate yourself rather than making daft pronouncements from your current state of extreme ignorance?
04-05-2017 22:56
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
spot wrote:AND SINCE THE ICE AGE HOW FAR HAS IT MOVED????

When you were doing top secrete work on rockets did you show such a clear inability to answer simple questions before they basically put peoples lives in your hands or was the rocket scientist bit all made up?

Or are you senile?


Fair point.

How about you answer my question, that old one.

Name a single thing is scary about a slightly warmer world, then;

1, What mechanism will cause this (your own words)?

2, What actual science do you have that supports this mechanism?

3, Is it going to cost more for any local council in the world that has traffic lights than the cost of those traffic lights?
04-05-2017 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.


Modern GPS is capable of measuring continental movements (horizontally) reasonably accurately, when compared to a referenced position.

They suck at vertical measurements.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2017 23:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

More reality denial from Wake.

...deleted redundant link...

The graph on that page shows how mean global sea level has risen over the past few decades. The sea level measurements have been made by the TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. The links on that page point to information detailing how the measurements are made. Why not read it and educate yourself rather than making daft pronouncements from your current state of extreme ignorance?


The Jason series does NOT measure absolute sea level. The University of Colorado is manufacturing data.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2017 23:02
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1319)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.


My ex-British army friend was in the surveyors. Those that makethe maps. He could and had to make such measurements at one stage.

He was putting out maker points for anti-aircraft positions and they had to have a post in the ground to allow the AA to drive to the location and set up knowing their position to the cm. His maker posts gave the position of the post, the date it was made and the rate of drift of that piece of land.

Apparently modern AA does not need this as it gets even better numbers from satelites directly.

I don't get how they do it but apparently the satelities measure the center of the earth continiously off each other. (?)

Perhaps they can use the mirrors on the moon??
04-05-2017 23:03
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

More reality denial from Wake.

...deleted redundant link...

The graph on that page shows how mean global sea level has risen over the past few decades. The sea level measurements have been made by the TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. The links on that page point to information detailing how the measurements are made. Why not read it and educate yourself rather than making daft pronouncements from your current state of extreme ignorance?


The Jason series does NOT measure absolute sea level. The University of Colorado is manufacturing data.

Now you're just being ridiculous.
04-05-2017 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

There is no such thing as a 'global' climate.

You still haven't described 'climate change' in anything other than circular arguments. You haven't described 'global warming' either.


Since the ice age where did it move from?

You are so full of shit.

Rocket Scientist my arse.

Africa has been moving (and still is) eastward. At one time it was thought to be rotated about 90 deg to its present position. This is all conjecture of course.


AND SINCE THE ICE AGE HOW FAR HAS IT MOVED????
No one knows whether there WAS an ice age or how far Africa has moved since one.
spot wrote:
When you were doing top secrete work on rockets did you show such a clear inability to answer simple questions before they basically put peoples lives in your hands or was the rocket scientist bit all made up?

People fly happily on the stuff I helped to build. You yourself depend on my instrumentation for more than you know.
spot wrote:
Or are you senile?

Nope. I'm an evil corporation just trying to make a profit (and doing quite well).


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2017 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.


My ex-British army friend was in the surveyors. Those that makethe maps. He could and had to make such measurements at one stage.

He was putting out maker points for anti-aircraft positions and they had to have a post in the ground to allow the AA to drive to the location and set up knowing their position to the cm. His maker posts gave the position of the post, the date it was made and the rate of drift of that piece of land.

Apparently modern AA does not need this as it gets even better numbers from satelites directly.

I don't get how they do it but apparently the satelities measure the center of the earth continiously off each other. (?)

Perhaps they can use the mirrors on the moon??


The position of your marker is actually not accurately known, except by comparison to a single reference point (which in the case of GPS happens to be sidereal position as adjusted by WWV in Boulder, CO to Earth coordinates. Essentially, WWV is the reference station.

Mirrors on the Moon would actually be less accurate.

The satellites do not know where the 'center' of Earth is. Gravity changes depending on where the satellite is in its orbit due to variations in terrain. Speed also changes due to the effects of particle drag, either from our own atmosphere, or from the Sun.


The Parrot Killer
04-05-2017 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.

More reality denial from Wake.

...deleted redundant link...

The graph on that page shows how mean global sea level has risen over the past few decades. The sea level measurements have been made by the TOPEX, Jason-1 and Jason-2 satellites. The links on that page point to information detailing how the measurements are made. Why not read it and educate yourself rather than making daft pronouncements from your current state of extreme ignorance?


The Jason series does NOT measure absolute sea level. The University of Colorado is manufacturing data.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

Argument of the Stone. Reiteration of argument from randU. Argument from false authority.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2017 01:11
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
ITN

What you know and what is known are two very different things.

And you only can hint at what this thing is that you invented that is so important and ubiquitous. I rely on it but you won't say what this thing actually is? Why so coy?

You can see why people have trouble believing you can't you?

You say you made money for yourself, good for you.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
05-05-2017 01:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.


Modern GPS is capable of measuring continental movements (horizontally) reasonably accurately, when compared to a referenced position.

They suck at vertical measurements.


Civilian GPS is accurate to 5 feet or so on open land that doesn't have a lot of metal in the ground. Among buildings it can get completely lost if the angles of the satellites isn't proper.

The military version is accurate to about a foot.

Now maybe someone can explain how you can measure a couple of inches per year with this sort of high accuracy? Not to mention the actual motion in mm/yr.

Sea level changes are FAR worse since radar height is only as accurate as you can identify the accuracy of your orbit. And orbits are NOT accurate because of the moon and the differing densities of the Earth and the fact that the Earth is not round. with concentric orbits any altitude is highly questionable. Even if you have a reference altitude to measure to. (the top of the Arc de Triomphe?)

There are place on the Earth where they used direct measurements to record sea levels since the end of the Civil War. They recorded changes of about 1 mm per year. Lately we've been told that it changed to 2 mm per year "lately" whenever that was.

That would make the highest changes in sea level about 7 inches. But even this is not recorded in most locations in the world. Wouldn't you think that they could measure that in Venice where people's front doors are just above the highest tides?

Wouldn't you think that it would have had an immediate and dramatic effect in Holland which country is mostly below sea level from its beginning? They have raised the seawalls but because of the occasional super-storm.

As I said, the high tide marks in San Francisco have not changed since the piers were put in in the late 1800's. The low tide marks have not risen.

Almost ALL of this added water to the oceans have come from the melting of low latitude glaciers. They have now melted back to near the areas they were in previous to the Maunder Minimum. This suggests that we are about to see a pretty rapid end to any possible sea level rising.

The entire subject about how scientific we are misses the point that we aren't. We have seen large important studies completely reversed the following year.
Should this be considered unusual? Most major studies are built on a house of cards. We ACCEPT dark matter and black holes with the only proof of them is motion of the galaxies some of which do not show such effects.

We see all over the science outlets about how great the CRISPR/Cas DNA editing systems are. Of course no one knows what they are. We don't even know how most of them work.

And what is not known by the general population is that CRISPR/Cas is not A system - it's a naturally occurring DNA structure in a string of DNA that is used to kill Phages and Viruses. And every one of them is different so there are thousands of them. And a great many of them do not do anything at all because they were out-evolved by the Phages and Viruses. And we don't have any idea what replaced them.

On one of the "science" sites years ago I warned them that playing with CRISPR/Cas was very likely a spectacularly dangerous thing. They were using these things to edit DNA in an effort to treat inherited diseases. Good idea, bad method. We don't have sufficient information to understand how DNA actually works. A single gene can actually do a dozen things while they are treating them as if one gene does one thing. If you move one gene one single space away from where it is it can do something totally different. We have no idea what controls this or why.

The main reason I told them this wouldn't work is because we don't know how DNA reproduces and why. So if you edit a strand of DNA it will probably simply be a member of the group that isn't reproduced because among other things Cas leaves scars. And if it is reproduced it may never rise to the level where it is in enough target DNA to be useful.

Science is a target and not an achievement.
05-05-2017 02:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.


Modern GPS is capable of measuring continental movements (horizontally) reasonably accurately, when compared to a referenced position.

They suck at vertical measurements.


Civilian GPS is accurate to 5 feet or so on open land that doesn't have a lot of metal in the ground. Among buildings it can get completely lost if the angles of the satellites isn't proper.

Depends on the receiver, not on the amount of metal in the ground. Buildings tend to contain rebar or other metal in walls, shielding the signal. It has no effect on the accuracy of the receiver.
Wake wrote:
The military version is accurate to about a foot.

Better than that, actually. Most mobile units the foot soldiers get are accurate to about a foot.
Wake wrote:
Now maybe someone can explain how you can measure a couple of inches per year with this sort of high accuracy? Not to mention the actual motion in mm/yr.

Fixed emplacement for the receivers and well built local oscillators. The absolute position is better than military, but the relative movement is more accurate.
Wake wrote:
Sea level changes are FAR worse since radar height is only as accurate as you can identify the accuracy of your orbit. And orbits are NOT accurate because of the moon and the differing densities of the Earth and the fact that the Earth is not round. with concentric orbits any altitude is highly questionable. Even if you have a reference altitude to measure to. (the top of the Arc de Triomphe?)

Not a valid reference point. The Arc de Triomphe moves along with the rest of Paris (sometimes it moves independent of Paris!).
Wake wrote:
There are place on the Earth where they used direct measurements to record sea levels since the end of the Civil War. They recorded changes of about 1 mm per year. Lately we've been told that it changed to 2 mm per year "lately" whenever that was.

These places are called 'tidal' stations. They are not capable of such precision. The reference for these stations is the land they are sitting on, which moves.
Wake wrote:
That would make the highest changes in sea level about 7 inches. But even this is not recorded in most locations in the world. Wouldn't you think that they could measure that in Venice where people's front doors are just above the highest tides?

No.

Venice has high water because that land is sinking (quite a bit, too!).
Wake wrote:
Wouldn't you think that it would have had an immediate and dramatic effect in Holland which country is mostly below sea level from its beginning? They have raised the seawalls but because of the occasional super-storm.

Large portions of Holland were always below sea level. Storms have always been a problem with the dikes and seawalls. Nothing different to see here. What do you think all those windmills were for? To pump water!
Wake wrote:
As I said, the high tide marks in San Francisco have not changed since the piers were put in in the late 1800's. The low tide marks have not risen.

No one in San Francisco is measuring the tides to mm level accuracy.
Wake wrote:
Almost ALL of this added water to the oceans have come from the melting of low latitude glaciers. They have now melted back to near the areas they were in previous to the Maunder Minimum. This suggests that we are about to see a pretty rapid end to any possible sea level rising.

Wait...didn't you JUST SAY that San Francisco is NOT seeing any change in sea levels???

No one is measuring the worlds glaciers. Just a few selected ones are monitored at all.
Wake wrote:
The entire subject about how scientific we are misses the point that we aren't. We have seen large important studies completely reversed the following year.
Should this be considered unusual? Most major studies are built on a house of cards. We ACCEPT dark matter and black holes with the only proof of them is motion of the galaxies some of which do not show such effects.

Science isn't studies. Science isn't research. Science isn't observation. Science isn't speculation.
Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur material...

Science is a target and not an achievement.

Science is not a 'target' either. Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. It is an achievement that we have such a system that can so easily separate the solid argument from religion.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2017 02:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12800)
spot wrote:
ITN

What you know and what is known are two very different things.

Correct. I don't know what color car you like to drive, for instance.
spot wrote:
And you only can hint at what this thing is that you invented that is so important and ubiquitous. I rely on it but you won't say what this thing actually is? Why so coy?

I haven't been coy. I build instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace applications.
spot wrote:
You can see why people have trouble believing you can't you?

I really don't care if you believe me or not. I don't depend on my credentials for my arguments.
spot wrote:
You say you made money for yourself, good for you.

You believe I'm lying, but you also believe I make money for myself???

You aren't making sense anymore.


The Parrot Killer
05-05-2017 03:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
They can measure how fast the contents are moving, and changes in sea levels for that matter, with satellites.

But you pair of muppets keep making pompous declarations as if your opinions meant something.


Wow, are you really so stupid that you think that they can measure movements that on the best of times could be small fractions of an inch on a yearly scale? Do they teach you that in school?

They cannot measure sea level changes from satellites. The sea level measurements come from VERY few locations and are all ground based.


Modern GPS is capable of measuring continental movements (horizontally) reasonably accurately, when compared to a referenced position.

They suck at vertical measurements.


Civilian GPS is accurate to 5 feet or so on open land that doesn't have a lot of metal in the ground. Among buildings it can get completely lost if the angles of the satellites isn't proper.

Depends on the receiver, not on the amount of metal in the ground. Buildings tend to contain rebar or other metal in walls, shielding the signal. It has no effect on the accuracy of the receiver.
Wake wrote:
The military version is accurate to about a foot.

Better than that, actually. Most mobile units the foot soldiers get are accurate to about a foot.
Wake wrote:
Now maybe someone can explain how you can measure a couple of inches per year with this sort of high accuracy? Not to mention the actual motion in mm/yr.

Fixed emplacement for the receivers and well built local oscillators. The absolute position is better than military, but the relative movement is more accurate.
Wake wrote:
Sea level changes are FAR worse since radar height is only as accurate as you can identify the accuracy of your orbit. And orbits are NOT accurate because of the moon and the differing densities of the Earth and the fact that the Earth is not round. with concentric orbits any altitude is highly questionable. Even if you have a reference altitude to measure to. (the top of the Arc de Triomphe?)

Not a valid reference point. The Arc de Triomphe moves along with the rest of Paris (sometimes it moves independent of Paris!).
Wake wrote:
There are place on the Earth where they used direct measurements to record sea levels since the end of the Civil War. They recorded changes of about 1 mm per year. Lately we've been told that it changed to 2 mm per year "lately" whenever that was.

These places are called 'tidal' stations. They are not capable of such precision. The reference for these stations is the land they are sitting on, which moves.
Wake wrote:
That would make the highest changes in sea level about 7 inches. But even this is not recorded in most locations in the world. Wouldn't you think that they could measure that in Venice where people's front doors are just above the highest tides?

No.

Venice has high water because that land is sinking (quite a bit, too!).
Wake wrote:
Wouldn't you think that it would have had an immediate and dramatic effect in Holland which country is mostly below sea level from its beginning? They have raised the seawalls but because of the occasional super-storm.

Large portions of Holland were always below sea level. Storms have always been a problem with the dikes and seawalls. Nothing different to see here. What do you think all those windmills were for? To pump water!
Wake wrote:
As I said, the high tide marks in San Francisco have not changed since the piers were put in in the late 1800's. The low tide marks have not risen.

No one in San Francisco is measuring the tides to mm level accuracy.
Wake wrote:
Almost ALL of this added water to the oceans have come from the melting of low latitude glaciers. They have now melted back to near the areas they were in previous to the Maunder Minimum. This suggests that we are about to see a pretty rapid end to any possible sea level rising.

Wait...didn't you JUST SAY that San Francisco is NOT seeing any change in sea levels???

No one is measuring the worlds glaciers. Just a few selected ones are monitored at all.
Wake wrote:
The entire subject about how scientific we are misses the point that we aren't. We have seen large important studies completely reversed the following year.
Should this be considered unusual? Most major studies are built on a house of cards. We ACCEPT dark matter and black holes with the only proof of them is motion of the galaxies some of which do not show such effects.

Science isn't studies. Science isn't research. Science isn't observation. Science isn't speculation.
Wake wrote:
...deleted non-sequitur material...

Science is a target and not an achievement.

Science is not a 'target' either. Science is just the falsifiable theories themselves. It is an achievement that we have such a system that can so easily separate the solid argument from religion.


1. It is NOT the "accuracy of the receiver". It has to do with the triangulation of GPS satellites and that is PURPOSELY inaccurate closer than 5 feet so that they couldn't be used for targeting purposes. They also can all be turned off simultaneously. ANY metal in the ground or nearby can effect this triangulation. Where did you ever get your knowledge of American guidance systems?

2. No fixed position can tell you position motions greater than the average accuracy of the GPS system which is PURPOSELY inaccurate. Got that? Nuclear weapons require a direct strike on fortified positions. Most of these are "above top secret" but we know that the White House is a fortified position. Therefore your idea that you can somehow make accuracy out of inaccuracy is wrong.

3. Exactly what gives you the idea that the entire Paris bowl moves anywhere? Certainly since the geology of Paris is rather strange none of it moves independently of any other parts. The Eiffel Tower is EXACTLY the same height today as when it was built including something like a half a foot of expansion in the heat of day.

4. Venice is sinking because it is built at the mouth of the Po river. Or don't you understand sedimentary deposits? That doesn't mean that they do not know the normal rate of the subsidence or how high the extreme flooding of the Po river is. You know some people are at least as smart as you.

4. I am more than familiar with "tidal stations" and they are capable of measuring ANY differences whatsoever. Where in the hell did you get your knowledge of measurements? The ENTIRE existance of NOAA was to predict tides and currents. It was started by Thomas Jefferson as the National Ocean Service.

5. The San Francisco bay area contains five of the highest centers of learning in the United States and you're telling me that they do not measure sea levels. Thanks for that information. I'll be sure to tell that to my Stanford Professor when I see him on the 20th.

6. You have some of the screwiest ideas I could possibly imagine. Or do you find it somehow necessary to argue with others simply to prove something to yourself? MOST of science is wrong. And every additional bit of knowledge that is gained every day only improves our knowledge fractionally.

Your redefining science in your own terms does not change the fact that "science is the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment."

Study - got that? Not perfectly correct or almost correct or any other of your dumbass ideas - JUST THE STUDY.

Just like you have no idea what I'm talking about when I tell you you're all screwed up with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. No equation that you don't even know how to read ain't reality in the first place.
05-05-2017 07:04
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
I know the farmers have been real geeked up lately about the accuracy of their tractor GPSs that actually steer it for them to maximize optimum seed population and therefore yield. Wake appears to be right on this, and ITN. Sounds like triangulation under an inch to me.

The GPS receivers in the cab box receive data from three antennas mounted on roof of the cab. A portable AutoFarm base station antenna sends signals to the tractor, usually located within 6 miles of the field being worked. The base station, powered by a standard 12-volt marine or automobile battery, receives data from any number of more than 25 GPS satellites circling the globe. This differential data is then transmitted to the tractor, providing position correction to establish sub-inch path accuracy.

http://www.deltafarmpress.com/gps-autosteer-gives-sub-inch-accuracy
Edited on 05-05-2017 07:07
05-05-2017 10:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I know the farmers have been real geeked up lately about the accuracy of their tractor GPSs that actually steer it for them to maximize optimum seed population and therefore yield. Wake appears to be right on this, and ITN. Sounds like triangulation under an inch to me.

The GPS receivers in the cab box receive data from three antennas mounted on roof of the cab. A portable AutoFarm base station antenna sends signals to the tractor, usually located within 6 miles of the field being worked. The base station, powered by a standard 12-volt marine or automobile battery, receives data from any number of more than 25 GPS satellites circling the globe. This differential data is then transmitted to the tractor, providing position correction to establish sub-inch path accuracy.

http://www.deltafarmpress.com/gps-autosteer-gives-sub-inch-accuracy

That is certainly very interesting, but I'd just like to make two points:

1) Wake and ITN were, initially at least, arguing that GPS is insufficiently accurate to measure sea level change, so I'm not sure how you'd interpret high GPS accuracy as them being right.

2) As I've mentioned before, the satellites used for sea level measurement do not use GPS to determine their own vertical position with respect to the centre of the Earth. They use the dedicated, and highly accurate, DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system to do so. They then use radar to determine the altitude of the sea surface.
05-05-2017 15:55
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1714)
That is certainly very interesting, but I'd just like to make two points:

1) Wake and ITN were, initially at least, arguing that GPS is insufficiently accurate to measure sea level change, so I'm not sure how you'd interpret high GPS accuracy as them being right.

2) As I've mentioned before, the satellites used for sea level measurement do not use GPS to determine their own vertical position with respect to the centre of the Earth. They use the dedicated, and highly accurate, DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system to do so. They then use radar to determine the altitude of the sea surface.


Yeah they got off on ground accuracy and how they actually work.

However, I do not see any way to accurately measure sea level to 3 millimeters given all the variables....wind, storms, rising/sinking land, thermals, changing currents, pressures, evap. Not exactly reliable.
05-05-2017 17:05
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
That is certainly very interesting, but I'd just like to make two points:

1) Wake and ITN were, initially at least, arguing that GPS is insufficiently accurate to measure sea level change, so I'm not sure how you'd interpret high GPS accuracy as them being right.

2) As I've mentioned before, the satellites used for sea level measurement do not use GPS to determine their own vertical position with respect to the centre of the Earth. They use the dedicated, and highly accurate, DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system to do so. They then use radar to determine the altitude of the sea surface.


Yeah they got off on ground accuracy and how they actually work.

However, I do not see any way to accurately measure sea level to 3 millimeters given all the variables....wind, storms, rising/sinking land, thermals, changing currents, pressures, evap. Not exactly reliable.


The positioning is not from GPS with that sort of accuracy. It is from the base station. GPS gives the ground station a position and it then knows generally where the field is. Then the tractor based receiver triangulates to the ground station. That is why there is a three antenna array that is arranged in a perfectly spaced triangle.

The nutjob doesn't even know what DORIS is. It is entirely something different from what he is saying and is supposedly used for precise determination of orbits. The problem is that it is a French built system and you should know what that means. This system is used to determine the orbits of the altitude radar satellites but the positioning of these is less than the accuracy of a normal GPS. And that means that the PRECISE positioning of the Jason series of satellites is too coarse to have any exact levels as dumbass is saying.

The pure unadulterated ignorance of the True Believers has to be observed to be believed.
05-05-2017 17:29
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
That is certainly very interesting, but I'd just like to make two points:

1) Wake and ITN were, initially at least, arguing that GPS is insufficiently accurate to measure sea level change, so I'm not sure how you'd interpret high GPS accuracy as them being right.

2) As I've mentioned before, the satellites used for sea level measurement do not use GPS to determine their own vertical position with respect to the centre of the Earth. They use the dedicated, and highly accurate, DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system to do so. They then use radar to determine the altitude of the sea surface.


Yeah they got off on ground accuracy and how they actually work.

However, I do not see any way to accurately measure sea level to 3 millimeters given all the variables....wind, storms, rising/sinking land, thermals, changing currents, pressures, evap. Not exactly reliable.


The positioning is not from GPS with that sort of accuracy. It is from the base station. GPS gives the ground station a position and it then knows generally where the field is. Then the tractor based receiver triangulates to the ground station. That is why there is a three antenna array that is arranged in a perfectly spaced triangle.

The nutjob doesn't even know what DORIS is. It is entirely something different from what he is saying and is supposedly used for precise determination of orbits. The problem is that it is a French built system and you should know what that means. This system is used to determine the orbits of the altitude radar satellites but the positioning of these is less than the accuracy of a normal GPS. And that means that the PRECISE positioning of the Jason series of satellites is too coarse to have any exact levels as dumbass is saying.

The pure unadulterated ignorance of the True Believers has to be observed to be believed.

You really are a complete moron, aren't you? Read the description that I linked to and at least attempt to comprehend it. DORIS is a system that was specifically designed to allow satellites to determine their positions with high precision with respect to the centre of the Earth using a network of ground stations. GPS is the opposite: it allows terrestrial receivers to determine their position using signals from a network of satellites.
05-05-2017 18:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
ITN

What you know and what is known are two very different things.

Correct. I don't know what color car you like to drive, for instance.
spot wrote:
And you only can hint at what this thing is that you invented that is so important and ubiquitous. I rely on it but you won't say what this thing actually is? Why so coy?

I haven't been coy. I build instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace applications.
spot wrote:
You can see why people have trouble believing you can't you?

I really don't care if you believe me or not. I don't depend on my credentials for my arguments.
spot wrote:
You say you made money for yourself, good for you.

You believe I'm lying, but you also believe I make money for myself???

You aren't making sense anymore.


You are being obtuse

True the colour of car I like is not something you can know. But you could have, and I would argue should have taken the time to find out about the ice ages from a book for example before making declarations about it.

As for the whatever it was you seemed to imply that you were the go-to guy to make thingy that Rockets depend on, and that is important because you don't really give any means of verifying your many claims, but we should listen to you because you are an expert on, whatever it is you chose to comment on.

You seem to be implying that you made a lot of money doing whatever it was, You think that should bother me, It doesn't.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
05-05-2017 18:20
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
ITN

What you know and what is known are two very different things.

Correct. I don't know what color car you like to drive, for instance.
spot wrote:
And you only can hint at what this thing is that you invented that is so important and ubiquitous. I rely on it but you won't say what this thing actually is? Why so coy?

I haven't been coy. I build instrumentation for industrial, medical, and aerospace applications.
spot wrote:
You can see why people have trouble believing you can't you?

I really don't care if you believe me or not. I don't depend on my credentials for my arguments.
spot wrote:
You say you made money for yourself, good for you.

You believe I'm lying, but you also believe I make money for myself???

You aren't making sense anymore.


You are being obtuse

True the colour of car I like is not something you can know. But you could have, and I would argue should have taken the time to find out about the ice ages from a book for example before making declarations about it.

As for the whatever it was you seemed to imply that you were the go-to guy to make thingy that Rockets depend on, and that is important because you don't really give any means of verifying your many claims, but we should listen to you because you are an expert on, whatever it is you chose to comment on.

You seem to be implying that you made a lot of money doing whatever it was, You think that should bother me, It doesn't.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
05-05-2017 20:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
That is certainly very interesting, but I'd just like to make two points:

1) Wake and ITN were, initially at least, arguing that GPS is insufficiently accurate to measure sea level change, so I'm not sure how you'd interpret high GPS accuracy as them being right.

2) As I've mentioned before, the satellites used for sea level measurement do not use GPS to determine their own vertical position with respect to the centre of the Earth. They use the dedicated, and highly accurate, DORIS (Doppler Orbitography and Radiopositioning Integrated by Satellite) system to do so. They then use radar to determine the altitude of the sea surface.


Yeah they got off on ground accuracy and how they actually work.

However, I do not see any way to accurately measure sea level to 3 millimeters given all the variables....wind, storms, rising/sinking land, thermals, changing currents, pressures, evap. Not exactly reliable.


The positioning is not from GPS with that sort of accuracy. It is from the base station. GPS gives the ground station a position and it then knows generally where the field is. Then the tractor based receiver triangulates to the ground station. That is why there is a three antenna array that is arranged in a perfectly spaced triangle.

The nutjob doesn't even know what DORIS is. It is entirely something different from what he is saying and is supposedly used for precise determination of orbits. The problem is that it is a French built system and you should know what that means. This system is used to determine the orbits of the altitude radar satellites but the positioning of these is less than the accuracy of a normal GPS. And that means that the PRECISE positioning of the Jason series of satellites is too coarse to have any exact levels as dumbass is saying.

The pure unadulterated ignorance of the True Believers has to be observed to be believed.

You really are a complete moron, aren't you? Read the description that I linked to and at least attempt to comprehend it. DORIS is a system that was specifically designed to allow satellites to determine their positions with high precision with respect to the centre of the Earth using a network of ground stations. GPS is the opposite: it allows terrestrial receivers to determine their position using signals from a network of satellites.


If the person writing the article doesn't know how it works YOU don't know how it works because you haven't a lick of training. All DORIS does is calculate orbits. And as they SAY IN THE FRENCH MANUAL IT ISN'T EVEN AS ACCURATE AS GPS.

There is NO need for three antennas on a tractor. Do you have three antennas on your hand held GPS you ignorant moron? But there is a need for three antennas if you are triangulating from a group of ground stations.

Tell me - why is someone that hasn't any training reading an article from somewhere and then pretending that he knows what is going on?
05-05-2017 20:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Earth has many climates. They do not change.

So now you're adding ice ages to the long list of scientific discoveries that you deny?


As is normal, you just had your ass handed to you. You really have to act like Moses and get away from de nile.

So you agree with ITN that the Earth's climates do not change? That the Sahara has been desert since the Earth was created? That the ice ages and interglacial periods never happened?

That's just off the scale. Even the most ardent deniers of AGW generally accept that the Earth's climates change naturally. Indeed that is frequently one of the (flawed) arguments they use to imply that humans are not responsible for climate change.


Weather changes. Climate doesn't.

What we currently call the Sahara desert happens to be a desert climate. That bit of land wasn't always a desert climate. It was more temperate at one time. The climate didn't change, the weather did, probably because that bit of land moved.

That simply doesn't make sense. If that bit of land wasn't always a desert climate, then it must previously have had a different (i.e. not desert) climate. Hence its climate must have changed.


Nope. The westher changed. You can have different climates, but they cannot change. You have no way to describe a 'change' in a climate. There is no way to describe a delta by any unit that makes sense.

Still trying to define 'climate change' in a circular manner. Keep trying.


You might find this interesting: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.852/pdf

The Greenland glaciers are actually growing unlike the leftist liars are crying to the four winds.
05-05-2017 20:37
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:


The Greenland glaciers are actually growing unlike the leftist liars are crying to the four winds.


Global temperatures are expected to increase further this century (Houghton et al.,
2001), contributing 58% of global sea level rise between the years 1990 and 2100 (Gregory and Oerlemans,
1998). Given temperatures approaching those of the most recent climatic optimum, ∼2.5 thousand years ago
(Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998), the possibility of future rapid melting and ice discharges (Heinrich events) should
be investigated further.


From the report you think backs you up.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
05-05-2017 21:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:


The Greenland glaciers are actually growing unlike the leftist liars are crying to the four winds.


Global temperatures are expected to increase further this century (Houghton et al.,
2001), contributing 58% of global sea level rise between the years 1990 and 2100 (Gregory and Oerlemans,
1998). Given temperatures approaching those of the most recent climatic optimum, ∼2.5 thousand years ago
(Dahl-Jensen et al., 1998), the possibility of future rapid melting and ice discharges (Heinrich events) should
be investigated further.


From the report you think backs you up.


How is it that you don't seem to recognize things like:

"expected to increase", "Given temperatures", "the possibility"?

Especially in the light that not ONE SINGLE prediction has met or even gotten close to being accurate?

Why is the NOAA telling us that "if it weren't for man the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it presently is" when the TOTAL MGT increase in the last 121 years has been 0.8 degrees C? Do you understand that isn't even within the normal bounds of variability?

That the population during this period has gone from 1.5 billion to over 7 Billion?

Look at this graph - https://www.google.com/search?q=earth%27s+population+graph&rlz=1C1KMZB_enUS532US532&tbm=isch&imgil=uVlUkrfTYvI56M%253A%253BAPWIxE_2gOdGIM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fwww.climatecentral.org%25252Fnews%25252Fclimate-change-behind-surge-western-wildfires-20775&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uVlUkrfTYvI56M%253A%252CAPWIxE_2gOdGIM%252C_&usg=__a08Qp20UhZM45n1ktE1jh54KaKk%3D&biw=1422&bih=684&dpr=1.13&ved=0ahUKEwjI7ayprdnTAhUX5mMKHU5ADpMQyjcIOA&ei=jsAMWcjuEZfMjwPOgLmYCQ#imgrc=uVlUkrfTYvI56M:

Look at that and you'll notice that it is almost identical to the so-called increase in MGT as portrayed by the NOAA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg

Do these people have to kick you in the nuts before you get the idea that they have something other than your well being in mind?
07-05-2017 13:48
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:

Why is the NOAA telling us that "if it weren't for man the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it presently is" when the TOTAL MGT increase in the last 121 years has been 0.8 degrees C? Do you understand that isn't even within the normal bounds of variability?



NOAA is telling us that? I think you will find that you are misinformed. Only a swivel eyed conspiracy theorist would think that they did.

Without a greenhouse effect the earth would be about that temperature as anyone with a smattering of scientific knowledge knows. But NOAA did not make the claim that you said they made and if you had any thing approaching a clue of the subject you are spending so much time arguing with people on the internet about you would know that.

Anyway I'm off on holiday so I will leave you arguing with your fellow halfwit ITN for the rest of eternity.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
07-05-2017 18:28
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

Why is the NOAA telling us that "if it weren't for man the Earth would be 33 degrees cooler than it presently is" when the TOTAL MGT increase in the last 121 years has been 0.8 degrees C? Do you understand that isn't even within the normal bounds of variability?



NOAA is telling us that? I think you will find that you are misinformed. Only a swivel eyed conspiracy theorist would think that they did.

Without a greenhouse effect the earth would be about that temperature as anyone with a smattering of scientific knowledge knows. But NOAA did not make the claim that you said they made and if you had any thing approaching a clue of the subject you are spending so much time arguing with people on the internet about you would know that.

Anyway I'm off on holiday so I will leave you arguing with your fellow halfwit ITN for the rest of eternity.


Off to bite the big one no doubt: (Union of Concerned Scientists) "It all started in the 1820s, when a French mathematician named Joseph Fourier realized that, for the earth to be in equilibrium with the energy it was receiving from the sun every day, it should be a lot cooler than it actually is: around 33 degrees Celsius, or nearly 60 degrees Fahrenheit cooler. In fact, it should be a ball of frozen ice. But it isn't." (This was repeated in the NOAA reports.)

The meteorologist W. J. Humphreys, for one, wrote in Atlantic magazine in 1932 that the current situation was close to the conditions where ice sheets had ruled. Thus "we must be just teetering on an ice age which some relatively mild geologic action would be sufficient to start going." It was his claim that the Panama Canal could cause an ice age by changing the Gulf Stream. So religious freaks that believe that only man can effect the climate have been around for a long time.

When weather patterns were modeled on a computer they discovered that they actually showed things like tornadoes and hurricanes form. That this was a completely natural condition not of extra heat but of a temperature differential between the poles and the equator and the rotational pattern of the Earth.

So if there WERE global warming this temperature differential would be reduced and there would be fewer weather extremes. And this is what we have been measuring.

And the Milankovic Cycles causes this effect by moving the more direct path of the Sun either north or south. Since the effect of moving the Sun north is to heat more land area and melt more land ice this is the cause of warming and cooling over geologic time.

ALL energy escapes from the Earth via radiation but in order to do that it must be carried into the upper atmosphere. The ONLY direct escape route for the Earth's radiation is the 40 uM hole so ALL other energy isn't transferred through direct radiation but almost entirely by being absorbed by the water in the atmosphere and moved into the upper atmosphere via conduction and convection.

Even when CO2 was a major component of the atmosphere it had little to no effect. During the Jurassic Period the CO2 was about 20% or so and the climate was about as it is today.

It would appear that plant life has in fact attempted to kill itself out. Before animal life appeared plants had gone crazy and had drawn the atmospheric CO2 down to level in which photosynthesis could not occur. Then evolution stepped in an evolved animals that did not need CO2 and could survive on O2 which was the waste product of plants.

Experiments on growing plants in atmospheres of higher CO2 demonstrates that at 700 ppm plants develop about three times as rapidly as pre-industrial age CO2 levels.

A green Earth is one with a lot of CO2 which has almost no effect on the atmospheric heat.
15-05-2017 17:15
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: During the Jurassic Period the CO2 was about 20% or so and the climate was about as it is today.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" came to this AGW denier liar whiner website, toting its science & mathematics background. It was immediately unmasked for using multiple erroneous mathematics (& even stretching his errors). It has waited months now. Pretending people don't remember its erroneous math errors (& stretched errors), "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" tries erroneous mathematics (& stretched math) again.
It is good that "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" continues to denounce its past history in science & mathematics.
Edited on 15-05-2017 17:18
16-05-2017 15:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"tipped the leaky AGW denier liar whiner plunger" toppled: Fair point.

"tipped the leaky AGW denier liar whiner plunger" should have stopped, instead of attacking, after admitting to good AGW advocate points.
Edited on 16-05-2017 15:44
02-06-2017 03:38
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote:
"tipped the leaky AGW denier liar whiner plunger" toppled: Fair point.

"tipped the leaky AGW denier liar whiner plunger" should have stopped, instead of attacking, after admitting to good AGW advocate points.

Meanwhile:
Larsen C cracks further, this time almost two miles per day in the last 6 six days & is ~ 10 miles from complete severance. Larsen C with many other 4000+ year old Antarctic AND Arctic ice shelf breakages in the last number of decades, continues the mounting phenomenon of AGW.
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/massive-crack-in-antarctica-ice-shelf-grows-11-miles-in-only-6-days/ar-BBBMSAL?OCID=ansmsnnews11
03-06-2017 04:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7085)
litesong wrote:Meanwhile:
Larsen C cracks further, this time almost two miles per day in the last 6 six days & is ~ 10 miles from complete severance.

Hey litesong buddy! I just thought I'd drop in and see how you're doing.

I heard that the Larsen C is inevitably cracking due to the huge, indomitable ice mass that has accumulated. It probably wouldn't be cracking if Antarctica weren't accumulating record ice.

litesong wrote: Larsen C with many other 4000+ year old Antarctic AND Arctic ice shelf breakages in the last number of decades, continues the mounting phenomenon of AGW.

It looks like the reason for all the cracks is all the record ice accumulation. With that much ice, cracks are going to happen.

The reason there's so much ice mass accumuation in Antarctica is that the AGW Berserker spends his time in the High Arctic.

Hey litesong, you rock!


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-06-2017 17:56
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no-sigh-ants mann" muffs:
litesong wrote:Meanwhile:
Larsen C cracks further, this time almost two miles per day in the last 6 six days & is ~ 10 miles from complete severance.

wouldn't be cracking if Antarctica weren't accumulating record ice.

litesong wrote: Larsen C with many other 4000+ year old Antarctic AND Arctic ice shelf breakages in the last number of decades, continues the mounting phenomenon of AGW.

record ice accumulation.


"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no-sigh-ants mann" muffs because it found 1 sigh-ants paper portion that said there was Antarctic snow accumulation & did NOT READ the other two portions that determining overall ice & snow loss.
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner i b da no-sigh-ants mann" knows all this, but continues its anti-AGW stance..... as he continues its racial kkk bias.
Edited on 03-06-2017 17:56
05-06-2017 01:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
litesong wrote:
Which in itself is amazing. The man with the IQ of a slow idiot can actually write.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Climate change denier crosses from the dark side:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Showing the Sunny Side of the Millennials1028-10-2017 21:50
Climate denier Myron Ebell as head of EPA?3311-06-2017 21:56
The greenhouse effect denier Enceladus2101-05-2017 17:41
Side effects of injecting sulfur into the atmosphere (geoengineering)914-10-2016 22:04
Preferred word in lieu of "GW Denier"4020-09-2016 00:48
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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