Climate Data 800,000 years

JizzGuzzler belched:

GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.

GreenMan wrote:

Won't Wake Up mumbled something about:

GreenMan wrote: I don't think I care if you think the data I used in "manufactured," because it is the only data we have and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth, because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy." The data I used was meticulously averaged. The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data. It just means that some of Satan's High Priests are busy confusing everyone.

I'm not in the least surprised that you would think that since manufactured data is the only data you have you have to use it.

You shouldn't be surprised either, since it was the only thing to do. Only it wasn't manufactured data. The data were produced not manufactured. Produced from ice, where traces of minerals and gases that indicate the climate of our planet were frozen.

To accuse every scientific organization of colluding to manufacture data that shows that the planet is warming is insane.

GreenMan wrote:

JizzGuzzler belched:

GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.

Nah, nothing like that at all. A 1 degree change in temperature wouldn't hurt us much. In fact, we have already done that, if you can trust those shady scientists that track such data. If it were just a few degrees it wouldn't be difficult to get through. We would just have to make a few changes to where we live.

The global average temperature will increase well beyond our ability to live, if nothing is done to prevent it.

[b]Wake wrote:....too stupid to read that chart you will see that we are presently at the coldest point that we've been at in 5.5 Million years. And that temperature for the present is direct measurement.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Won't Wake Up mumbled something about:

GreenMan wrote: I don't think I care if you think the data I used in "manufactured," because it is the only data we have and using it was the only way I had to determine the truth, because of so many Satanic missionaries in the world, preaching "Don't Worry, Be Happy." The data I used was meticulously averaged. The raw data might be "in question," as far as you are concerned, but that doesn't mean it is erroneous data. It just means that some of Satan's High Priests are busy confusing everyone.

I'm not in the least surprised that you would think that since manufactured data is the only data you have you have to use it.

You shouldn't be surprised either, since it was the only thing to do. Only it wasn't manufactured data. The data were produced not manufactured. Produced from ice, where traces of minerals and gases that indicate the climate of our planet were frozen.

To accuse every scientific organization of colluding to manufacture data that shows that the planet is warming is insane.

Tell you what - take a bottle of carbonated water and freeze it solid. Then thaw it out and tell us all where the bubbles went.

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?

Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?

Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.

Now you are supporting Greenman's contention that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?

Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.

Now you are supporting Greenman's contention that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?

Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

JizzGuzzler belched:

GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.

Nah, nothing like that at all. A 1 degree change in temperature wouldn't hurt us much. In fact, we have already done that, if you can trust those shady scientists that track such data. If it were just a few degrees it wouldn't be difficult to get through. We would just have to make a few changes to where we live.

The global average temperature will increase well beyond our ability to live, if nothing is done to prevent it.

More of your "produced data".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

If you aren't too stupid to read that chart you will see that we are presently at the coldest point that we've been at in 5.5 Million years. And that temperature for the present is direct measurement.

If you only had a brain Mr. Scarecrow.

Or perhaps you would prefer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

JizzGuzzler belched:

GreenMan wrote:
And always remember that, just because you are paranoid, it doesn't mean that they aren't out to get you.

LOL....this from the guy who has a bomb shelter and food storage because there's a chance the temperature may go up 1 degree. Rich.

Nah, nothing like that at all. A 1 degree change in temperature wouldn't hurt us much. In fact, we have already done that, if you can trust those shady scientists that track such data. If it were just a few degrees it wouldn't be difficult to get through. We would just have to make a few changes to where we live.

The global average temperature will increase well beyond our ability to live, if nothing is done to prevent it.

More of your "produced data".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

If you aren't too stupid to read that chart you will see that we are presently at the coldest point that we've been at in 5.5 Million years. And that temperature for the present is direct measurement.

If you only had a brain Mr. Scarecrow.

Or perhaps you would prefer:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geologic_temperature_record#/media/File:65_Myr_Climate_Change.png

So why do you think that because the planet's climate was once warmer than it is now, that humans will be ok with it getting that warm again? Humans weren't even around back when it was that warm. We have evolved, and so has the rest of life on the planet, to live in this environment.

What makes you think we can all go back to living in a climate that we have no tolerance for? You have no idea what a few degrees of average global temperature change will do to our planet, because no one does. It's about like guessing about what Heaven will be like.

All we really know for sure, is that it is going to continue getting warmer as time goes on. And I have a Climate Model that accurately backcasts the climate of the earth for 800,000 years. That model predicts that the earth's average temperature will increase by about 50C from where it is now. I have no idea what will happen if that is anywhere near close to reality, but it won't be good. Nothing on earth is capable of living in that heat, except for a few microbes that live ocean vents, warmed by geothermal activity. It's reasonable to conclude that life will return to that, and then in a few million years it will evolve back to more intelligent life again. Let's hope the next time life evolves to an even more intelligent species than we currently are, before they develop the technology to destroy themselves, again. Or even better, let's hope that we are intelligent enough to respond to this threat in a timely manner, and save a few living things to repopulate the planet with.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?

Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.

Now you are supporting Greenman's contention that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy?

Sorry, but Greenman does not contend that the air absorbs the majority of the sun's energy.

GreenMan wrote:
Greenman contends that the air lets all of the sun's energy strike the earth, and that the air only absorbs some of the earth's radiation, and gives it back at heat.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
From Wikipedia

Who said it did? What was said is that the vast majority of the Sun's radiation is in the visible bands and those are not absorbed by the air. Instead they are absorbed by the Earth and it's plant life.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight#/media/File:Solar_spectrum_en.svg

Why do you insist on making statements as if what has been said is something entirely different?

Heh. Probably for the same reason YOU do.

It's a common ploy among charlatans to make it seem as if they know more than the person they are attacking. Appears you two use the same tactic out of necessity. You both lack any real evidence to support your claims.

GreenMan wrote:
I added one of Professor Parrot Face's comments to my signature line, because it contradicts most of what he tries to preach in here.

GreenMan wrote:
How about taking a look at the graph that was posted,
...deleted manufactured data...
and try explaining why it isn't getting cooler each year,

GreenMan wrote:
since the insolation from the sun is decreasing a little each year?

GreenMan wrote:
You can argue, like your Parrot Face friend that it's bad information,

GreenMan wrote:
because it comes from Wikipedia,

GreenMan wrote:
but that doesn't change the fact that it's good information,

GreenMan wrote:
and can be found elsewhere.

GreenMan wrote:
The truth is that we should be cooling off,

GreenMan wrote:
if the sun were the only thing responsible for Earth's climate.

GreenMan wrote:
So please offer up your explanation, if you want to sound intelligent for a change.

GreenMan wrote:
You too, Professor Parrot Face. Let's here from you why you think it isn't cooling off,

GreenMan wrote:
like it should, if the sun were the only force behind our climate.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I added one of Professor Parrot Face's comments to my signature line, because it contradicts most of what he tries to preach in here.

Nope no contradiction at all. Thanks for being so gracious to repeat it in every one of your posts.

GreenMan wrote:
How about taking a look at the graph that was posted,
...deleted manufactured data...
and try explaining why it isn't getting cooler each year,

You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You don't know if it's getting warmer, colder, or just staying the same.

GreenMan wrote:
since the insolation from the sun is decreasing a little each year?

Is it? How do you know? Have you been measuring all the sunlight striking the Earth?

GreenMan wrote:
You can argue, like your Parrot Face friend that it's bad information,

Thank you for saying it. It is bad information.

GreenMan wrote:
because it comes from Wikipedia,

No, because it is manufactured data. Wikipedia often publishes manufactured data. It is also biased. That's why I do not accept it as a source.

GreenMan wrote:
but that doesn't change the fact that it's good information,

Oh...just because YOU call it good information, that automatically makes it good information eh?

GreenMan wrote:
and can be found elsewhere.

True. A lot of people are publishing manufactured data.

GreenMan wrote:
The truth is that we should be cooling off,

There is no way to know.

GreenMan wrote:
if the sun were the only thing responsible for Earth's climate.

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

GreenMan wrote:
So please offer up your explanation, if you want to sound intelligent for a change.

Now THERE's a loaded challenge!

GreenMan wrote:
You too, Professor Parrot Face. Let's here from you why you think it isn't cooling off,

I might very well be. There is no way to know.

GreenMan wrote:
like it should, if the sun were the only force behind our climate.

There is no such thing as global climate. There is no such thing as global weather.

IF the Sun is putting out less power, the Earth will be cooler. It is the only significant source of energy for Earth.

GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

GreenMan wrote:
There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

GreenMan wrote:
You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet.

GreenMan wrote:
You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world.

GreenMan wrote:
And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays,

GreenMan wrote:
even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light.

GreenMan wrote:
And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average.

GreenMan wrote:
As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

GreenMan wrote:
You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either.

GreenMan wrote:
Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance.

We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data.

GreenMan wrote:
You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

GreenMan wrote:
And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else.

GreenMan wrote:
And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think.

GreenMan wrote:
We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?

GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.

So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.

So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.

Did you bother to look at the graph, dingle berry? The average temperature has never been that high. If you need help interpreting graphs, you should probably visit your local elementary school. I'm sure they have a 1st grade teacher that can help you.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.

So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.

Did you bother to look at the graph, dingle berry? The average temperature has never been that high. If you need help interpreting graphs, you should probably visit your local elementary school. I'm sure they have a 1st grade teacher that can help you.

Perhaps you are incapable of reading the very chart that you use to demonstrate your point? You are really out of it.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

Back to trying to figure out philosophy again, are you? Oh well...another area you are horribly illiterate in.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes; Oh Faithful One.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet.

I can't change the mathematics. You can't either.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world.

Welcome to your new paradox.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays,

Satellites can't measure temperature.

GreenMan wrote:
even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light.

That light is not an accurate representation of absolute temperature. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average.

Math error: Selection by opportunity. Selection with bias by failing to eliminate influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
Logic error: Assumption of data. Manufactured data. Argument from randU.
Science error: Attempt to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law through misuse of dependent and independent variables. Assumption of measured constant through an argument from randU.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

No, you can't. You can't just assume a value for emissivity. You can't just assume a value for temperature. Data selection for statistics must be by randN and independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as location or location grouping, in the case of temperature).

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either.

There is, but I bet you don't know what it is!

GreenMan wrote:
Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance.

We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data.

Actually, it does.

GreenMan wrote:
You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

I have checked. The output of the Sun is very slightly decreasing this past year so far, and has been for a couple of years now.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else.

Go check the Data Mine. You are just making rash assumptions and claiming your data is good simply because you said so.

GreenMan wrote:
And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think.

I agree...so I'll not take part in your religion.

GreenMan wrote:
We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

Did you know the guy was actually ELECTED? Did you know that Republicans CONTINUE to get elected?

Into the Night wrote:

I already AM on Trump's team. I am a citizen of the United States, own my own business, and help stop pollution and make industry more efficient. That industry in turn can make their products cheaper, and make products that never existed before.

Too bad the Church of Karl Marx wants to call that evil.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?

Pantywaist? What the hell does that mean anyway? You're such a moron.
China, India, and Russia are all part of the Paris Accord to cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We are the only country being led by a complete idiot. And guess what, genius, we are the leading CO2 producers per capita.

GreenMan wrote:
This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote: This graph shows what the average global temperature will climb to, if nothing changes.

So you show a graph in which the temperature has done this many times before exactly like this and recovered all by itself and now you're saying something must be done.

You certainly demonstrate a mental capacity of a blackhead.

Did you bother to look at the graph, dingle berry? The average temperature has never been that high. If you need help interpreting graphs, you should probably visit your local elementary school. I'm sure they have a 1st grade teacher that can help you.

GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

You avoid answering a lot of questions simply by claiming there is no way of knowing the temperature of the planet. You are correct in that there is no way to measure its absolute value. But we do measure it with thermometers spread around the world. And they even use satellites to measure the temperature nowadays, even though they don't really measure the temperature, they read the light. And we can compare those readings, whether from satellite or thermometers and get a fairly close annual average. As long as we do it the same way each year, then we can compare those averages and determine if the planet is getting warmer or cooler, or even staying the same.

You also claim there is no way of knowing what the insolation from the sun really is either. Again you are using the same tactic of ignore-ance. We have that information. You have shown no reason to doubt it, other than it doesn't fit your criteria for acceptable data. You don't even know though, because you haven't bothered to check. You would rather just assume it is wrong. I guess that works for you, but it doesn't do your argument much good.

And none of this does your credibility any good either. Ignoring solid data is about the same as lying, because you are lying to yourself. If you will lie to yourself, then you would lie to everyone else. And you know what, the world doesn't need another liar telling us what to do or what to think. We have enough of that already with the current regime at the White House. Is that what you are trying to do? Are you trying to get on Trump's team?

Tell me pantywaist - since we're all going to die from global warming anyway what does it matter who is President and what he does? Do you suppose cutting US emissions 100% would have any effect now that China and India and Russia are the world's largest CO2 generators?

Pantywaist? What the hell does that mean anyway? You're such a moron.
China, India, and Russia are all part of the Paris Accord to cut Greenhouse Gas Emissions. We are the only country being led by a complete idiot. And guess what, genius, we are the leading CO2 producers per capita.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

Back to trying to figure out philosophy again, are you? Oh well...another area you are horribly illiterate in.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes; Oh Faithful One.

Climate Change is the result of the earth's global average temperature either increasing or decreasing over time, that is sustained long enough to force inhabitants to live elsewhere.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
There's no such thing as..............anything that doesn't fit into your version of reality. So there is no such thing as ever changing your twisted mind. But perhaps there are people who are interested in knowing what is really going on.

Back to trying to figure out philosophy again, are you? Oh well...another area you are horribly illiterate in.

Define 'climate change' without using circular definitions, links, or quotes; Oh Faithful One.

Climate Change is the result of the earth's global average temperature either increasing or decreasing over time, that is sustained long enough to force inhabitants to live elsewhere.

So...'climate change' is 'climate change', but you are limiting the word 'climate' to 'temperature'....got it.

Circular definition. Try again.

Attaching 'forcing inhabitants to live elsewhere' doesn't work. Are you talking about global 'climate change'. There is no elsewhere.

There is no global weather. There is no global 'climate'.

It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth to any useful degree of accuracy.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I can't change the mathematics. You can't either.

You don't have to change the mathematics to know the difference in the average global temperature from year to year. All you have to do is apply some very basic mathematics. Is it too hard for you to subtract two numbers? Is it the decimal point that the evil scientists put in there that gives you such a hard time?

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Welcome to your new paradox.

I'm thinking you are over using that little catch phrase.

GreenMan wrote:
There is no paradox in using instruments around the world to determine the average global temperature. As long as those instruments don't change from year to year, they give us a good indication of how much the average global temperature has changed over the years.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
That light is not an accurate representation of absolute temperature. You don't know what the emissivity of Earth is.

Well smarter people than you and I have figured out some way to determine the temperature with satellites. Your AGW Denier god Roy Spencer even uses satellite data.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Math error: Selection by opportunity. Selection with bias by failing to eliminate influencing aspects of data. Failure to normalize against paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.
Logic error: Assumption of data. Manufactured data. Argument from randU.
Science error: Attempt to redefine the Stefan-Boltzmann law through misuse of dependent and independent variables. Assumption of measured constant through an argument from randU.

That looks like copy paste propaganda from your local Church of AGW Denial's website. You are just claiming that the data is worthless, because it doesn't prove anything that you feel compelled to believe in.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You can't just assume a value for emissivity. You can't just assume a value for temperature. Data selection for statistics must be by randN and independent of any aspect of the data itself (such as location or location grouping, in the case of temperature).

We're not working on a statistical analysis that tells us how many people we can expect to eat our new flavor of Cheerios in the morning. We are working on understanding the relationship of Greenhouse Gases and the planet's climate. We are doing so with limited data, and until some better data comes along that we can use, we are going to have to use what we have. The data I used was good enough to accurately backcast the climate for 800,000 years. There is no way that random numbers could come even close to doing that.