Remember me
▼ Content

Denying the Deniers



Page 1 of 212>
Denying the Deniers23-08-2017 21:47
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
What do the True Believers do when scientific evidence appears that shows that NOAA manipulated the data to make global warming both appear to be very much greater than even possible?

They deny it. They go into character assassination of world famous scientists as easily as the flick of an eye.

And what credentials do these True Believers have? Let's go over those of the Skeptical Science Team:

1. A man with a Master's in ....... remote sensing. Who writes books for a living.
2. A senior lecturer in ............... computer science
3. Many more - all basically in the UK and all of them equally unqualified to speak on the level of Dr. Roy Spencer who was a Senior Scientist in charge of NASA remote sensing satellite program.

Greenman who writes like a high school student didn't feel the slightest remorse in assassinating the character of Dr. Roy Spencer - not just a world renown scientist but himself a leader of NASA temperature sensing satellite. There's someone that a computer scientist can really refute.

What did we get from the child? "He took money from an oil firm." What evidence did he have of that? None.

I have forwarded greenman's personal attacks to Dr. Spencer in the event he wants to take actions on Greenman. Putting the child's family on the street could perhaps (but unlikely) cause him to think before assassinating the character of a world famous scientist.

Of course Greenman is more than happy to make claims on behalf the True Believers because his own credentials are so impressive. What are they again? Oh, yeah, he's a high school student. Between being really smart he likes to play Game of Thrones.
23-08-2017 22:52
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
As a fan of Dr. Roy Spencer, you might care to read his brief explanation of how the greenhouse effect works:

Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell

Note that he doesn't deny that greenhouse gases exist or that the earth is warming (I don't think any climate scientist does)! He merely disagrees on the strength of the associated feedbacks.
Edited on 23-08-2017 23:26
24-08-2017 00:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
As a fan of Dr. Roy Spencer, you might care to read his brief explanation of how the greenhouse effect works:

[url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/]Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell[/url]

Note that he doesn't deny that greenhouse gases exist or that the earth is warming (I don't think any climate scientist does)! He merely disagrees on the strength of the associated feedbacks.


And his specialty is remote monitoring of temperature via satellites and not the physics of spectroscopy. He also admits that he has heard the claims of the one open band of CO2 being in saturation and doesn't know anything about it. All his comments are about the actual temperature changes and NOAA and NASA have openly lied about that.

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming...it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade."

That statement shows that "climate science" is the antithesis of science.

"The "Holy Grail": Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of 'radiative forcing', of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space."

ANY scientist could tell you that because of the immense amount of energy being radiated upon the Earth because of the Sun that ANY reduction of the emissions of energy back into space would have immediate and drastic results. That means the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth. And it just so happens that we are at the peak of all three Milankovitch cycles for the northern hemisphere. And where is the warming being measured? In the northern hemisphere.

"The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of....the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. "

Tell us Surface Defect - does that sound like he is blaming any warming we may have on CO2?
24-08-2017 01:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
As a fan of Dr. Roy Spencer, you might care to read his brief explanation of how the greenhouse effect works:

[url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/]Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell[/url]

Note that he doesn't deny that greenhouse gases exist or that the earth is warming (I don't think any climate scientist does)! He merely disagrees on the strength of the associated feedbacks.


And his specialty is remote monitoring of temperature via satellites and not the physics of spectroscopy. He also admits that he has heard the claims of the one open band of CO2 being in saturation and doesn't know anything about it. All his comments are about the actual temperature changes and NOAA and NASA have openly lied about that.

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming...it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade."

That statement shows that "climate science" is the antithesis of science.

"The "Holy Grail": Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of 'radiative forcing', of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space."

ANY scientist could tell you that because of the immense amount of energy being radiated upon the Earth because of the Sun that ANY reduction of the emissions of energy back into space would have immediate and drastic results. That means the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth. And it just so happens that we are at the peak of all three Milankovitch cycles for the northern hemisphere. And where is the warming being measured? In the northern hemisphere.

"The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of....the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. "

Tell us Surface Defect - does that sound like he is blaming any warming we may have on CO2?

Well it certainly doesn't rule it out. His contention is that such effects cause negative feedbacks that reduce climate sensitivity.

It is, however, incompatible with your claim that "the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth."
24-08-2017 01:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
As a fan of Dr. Roy Spencer, you might care to read his brief explanation of how the greenhouse effect works:

[url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/]Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell[/url]

Note that he doesn't deny that greenhouse gases exist or that the earth is warming (I don't think any climate scientist does)! He merely disagrees on the strength of the associated feedbacks.


And his specialty is remote monitoring of temperature via satellites and not the physics of spectroscopy. He also admits that he has heard the claims of the one open band of CO2 being in saturation and doesn't know anything about it. All his comments are about the actual temperature changes and NOAA and NASA have openly lied about that.

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming...it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade."

That statement shows that "climate science" is the antithesis of science.

"The "Holy Grail": Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of 'radiative forcing', of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space."

ANY scientist could tell you that because of the immense amount of energy being radiated upon the Earth because of the Sun that ANY reduction of the emissions of energy back into space would have immediate and drastic results. That means the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth. And it just so happens that we are at the peak of all three Milankovitch cycles for the northern hemisphere. And where is the warming being measured? In the northern hemisphere.

"The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of....the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. "

Tell us Surface Defect - does that sound like he is blaming any warming we may have on CO2?

Well it certainly doesn't rule it out. His contention is that such effects cause negative feedbacks that reduce climate sensitivity.

It is, however, incompatible with your claim that "the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth."


You don't read well do you?
24-08-2017 10:08
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
What do the True Believers do when scientific evidence appears that shows that NOAA manipulated the data to make global warming both appear to be very much greater than even possible?

They deny it. They go into character assassination of world famous scientists as easily as the flick of an eye.

And what credentials do these True Believers have? Let's go over those of the Skeptical Science Team:

1. A man with a Master's in ....... remote sensing. Who writes books for a living.
2. A senior lecturer in ............... computer science
3. Many more - all basically in the UK and all of them equally unqualified to speak on the level of Dr. Roy Spencer who was a Senior Scientist in charge of NASA remote sensing satellite program.

Greenman who writes like a high school student didn't feel the slightest remorse in assassinating the character of Dr. Roy Spencer - not just a world renown scientist but himself a leader of NASA temperature sensing satellite. There's someone that a computer scientist can really refute.

What did we get from the child? "He took money from an oil firm." What evidence did he have of that? None.

I have forwarded greenman's personal attacks to Dr. Spencer in the event he wants to take actions on Greenman. Putting the child's family on the street could perhaps (but unlikely) cause him to think before assassinating the character of a world famous scientist.

Of course Greenman is more than happy to make claims on behalf the True Believers because his own credentials are so impressive. What are they again? Oh, yeah, he's a high school student. Between being really smart he likes to play Game of Thrones.


Oh I'm really scared now, lol. Shaking in my shoes, worrying about what that Climate Change Denier will do to me, when he finds out that I posted a link that debunks his short-sighted views on Climate Change. I should have never done that. Well that is like sacrilege to you isn't it? Here I have done went and defamed your favorite Church of AGW Denial God. OMG, you must be horror struck that someone would do such a thing.

Get over it idiot.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-08-2017 10:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
What do the True Believers do when scientific evidence appears that shows that NOAA manipulated the data to make global warming both appear to be very much greater than even possible?

They deny it. They go into character assassination of world famous scientists as easily as the flick of an eye.

And what credentials do these True Believers have? Let's go over those of the Skeptical Science Team:

1. A man with a Master's in ....... remote sensing. Who writes books for a living.
2. A senior lecturer in ............... computer science
3. Many more - all basically in the UK and all of them equally unqualified to speak on the level of Dr. Roy Spencer who was a Senior Scientist in charge of NASA remote sensing satellite program.

Greenman who writes like a high school student didn't feel the slightest remorse in assassinating the character of Dr. Roy Spencer - not just a world renown scientist but himself a leader of NASA temperature sensing satellite. There's someone that a computer scientist can really refute.

What did we get from the child? "He took money from an oil firm." What evidence did he have of that? None.

I have forwarded greenman's personal attacks to Dr. Spencer in the event he wants to take actions on Greenman. Putting the child's family on the street could perhaps (but unlikely) cause him to think before assassinating the character of a world famous scientist.

Of course Greenman is more than happy to make claims on behalf the True Believers because his own credentials are so impressive. What are they again? Oh, yeah, he's a high school student. Between being really smart he likes to play Game of Thrones.


Oh I'm really scared now, lol. Shaking in my shoes, worrying about what that Climate Change Denier will do to me, when he finds out that I posted a link that debunks his short-sighted views on Climate Change. I should have never done that. Well that is like sacrilege to you isn't it? Here I have done went and defamed your favorite Church of AGW Denial God. OMG, you must be horror struck that someone would do such a thing.

Get over it idiot.


Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2017 10:32
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
As a fan of Dr. Roy Spencer, you might care to read his brief explanation of how the greenhouse effect works:

[url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/]Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell[/url]

Note that he doesn't deny that greenhouse gases exist or that the earth is warming (I don't think any climate scientist does)! He merely disagrees on the strength of the associated feedbacks.


And his specialty is remote monitoring of temperature via satellites and not the physics of spectroscopy. He also admits that he has heard the claims of the one open band of CO2 being in saturation and doesn't know anything about it. All his comments are about the actual temperature changes and NOAA and NASA have openly lied about that.

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming...it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade."

That statement shows that "climate science" is the antithesis of science.

No it doesn't. That statement simply shows you lack of research into what is really going on, and your lack of any kind of discernible intellect. It also shows that you are too lazy to do the research behind your opinions, and opt to just make stuff up [lie].
Wake wrote:

"The "Holy Grail": Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of 'radiative forcing', of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space."


The amount of infrared energy being emitted by earth is entirely dependent on the amount of solar radiation received by earth. Whether or not earth's ir radiation makes it to outer space is irrelevant, unless that radiation is being absorbed by certain molecules, which makes those molecules heat up.
Wake wrote:

ANY scientist could tell you that because of the immense amount of energy being radiated upon the Earth because of the Sun that ANY reduction of the emissions of energy back into space would have immediate and drastic results.

Not so sure they claim "immediate" results. Drastic, yes, but immediate, no. What they actually claim is that some of the earth's ir radiation is being absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules causing them to heat up. That heat is then radiated out, warming surrounding air molecules, which warms the air, which warms the earth a little more than what the sun is doing by itself.

Wake wrote:
That means the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth.

No it doesn't. It just means that you [again] don't know what you are talking about.
Wake wrote:


And it just so happens that we are at the peak of all three Milankovitch cycles for the northern hemisphere.


No we are not, douche bag. The Milankovitch cycle peaked about 10,000 years ago, and we have been slowing losing a little heat from the sun each year.
Wake wrote:


And where is the warming being measured? In the northern hemisphere.


Believe it or not, they actually got a few thermometers down in the southern hemisphere. They measure it down there too, and then average it all together to figure out what the global average for the year was.
Wake wrote:

"The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of....the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. "

Tell us Surface Defect - does that sound like he is blaming any warming we may have on CO2?


I don't mean to answer for Surface Defect, but whoever wrote that paragraph above does not know what he is talking about. Moving water around the earth just changes regional climate. It does not change the average climate of the planet. It simply cannot, because the oceans are not a source of heat for the planet. Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-08-2017 17:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
What do the True Believers do when scientific evidence appears that shows that NOAA manipulated the data to make global warming both appear to be very much greater than even possible?

They deny it. They go into character assassination of world famous scientists as easily as the flick of an eye.

And what credentials do these True Believers have? Let's go over those of the Skeptical Science Team:

1. A man with a Master's in ....... remote sensing. Who writes books for a living.
2. A senior lecturer in ............... computer science
3. Many more - all basically in the UK and all of them equally unqualified to speak on the level of Dr. Roy Spencer who was a Senior Scientist in charge of NASA remote sensing satellite program.

Greenman who writes like a high school student didn't feel the slightest remorse in assassinating the character of Dr. Roy Spencer - not just a world renown scientist but himself a leader of NASA temperature sensing satellite. There's someone that a computer scientist can really refute.

What did we get from the child? "He took money from an oil firm." What evidence did he have of that? None.

I have forwarded greenman's personal attacks to Dr. Spencer in the event he wants to take actions on Greenman. Putting the child's family on the street could perhaps (but unlikely) cause him to think before assassinating the character of a world famous scientist.

Of course Greenman is more than happy to make claims on behalf the True Believers because his own credentials are so impressive. What are they again? Oh, yeah, he's a high school student. Between being really smart he likes to play Game of Thrones.


Oh I'm really scared now, lol. Shaking in my shoes, worrying about what that Climate Change Denier will do to me, when he finds out that I posted a link that debunks his short-sighted views on Climate Change. I should have never done that. Well that is like sacrilege to you isn't it? Here I have done went and defamed your favorite Church of AGW Denial God. OMG, you must be horror struck that someone would do such a thing.

Get over it idiot.


What's the matter - surprised that someone would actually look into it and see that your "reference" was a group of "intellectuals" of which only one claimed to be a "climate scientist" (which doesn't exist) and who are scared of losing their jobs as Great Britain is taken back over by its citizens instead of an intellectual elite as it was before WW II? If there is one thing intellectuals hate it's a practical man and Brexit has terrified them.

Funny thing is that not one of them has had any research into the climate and Dr. Spencer has. But then again it's your reference and it matches it's owner.
24-08-2017 22:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
As a fan of Dr. Roy Spencer, you might care to read his brief explanation of how the greenhouse effect works:

[url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/]Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell[/url]

Note that he doesn't deny that greenhouse gases exist or that the earth is warming (I don't think any climate scientist does)! He merely disagrees on the strength of the associated feedbacks.


And his specialty is remote monitoring of temperature via satellites and not the physics of spectroscopy. He also admits that he has heard the claims of the one open band of CO2 being in saturation and doesn't know anything about it. All his comments are about the actual temperature changes and NOAA and NASA have openly lied about that.

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming...it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade."

That statement shows that "climate science" is the antithesis of science.

No it doesn't. That statement simply shows you lack of research into what is really going on, and your lack of any kind of discernible intellect. It also shows that you are too lazy to do the research behind your opinions, and opt to just make stuff up [lie].

There is no research on what is 'really going on' without ASSUMING 'global warming' is occurring in the first place. Science isn't research. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. No theory can exist that is based on a logical fallacy, not even a non-scientific one. 'Global warming' cannot be defined except in a circular manner. Failure to recognize a circular argument is a fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

"The "Holy Grail": Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of 'radiative forcing', of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space."


The amount of infrared energy being emitted by earth is entirely dependent on the amount of solar radiation received by earth. Whether or not earth's ir radiation makes it to outer space is irrelevant, unless that radiation is being absorbed by certain molecules, which makes those molecules heat up.

ALL of the energy Earth receives makes it to space.

Absorption of infrared light by CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool and move energy outward toward space.

GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

ANY scientist could tell you that because of the immense amount of energy being radiated upon the Earth because of the Sun that ANY reduction of the emissions of energy back into space would have immediate and drastic results.

Not so sure they claim "immediate" results. Drastic, yes, but immediate, no. What they actually claim is that some of the earth's ir radiation is being absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules causing them to heat up. That heat is then radiated out, warming surrounding air molecules, which warms the air, which warms the earth a little more than what the sun is doing by itself.

Violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

Tell me genius. Since the daylit side of the ISS typically reaches 250 deg F, and the daylit side of the Earth gets nowhere near that hot, and since you claim that CO2 (which doesn't exist at the skin of the ISS) warms the Earth, why is the daytime side of the Earth so much COLDER??? Magick Bouncing Photons from the Sun?

GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
That means the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth.

No it doesn't. It just means that you [again] don't know what you are talking about.

The ONLY way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun.
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


And it just so happens that we are at the peak of all three Milankovitch cycles for the northern hemisphere.


No we are not, douche bag. The Milankovitch cycle peaked about 10,000 years ago, and we have been slowing losing a little heat from the sun each year.

There is no single Milankovitch cycle. There are several. Each one has a different period. The major period concerning glaciation is the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. Both northern and southern hemispheres will be colder because the Earth spends more time near aphelion than perihelion (which is does anyway, but the difference between them is more significant).

We are currently approaching minimal eccentricity. We are expected to reach it in about 50,000 years. The last maxima was about 10,000 years ago.

The Sun's output is closely related to the sunspot activity on the Sun. These cycle every 11 years. The current cycle is a very weak one. It currently declining, and is expected to reach it's minima in 2021.
*
GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:


And where is the warming being measured? In the northern hemisphere.


Believe it or not, they actually got a few thermometers down in the southern hemisphere. They measure it down there too, and then average it all together to figure out what the global average for the year was.

Math errors. Selection by opportunity. Failure to eliminate related aspects from data. Failure to normalize. Failure to calculate margin of error.
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

"The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of....the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. "

Tell us Surface Defect - does that sound like he is blaming any warming we may have on CO2?


I don't mean to answer for Surface Defect, but whoever wrote that paragraph above does not know what he is talking about. Moving water around the earth just changes regional climate. It does not change the average climate of the planet.

Just like CO2.
GreenMan wrote:
It simply cannot, because the oceans are not a source of heat for the planet.

Just like CO2.
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 24-08-2017 22:40
25-08-2017 08:34
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
As a fan of Dr. Roy Spencer, you might care to read his brief explanation of how the greenhouse effect works:

[url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/]Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell[/url]

Note that he doesn't deny that greenhouse gases exist or that the earth is warming (I don't think any climate scientist does)! He merely disagrees on the strength of the associated feedbacks.


And his specialty is remote monitoring of temperature via satellites and not the physics of spectroscopy. He also admits that he has heard the claims of the one open band of CO2 being in saturation and doesn't know anything about it. All his comments are about the actual temperature changes and NOAA and NASA have openly lied about that.

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming...it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade."

That statement shows that "climate science" is the antithesis of science.

No it doesn't. That statement simply shows you lack of research into what is really going on, and your lack of any kind of discernible intellect. It also shows that you are too lazy to do the research behind your opinions, and opt to just make stuff up [lie].

There is no research on what is 'really going on' without ASSUMING 'global warming' is occurring in the first place. Science isn't research. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. No theory can exist that is based on a logical fallacy, not even a non-scientific one. 'Global warming' cannot be defined except in a circular manner. Failure to recognize a circular argument is a fallacy.

No research on what is really going on? Or do you just mean that those who are doing that research assume the planet is warming? I think they have proven the planet is warming, as predicted it would back in the early 1800s. So it is not an assumption that the planet is warming. Global Warming is just two words put together that indicate the earth is growing warmer as time progresses. What is so circular about that? But I see the radius of your circular argument quite well.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

"The "Holy Grail": Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of 'radiative forcing', of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space."


The amount of infrared energy being emitted by earth is entirely dependent on the amount of solar radiation received by earth. Whether or not earth's ir radiation makes it to outer space is irrelevant, unless that radiation is being absorbed by certain molecules, which makes those molecules heat up.

ALL of the energy Earth receives makes it to space.

Absorption of infrared light by CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool and move energy outward toward space.

The Greenhouse Effect Theory doesn't indicate otherwise. All the energy from the sun eventually does make it back into space. The Greenhouse Gases simply delay some of it, providing a warming affect to the air. That thermal energy does indeed travel back into space eventually, through convection and then conduction.
You argument about CO2 absorption is illogical. Why do you think that the conversion of light into thermal energy would "cool" anything? The process generates thermal energy and puts off heat.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

ANY scientist could tell you that because of the immense amount of energy being radiated upon the Earth because of the Sun that ANY reduction of the emissions of energy back into space would have immediate and drastic results.

Not so sure they claim "immediate" results. Drastic, yes, but immediate, no. What they actually claim is that some of the earth's ir radiation is being absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules causing them to heat up. That heat is then radiated out, warming surrounding air molecules, which warms the air, which warms the earth a little more than what the sun is doing by itself.

Violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

How is taking the output of an energy source [earth's radiation] and using it to increase that same energy source's output, a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics? The energy that is being converted by greenhouse gases is being released. Some of it warms the earth just a little more, and that causes an increase in the earth's radiance. So it balances out to no increase in energy. Yes, the earth gets warmer, but the earth's radiance increases because of that.

Into the Night wrote:
Tell me genius. Since the daylit side of the ISS typically reaches 250 deg F, and the daylit side of the Earth gets nowhere near that hot, and since you claim that CO2 (which doesn't exist at the skin of the ISS) warms the Earth, why is the daytime side of the Earth so much COLDER??? Magick Bouncing Photons from the Sun?

No, those Magick Bouncing Photons are part of your pipe dream. You must think they are some kind of magical weapon that you can pull out and beat people up with. I'm thinking that ISS is outside the earth's atmosphere, and therefore outside the earth's protective shield, which we would incinerate without. Yes, I know, that sounds like magick to you also, doesn't it.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
That means the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth.

No it doesn't. It just means that you [again] don't know what you are talking about.

The ONLY way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun.

The sun's energy output proves to be a very constant constant over time, even though it does go through cycles of sun spot activity that do have a tendency to create short term influences on the earth's climate. But in the long run, they average out over time, and just give us the little fluctuations that you Church of AGW Denial Priests like to use to claim things like a Global Warming Hiatus.
Yet our planet goes through cycles of warm and cool, that doesn't appear to follow the natural variation of solar energy from the sun due to the Milankovitch Effect. So no, Professor Parrot Face, that is obviously not the only way to warm the earth.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


And it just so happens that we are at the peak of all three Milankovitch cycles for the northern hemisphere.


No we are not, douche bag. The Milankovitch cycle peaked about 10,000 years ago, and we have been slowing losing a little heat from the sun each year.

There is no single Milankovitch cycle. There are several. Each one has a different period. The major period concerning glaciation is the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. Both northern and southern hemispheres will be colder because the Earth spends more time near aphelion than perihelion (which is does anyway, but the difference between them is more significant).

We are currently approaching minimal eccentricity. We are expected to reach it in about 50,000 years. The last maxima was about 10,000 years ago.

The sun's influence on the earth's climate peaked about 12,000 years ago, and has been in decline ever since. This graph shows it quite well.

That graph was produced with data from Berger et al. 2006. And here is one that someone else produced, that also shows the various causes for the variation in insolation [heat from the sun, in gold].

This is from Wikipedia, and here is a good link if that describes the Milankovitch Effect. https://courses.seas.harvard.edu/climate/eli/Courses/EPS281r/Sources/Glacial-cycles/Milankovitch-cycles-Wikipedia.pdf

They both show the same thing. Insolation is declining now, not increasing. If the sun were the only thing that influenced the planet's climate, then we should be cooling off, not warming.

Into the Night wrote:

The Sun's output is closely related to the sunspot activity on the Sun. These cycle every 11 years. The current cycle is a very weak one. It currently declining, and is expected to reach it's minima in 2021.

We should be cooling off a little for the next few years then. What happens after that? I'm sure you don't know. So I will mansplain it to you. The average temperature keeps climbing even though it should be falling. So it stands to reason that when it should start climbing [according to your argument] the rate of warming will increase.

Into the Night wrote:
*
GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:


And where is the warming being measured? In the northern hemisphere.


Believe it or not, they actually got a few thermometers down in the southern hemisphere. They measure it down there too, and then average it all together to figure out what the global average for the year was.

Math errors. Selection by opportunity. Failure to eliminate related aspects from data. Failure to normalize. Failure to calculate margin of error.

Oh yeah, that's right. It had slipped my mind that we can't really tell how warm the planet is right now, and we couldn't do it last year or the year before either, so we have no idea what is really going on.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

"The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of....the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. "

Tell us Surface Defect - does that sound like he is blaming any warming we may have on CO2?


I don't mean to answer for Surface Defect, but whoever wrote that paragraph above does not know what he is talking about. Moving water around the earth just changes regional climate. It does not change the average climate of the planet.

Just like CO2.
GreenMan wrote:
It simply cannot, because the oceans are not a source of heat for the planet.

Just like CO2.
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?


Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
25-08-2017 19:52
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
As a fan of Dr. Roy Spencer, you might care to read his brief explanation of how the greenhouse effect works:

[url] http://www.drroyspencer.com/global-warming-101/]Global Warming Theory in a Nutshell[/url]

Note that he doesn't deny that greenhouse gases exist or that the earth is warming (I don't think any climate scientist does)! He merely disagrees on the strength of the associated feedbacks.


And his specialty is remote monitoring of temperature via satellites and not the physics of spectroscopy. He also admits that he has heard the claims of the one open band of CO2 being in saturation and doesn't know anything about it. All his comments are about the actual temperature changes and NOAA and NASA have openly lied about that.

"Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming...it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade."

That statement shows that "climate science" is the antithesis of science.

No it doesn't. That statement simply shows you lack of research into what is really going on, and your lack of any kind of discernible intellect. It also shows that you are too lazy to do the research behind your opinions, and opt to just make stuff up [lie].

There is no research on what is 'really going on' without ASSUMING 'global warming' is occurring in the first place. Science isn't research. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature. No theory can exist that is based on a logical fallacy, not even a non-scientific one. 'Global warming' cannot be defined except in a circular manner. Failure to recognize a circular argument is a fallacy.

No research on what is really going on? Or do you just mean that those who are doing that research assume the planet is warming?

Try reading it again, stupid. R e a l slow.
GreenMan wrote:
I think they have proven the planet is warming,

With what??? You have no useful data.
GreenMan wrote:
as predicted it would back in the early 1800s.

I don't care about predictions made using chicken entrails.
GreenMan wrote:
So it is not an assumption that the planet is warming.

Yes it is.
GreenMan wrote:
Global Warming is just two words put together that indicate the earth is growing warmer as time progresses. What is so circular about that?

So...'global warming' is 'global warming'. Got it.

Circular definition.
GreenMan wrote:
But I see the radius of your circular argument quite well.

Don't think so. You continue to fail to recognize a circular argument. That's a fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

"The "Holy Grail": Climate Sensitivity Figuring out how much past warming is due to mankind, and how much more we can expect in the future, depends upon something called "climate sensitivity". This is the temperature response of the Earth to a given amount of 'radiative forcing', of which there are two kinds: a change in either the amount of sunlight absorbed by the Earth, or in the infrared energy the Earth emits to outer space."


The amount of infrared energy being emitted by earth is entirely dependent on the amount of solar radiation received by earth. Whether or not earth's ir radiation makes it to outer space is irrelevant, unless that radiation is being absorbed by certain molecules, which makes those molecules heat up.

ALL of the energy Earth receives makes it to space.

Absorption of infrared light by CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool and move energy outward toward space.

The Greenhouse Effect Theory doesn't indicate otherwise. All the energy from the sun eventually does make it back into space. The Greenhouse Gases simply delay some of it, providing a warming affect to the air.

Now you are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. You are creating energy out of nothing.

You can't delay energy.

GreenMan wrote:
That thermal energy does indeed travel back into space eventually, through convection and then conduction.

No, it is emitted as infrared light, but at a lower frequency than what came in due to thermal losses (by dissipation of thermal energy).
GreenMan wrote:
You argument about CO2 absorption is illogical. Why do you think that the conversion of light into thermal energy would "cool" anything? The process generates thermal energy and puts off heat.

Aren't you forgetting where that light came from, stupid?
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

ANY scientist could tell you that because of the immense amount of energy being radiated upon the Earth because of the Sun that ANY reduction of the emissions of energy back into space would have immediate and drastic results.

Not so sure they claim "immediate" results. Drastic, yes, but immediate, no. What they actually claim is that some of the earth's ir radiation is being absorbed by greenhouse gas molecules causing them to heat up. That heat is then radiated out, warming surrounding air molecules, which warms the air, which warms the earth a little more than what the sun is doing by itself.

Violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

How is taking the output of an energy source [earth's radiation] and using it to increase that same energy source's output, a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

You are describing a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.
GreenMan wrote:
The energy that is being converted by greenhouse gases is being released.

You are already arguing this paradox. Again, you are making an irrational statement.
GreenMan wrote:
Some of it warms the earth just a little more, and that causes an increase in the earth's radiance.

Nope. You are violating the Stefan Boltzmann law. Radiance is proportional to temperature...ALWAYS. It is never inversely proportional, not even for a moment. Not even to 'delay' energy.
GreenMan wrote:
So it balances out to no increase in energy. Yes, the earth gets warmer, but the earth's radiance increases because of that.

There is no sequence.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Tell me genius. Since the daylit side of the ISS typically reaches 250 deg F, and the daylit side of the Earth gets nowhere near that hot, and since you claim that CO2 (which doesn't exist at the skin of the ISS) warms the Earth, why is the daytime side of the Earth so much COLDER??? Magick Bouncing Photons from the Sun?

No, those Magick Bouncing Photons are part of your pipe dream.

Inversion fallacy. It is yours. You just argued it again.
GreenMan wrote:
You must think they are some kind of magical weapon that you can pull out and beat people up with. I'm thinking that ISS is outside the earth's atmosphere, and therefore outside the earth's protective shield, which we would incinerate without.

The ISS has not incinerated. What 'shield' are you talking about?
GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I know, that sounds like magick to you also, doesn't it.

You mean the 'shield' that is the atmosphere? The one containing Holy Global Warming Gas?
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
That means the only possible source of increased warming is increases in the Sun's output onto Earth.

No it doesn't. It just means that you [again] don't know what you are talking about.

The ONLY way to warm the Earth is to increase the output of the Sun.

The sun's energy output proves to be a very constant constant over time, even though it does go through cycles of sun spot activity that do have a tendency to create short term influences on the earth's climate. But in the long run, they average out over time, and just give us the little fluctuations that you Church of AGW Denial Priests like to use to claim things like a Global Warming Hiatus.

The Sun has been a remarkably stable star, as stars go.

There is no Church of AGW Denial. The Outsider's argument is not based on a circular argument. It is based on existing theories of science and the lack of any useful data.

You don't know how warm the Earth is. It is not possible to determine it to any useful degree.

GreenMan wrote:
Yet our planet goes through cycles of warm and cool, that doesn't appear to follow the natural variation of solar energy from the sun due to the Milankovitch Effect. So no, Professor Parrot Face, that is obviously not the only way to warm the earth.

You don't know how warm the Earth is. You don't know how warm the Earth is from any Milankovitch cycle either.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:


And it just so happens that we are at the peak of all three Milankovitch cycles for the northern hemisphere.


No we are not, douche bag. The Milankovitch cycle peaked about 10,000 years ago, and we have been slowing losing a little heat from the sun each year.

There is no single Milankovitch cycle. There are several. Each one has a different period. The major period concerning glaciation is the eccentricity of Earth's orbit. Both northern and southern hemispheres will be colder because the Earth spends more time near aphelion than perihelion (which is does anyway, but the difference between them is more significant).

We are currently approaching minimal eccentricity. We are expected to reach it in about 50,000 years. The last maxima was about 10,000 years ago.

The sun's influence on the earth's climate peaked about 12,000 years ago, and has been in decline ever since. This graph shows it quite well.
...deleted Holy Link...deleted Holy Reference...deleted Holy Link...

Learn to think for yourself dude. Using the arguments of others as your own is the sign of a weak mind. Wikipedia is summarily dismissed as a reference. Their articles on this subject are poorly written, incomplete, or outright biased and wrong.
GreenMan wrote:
They both show the same thing. Insolation is declining now, not increasing. If the sun were the only thing that influenced the planet's climate, then we should be cooling off, not warming.

We don't know. We can't measure the Earth's temperature to any useful degree of accuracy.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The Sun's output is closely related to the sunspot activity on the Sun. These cycle every 11 years. The current cycle is a very weak one. It currently declining, and is expected to reach it's minima in 2021.

We should be cooling off a little for the next few years then. What happens after that? I'm sure you don't know. So I will mansplain it to you. The average temperature keeps climbing even though it should be falling. So it stands to reason that when it should start climbing [according to your argument] the rate of warming will increase.

You don't know what the 'rate of warming' is. You don't know the Earth's temperature.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

Wake wrote:

And where is the warming being measured? In the northern hemisphere.


Believe it or not, they actually got a few thermometers down in the southern hemisphere. They measure it down there too, and then average it all together to figure out what the global average for the year was.

Math errors. Selection by opportunity. Failure to eliminate related aspects from data. Failure to normalize. Failure to calculate margin of error.

Oh yeah, that's right. It had slipped my mind that we can't really tell how warm the planet is right now, and we couldn't do it last year or the year before either, so we have no idea what is really going on.

That's exactly right.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:

"The case for natural climate change I also present an analysis of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation which shows that most climate change might well be the result of....the climate system itself! Because small, chaotic fluctuations in atmospheric and oceanic circulation systems can cause small changes in global average cloudiness, this is all that is necessary to cause climate change. "

Tell us Surface Defect - does that sound like he is blaming any warming we may have on CO2?


I don't mean to answer for Surface Defect, but whoever wrote that paragraph above does not know what he is talking about. Moving water around the earth just changes regional climate. It does not change the average climate of the planet.

Just like CO2.
GreenMan wrote:
It simply cannot, because the oceans are not a source of heat for the planet.

Just like CO2.
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?


Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 25-08-2017 19:53
25-08-2017 20:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/845901/climate-change-natural-global-warming-evidence-jennifer-marohasy

This paper is available from GeoResJ journal. But since the True Believers have their eyes tightly closed they won't notice it.
25-08-2017 22:04
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


...deleted broken link...

This paper is available from GeoResJ journal. But since the True Believers have their eyes tightly closed they won't notice it.


I won't notice it either. The link is broken.


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2017 22:08
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


...deleted broken link...

This paper is available from GeoResJ journal. But since the True Believers have their eyes tightly closed they won't notice it.


I won't notice it either. The link is broken.


The link is not broken.
25-08-2017 22:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


...deleted broken link...

This paper is available from GeoResJ journal. But since the True Believers have their eyes tightly closed they won't notice it.


I won't notice it either. The link is broken.


The link is not broken.


Did you just travel over the UK and install that server then? Nothing responds.


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2017 22:32
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


...deleted broken link...

This paper is available from GeoResJ journal. But since the True Believers have their eyes tightly closed they won't notice it.


I won't notice it either. The link is broken.


The link is not broken.


Did you just travel over the UK and install that server then? Nothing responds.


Then it is at your end because I need only click on it. If that fails you for some reason you could always copy the address into a new tab.
25-08-2017 22:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


...deleted broken link...

This paper is available from GeoResJ journal. But since the True Believers have their eyes tightly closed they won't notice it.


I won't notice it either. The link is broken.


The link is not broken.


Did you just travel over the UK and install that server then? Nothing responds.


Then it is at your end because I need only click on it. If that fails you for some reason you could always copy the address into a new tab.

I did. There is no such box.


The Parrot Killer
25-08-2017 23:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
I did. There is no such box.


http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/845901/climate-change-natural-global-warming-evidence-jennifer-marohasy


http://www.express.co.uk/news/science/845901/climate-change-natural-global-warming-evidence-jennifer-marohasy
25-08-2017 23:57
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1392)
[b]GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

ITN wrote;
Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


Pretty cloudy around latitude 27 right now. What's up with that?!


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 25-08-2017 23:58
26-08-2017 19:43
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold. And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me, regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations. That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox. Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 26-08-2017 19:48
26-08-2017 21:55
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold. And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me, regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations. That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox. Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.


That would be Dr. Roy Spencer - you know - someone who unlike you actually has a clue what he is speaking of? You know, the head man on the weather satellite programs? The one who has actually seen the data? Unlike you who has a bit mouth, no information and is a member of the Holy Order of the Global Warming with a rank of True Believer?
26-08-2017 22:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold.

You're getting closer, but not there yet.
GreenMan wrote:
And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Why would the equator warm faster than the poles? Does it have more Holy Gas?
GreenMan wrote:
Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me,

Perhaps because it is?
GreenMan wrote:
regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations.

Fine. Let's drop it here.
GreenMan wrote:
That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox.

I do not worship Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum either.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.

I don't relay arguments. I present my own arguments. If you want to discuss arguments of Roy Spencer, go talk to Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum.


The Parrot Killer
28-08-2017 05:08
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold.

You're getting closer, but not there yet.
GreenMan wrote:
And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Why would the equator warm faster than the poles? Does it have more Holy Gas?
GreenMan wrote:
Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me,

Perhaps because it is?
GreenMan wrote:
regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations.

Fine. Let's drop it here.
GreenMan wrote:
That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox.

I do not worship Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum either.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.

I don't relay arguments. I present my own arguments. If you want to discuss arguments of Roy Spencer, go talk to Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum.


The ocean and land at the equator get warmer than at the poles because of the angle the sun's radiation hits. It hits perpendicular at the equator, and at a greater angle at the poles. So the energy is more intense per square area at the equator. More energy per square area = more heating.

As far as I know, gases spread out evenly over time, so the gas concentration at the poles should be what it is at the equator, unless the equator is a source of the gases. Then all bets are off. Where ever the source of gas is, will be higher.

Did you have some point in asking?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
28-08-2017 07:31
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold.

You're getting closer, but not there yet.
GreenMan wrote:
And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Why would the equator warm faster than the poles? Does it have more Holy Gas?
GreenMan wrote:
Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me,

Perhaps because it is?
GreenMan wrote:
regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations.

Fine. Let's drop it here.
GreenMan wrote:
That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox.

I do not worship Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum either.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.

I don't relay arguments. I present my own arguments. If you want to discuss arguments of Roy Spencer, go talk to Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum.


The ocean and land at the equator get warmer than at the poles because of the angle the sun's radiation hits. It hits perpendicular at the equator, and at a greater angle at the poles. So the energy is more intense per square area at the equator. More energy per square area = more heating.

As far as I know, gases spread out evenly over time, so the gas concentration at the poles should be what it is at the equator, unless the equator is a source of the gases. Then all bets are off. Where ever the source of gas is, will be higher.

Did you have some point in asking?


https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/01/25/ir-expert-speaks-out-after-40-years-of-silence-its-the-water-vapor-stupid-and-not-the-co2/

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/07/31/a-warm-period-by-any-other-name-the-climatic-optimum/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/25472-congress-investigates-fraudulent-science-used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

In short you're a fool and everyone knows it but you.
28-08-2017 10:57
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold.

You're getting closer, but not there yet.
GreenMan wrote:
And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Why would the equator warm faster than the poles? Does it have more Holy Gas?
GreenMan wrote:
Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me,

Perhaps because it is?
GreenMan wrote:
regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations.

Fine. Let's drop it here.
GreenMan wrote:
That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox.

I do not worship Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum either.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.

I don't relay arguments. I present my own arguments. If you want to discuss arguments of Roy Spencer, go talk to Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum.


The ocean and land at the equator get warmer than at the poles because of the angle the sun's radiation hits. It hits perpendicular at the equator, and at a greater angle at the poles. So the energy is more intense per square area at the equator. More energy per square area = more heating.

As far as I know, gases spread out evenly over time, so the gas concentration at the poles should be what it is at the equator, unless the equator is a source of the gases. Then all bets are off. Where ever the source of gas is, will be higher.

Did you have some point in asking?


[deleted Church of AGW Denial propaganda links]

In short you're a fool and everyone knows it but you.


Thank you for posting your church's sundry list of propaganda. Does it have any bearing on this thread? Would you like to discuss the information on those links? Or perhaps you find your favorite words there, and copy/paste them here, along with why you think those words are relevant. Can you say relevant? It's a hard word to say, and even a harder word to use, for people like you who have a thinking deficit.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
28-08-2017 17:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote: Thank you for posting your church's sundry list of propaganda. Does it have any bearing on this thread? Would you like to discuss the information on those links? Or perhaps you find your favorite words there, and copy/paste them here, along with why you think those words are relevant. Can you say relevant? It's a hard word to say, and even a harder word to use, for people like you who have a thinking deficit.


Yes we know all about it - science is only science if 1. You agree with it and 2. you can understand it. And since there isn't any case of 2. you don't believe in science.
28-08-2017 23:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold.

You're getting closer, but not there yet.
GreenMan wrote:
And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Why would the equator warm faster than the poles? Does it have more Holy Gas?
GreenMan wrote:
Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me,

Perhaps because it is?
GreenMan wrote:
regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations.

Fine. Let's drop it here.
GreenMan wrote:
That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox.

I do not worship Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum either.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.

I don't relay arguments. I present my own arguments. If you want to discuss arguments of Roy Spencer, go talk to Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum.


The ocean and land at the equator get warmer than at the poles because of the angle the sun's radiation hits. It hits perpendicular at the equator, and at a greater angle at the poles. So the energy is more intense per square area at the equator. More energy per square area = more heating.

Contextomy. You WERE talking about the equator being affected by global warming more than the poles.
GreenMan wrote:
As far as I know, gases spread out evenly over time, so the gas concentration at the poles should be what it is at the equator, unless the equator is a source of the gases. Then all bets are off. Where ever the source of gas is, will be higher.

So...You don't know where CO2 comes from, and have openly admitted that Mauna Loa is not a representation of a global concentration of it.
GreenMan wrote:
Did you have some point in asking?

Mostly to show the fault in your reasoning.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2017 01:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Did you have some point in asking?

Mostly to show the fault in your reasoning.


Think of who you are implying has any power of reason.
29-08-2017 01:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Did you have some point in asking?

Mostly to show the fault in your reasoning.


Think of who you are implying has any power of reason.


Admittedly, he is still arguing several both sides of several paradoxes, which only the irrational can do. Occasionally, a bit of reasoning does appear, although it's bad reasoning.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2017 09:00
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: Thank you for posting your church's sundry list of propaganda. Does it have any bearing on this thread? Would you like to discuss the information on those links? Or perhaps you find your favorite words there, and copy/paste them here, along with why you think those words are relevant. Can you say relevant? It's a hard word to say, and even a harder word to use, for people like you who have a thinking deficit.


Yes we know all about it - science is only science if 1. You agree with it and 2. you can understand it. And since there isn't any case of 2. you don't believe in science.

Science isn't anything to really believe in. You either accept it or you don't. I accept the science that supports Global Warming, because I worked out a Climate Model that shows how it works. So I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on.

And again, you are accusing other people of what you are guilty of. It looks like you would figure out some other method of attack, besides throwing your own deficiencies out there as if they belonged to someone else.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
29-08-2017 09:17
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold.

You're getting closer, but not there yet.
GreenMan wrote:
And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Why would the equator warm faster than the poles? Does it have more Holy Gas?
GreenMan wrote:
Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me,

Perhaps because it is?
GreenMan wrote:
regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations.

Fine. Let's drop it here.
GreenMan wrote:
That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox.

I do not worship Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum either.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.

I don't relay arguments. I present my own arguments. If you want to discuss arguments of Roy Spencer, go talk to Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum.


The ocean and land at the equator get warmer than at the poles because of the angle the sun's radiation hits. It hits perpendicular at the equator, and at a greater angle at the poles. So the energy is more intense per square area at the equator. More energy per square area = more heating.

Contextomy. You WERE talking about the equator being affected by global warming more than the poles.

You must be confusing me with someone else, or you didn't comprehend something I said, because I am aware that the poles are warming about 3C above what the rest of the world is doing.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
As far as I know, gases spread out evenly over time, so the gas concentration at the poles should be what it is at the equator, unless the equator is a source of the gases. Then all bets are off. Where ever the source of gas is, will be higher.

So...You don't know where CO2 comes from, and have openly admitted that Mauna Loa is not a representation of a global concentration of it.

CO2 comes primarily from North America, Europe, southeast Asia.
Or if you want a national breakdown, here it is.

Or here is another one, that shows it graphically.


And yes, I agree that Mauna Loa is not a representation of a global concentration of CO2. It does however give us an idea of how much the CO2 concentration is increasing each year.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Did you have some point in asking?

Mostly to show the fault in your reasoning.


What fault in reasoning? Do you think that just because Mauna Loa does not indicate the current CO2 concentrations for the world that it implies a fault in my reasoning? I don't see that. And I know that if the concentration of Mauna Loa stays above 400ppm, that it will eventually become the global average, because it spreads out over time.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
29-08-2017 16:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Science isn't anything to really believe in. You either accept it or you don't. I accept the science that supports Global Warming, because I worked out a Climate Model that shows how it works. So I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on.

And again, you are accusing other people of what you are guilty of. It looks like you would figure out some other method of attack, besides throwing your own deficiencies out there as if they belonged to someone else.


YOU worked out a model. Tell us how you did that? What sort of credentials do you have to even comment let alone "work out a model" that anyone is supposed to believe?
29-08-2017 23:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: Thank you for posting your church's sundry list of propaganda. Does it have any bearing on this thread? Would you like to discuss the information on those links? Or perhaps you find your favorite words there, and copy/paste them here, along with why you think those words are relevant. Can you say relevant? It's a hard word to say, and even a harder word to use, for people like you who have a thinking deficit.


Yes we know all about it - science is only science if 1. You agree with it and 2. you can understand it. And since there isn't any case of 2. you don't believe in science.

Science isn't anything to really believe in.

It isn't? Do you know what a 'belief' is?
GreenMan wrote:
You either accept it or you don't.

It is obvious that you don't.
GreenMan wrote:
I accept the science that supports Global Warming,

There isn't any.
GreenMan wrote:
because I worked out a Climate Model that shows how it works.

That is not science. That is an argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
So I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on.

It is obvious you don't.
GreenMan wrote:
And again, you are accusing other people of what you are guilty of.


It looks like you would figure out some other method of attack, besides throwing your own deficiencies out there as if they belonged to someone else.
[/quote]
Inversion fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
29-08-2017 23:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Therefore, the oceans in and of themselves, cannot raise the average temperature of the planet. His notion that changes in oceanic circulation affecting average cloudiness is put BS. The warmer it gets, the more clouds we get, not the other way around.

Then why do clouds tend to form around latitude 45 and not so much at the equator?

GreenMan wrote:
Could it be that around latitude 45 is where the heat from the Equator runs into the refrigeration from the Arctic? Don't clouds form when warm humid air cools?

Welcome to your new paradox.

Which is it dude?

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get, or
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get?


I'm thinking the cloud cover of our planet increases or decreases with a bigger difference between hot and cold.

You're getting closer, but not there yet.
GreenMan wrote:
And that if the poles increase the same as the equator that there shouldn't be a change in cloud cover. If the equator warms more than the poles, during a warming period of several years, for example, we might see more clouds.

Why would the equator warm faster than the poles? Does it have more Holy Gas?
GreenMan wrote:
Not sure why you see that as a paradox for me,

Perhaps because it is?
GreenMan wrote:
regardless, since I'm not proposing that the earth's climate is regulated by cloud formations.

Fine. Let's drop it here.
GreenMan wrote:
That would be your god Roy Spencer's paradox.

I do not worship Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum either.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps you should go ask him, or get your boy [I watch you own him] to send him another email. He would know, for sure.

I don't relay arguments. I present my own arguments. If you want to discuss arguments of Roy Spencer, go talk to Roy Spencer. He is not here on this forum.


The ocean and land at the equator get warmer than at the poles because of the angle the sun's radiation hits. It hits perpendicular at the equator, and at a greater angle at the poles. So the energy is more intense per square area at the equator. More energy per square area = more heating.

Contextomy. You WERE talking about the equator being affected by global warming more than the poles.

You must be confusing me with someone else, or you didn't comprehend something I said, because I am aware that the poles are warming about 3C above what the rest of the world is doing.

Decided to return to your base argument, eh? You don't know the temperature of the Earth, the equator, or the poles. Argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
As far as I know, gases spread out evenly over time, so the gas concentration at the poles should be what it is at the equator, unless the equator is a source of the gases. Then all bets are off. Where ever the source of gas is, will be higher.

So...You don't know where CO2 comes from, and have openly admitted that Mauna Loa is not a representation of a global concentration of it.

CO2 comes primarily from North America, Europe, southeast Asia.

WRONG. CO2 comes from the combining of carbon with oxygen. It may be the result of burning an organic fuel, pressures from underground, or chemical changes in water, such as the dissolving of limestone.
GreenMan wrote:
...deleted Holy Links...
And yes, I agree that Mauna Loa is not a representation of a global concentration of CO2. It does however give us an idea of how much the CO2 concentration is increasing each year.

No, it doesn't. Argument from randU. Math error.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Did you have some point in asking?

Mostly to show the fault in your reasoning.


What fault in reasoning?

I have been listing them. Pay attention. Argument of the Stone.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you think that just because Mauna Loa does not indicate the current CO2 concentrations for the world that it implies a fault in my reasoning?

Yes. It is an argument from randU. It is a math error.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't see that.

Argument of the Stone.
GreenMan wrote:
And I know that if the concentration of Mauna Loa stays above 400ppm, that it will eventually become the global average, because it spreads out over time.

'Spreads out' from where? Mauna Loa???


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 29-08-2017 23:35
30-08-2017 01:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: Thank you for posting your church's sundry list of propaganda. Does it have any bearing on this thread? Would you like to discuss the information on those links? Or perhaps you find your favorite words there, and copy/paste them here, along with why you think those words are relevant. Can you say relevant? It's a hard word to say, and even a harder word to use, for people like you who have a thinking deficit.


Yes we know all about it - science is only science if 1. You agree with it and 2. you can understand it. And since there isn't any case of 2. you don't believe in science.

Science isn't anything to really believe in.

It isn't? Do you know what a 'belief' is?
GreenMan wrote:
You either accept it or you don't.

It is obvious that you don't.
GreenMan wrote:
I accept the science that supports Global Warming,

There isn't any.
GreenMan wrote:
because I worked out a Climate Model that shows how it works.

That is not science. That is an argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
So I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on.

It is obvious you don't.
GreenMan wrote:
And again, you are accusing other people of what you are guilty of.


It looks like you would figure out some other method of attack, besides throwing your own deficiencies out there as if they belonged to someone else.

Inversion fallacy.[/quote]

Greenman continues to show his lack of education. He doesn't understand the connection between "belief" and "acceptance".

Only about half of all college students pass the ACT's. 5% only of black students and 13% only of Hispanics. So it should come as no surprise that greenman isn't as brights as a 3 watt light bulb. Since he is an electrician he probably doesn't even have a college education. But he can "model" stuff and then misinterpret his own models.
30-08-2017 02:04
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleep sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:... as brights(?) as a 3 watt light bulb...

I have several 7watt LED lights that can swivel to concentrate their light output on objects needing the illumination & eliminating illumination on what doesn't need illumination. These 7 watt LED's effectively replace 100 watt incandescent lights.
Unfortunately, "old sick silly sleep sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" illuminates nuthin'.
Edited on 30-08-2017 02:11
30-08-2017 03:13
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9224)
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleep sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:... as brights(?) as a 3 watt light bulb...

I have several 7watt LED lights that can swivel to concentrate their light output on objects needing the illumination & eliminating illumination on what doesn't need illumination. These 7 watt LED's effectively replace 100 watt incandescent lights.
Unfortunately, "old sick silly sleep sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" illuminates nuthin'.


Nope. Takes 15W to replace a 100W bulb using an LED.

You are describing the equivalence of a 60W bulb.

It's about the lumens. However, a 60W (or equivalent LED) has a brightness that is barely detectable from a 100W (or equivalent LED).

Wake was referring to a 3W incandescent bulb, equivalent to a 1/2W LED, about like a panel indicator; although I don't believe he was necessarily assuming the 3W bulb was actually not burned out.


The Parrot Killer
30-08-2017 08:35
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Science isn't anything to really believe in. You either accept it or you don't. I accept the science that supports Global Warming, because I worked out a Climate Model that shows how it works. So I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on.

And again, you are accusing other people of what you are guilty of. It looks like you would figure out some other method of attack, besides throwing your own deficiencies out there as if they belonged to someone else.


YOU worked out a model. Tell us how you did that? What sort of credentials do you have to even comment let alone "work out a model" that anyone is supposed to believe?


Yes, i worked out a model. I did that by first gathering all the data I needed. Then I averaged all that data so it would line up with other data at specific points in time [1000 year averages]. Then I worked out an algorithm that determined what the average global temperature should have been, based on the data for that time. Then I compared what the algorithm calculated to what the actual temperature was for that time.

Well, that's a simplified version of it.

I'm not sure what kind of credentials you think a person has to have, before he is believable. You obviously don't believe anything the guys with credentials have, if they don't say what you want to hear, so what good are credentials?

My work speaks for itself.



See how closely the white line follows the red line? That isn't coincidence.
That is the result of taking this information into consideration, when figuring out what the drivers behind the planets climate are.
1. Insolation from the Sun

2. Dust in the Air [most likely from volcanic eruptions]

3. CO2 Concentrations

4. CH4 Concentrations

5. N2O Concentrations


It is impossible that those data could be used to accurately backcast the temperature accurately, if not valid. The same identical algorithm is used for each of the 800, 1000 year predictions. Every prediction lands within plus or minus 3C of what the actual temperature was.

That work is my credentials.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
30-08-2017 09:03
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote: Thank you for posting your church's sundry list of propaganda. Does it have any bearing on this thread? Would you like to discuss the information on those links? Or perhaps you find your favorite words there, and copy/paste them here, along with why you think those words are relevant. Can you say relevant? It's a hard word to say, and even a harder word to use, for people like you who have a thinking deficit.


Yes we know all about it - science is only science if 1. You agree with it and 2. you can understand it. And since there isn't any case of 2. you don't believe in science.

Science isn't anything to really believe in.

It isn't? Do you know what a 'belief' is?
GreenMan wrote:
You either accept it or you don't.

It is obvious that you don't.
GreenMan wrote:
I accept the science that supports Global Warming,

There isn't any.
GreenMan wrote:
because I worked out a Climate Model that shows how it works.

That is not science. That is an argument from randU.
GreenMan wrote:
So I have a pretty good understanding of what's going on.

It is obvious you don't.
GreenMan wrote:
And again, you are accusing other people of what you are guilty of.


It looks like you would figure out some other method of attack, besides throwing your own deficiencies out there as if they belonged to someone else.

Inversion fallacy.

I use the term belief for things that can't really be proven, yet I think they are real, like God for example. Well, God can be proven, if you know what to look for. And so can Global Warming. But like God, if you don't know what to look for, or if you just won't look, then you can ignore it.

The sad thing about all this is, is that there are so many idiots who don't want to believe in either. They just want to keep on stuffing their faces with sweets, and complain about being too fat, like it was someone else's fault. And it makes them feel better if others agree with their stupidity, so they spread it around, to make themselves feel better.

Some, like you, are even clever enough to make it sound like they know what they are talking about, when they are making their outrageous claims in denial of what the world's leading climate scientists agree on.

You do that, just so you can feel smug in your ignorant make believe world.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 30-08-2017 09:04
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Denying the Deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
Reddit's science forum banned climate deniers. Why don't all newspapers do the same? (2013)921-11-2017 19:25
So, how many M2C2 deniers can you fit on the head of a needle?1018-07-2017 05:28
In Obama's final State of the Union Address, he mocked deniers. He bad person?513-03-2017 04:59
Hilarious Strawmen by the Deniers8718-10-2016 01:51
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact