Remember me
▼ Content

Differences between the past and the present time


Differences between the past and the present time16-11-2009 17:47
branner
AdministratorProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(34)
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.
09-02-2010 21:07
The Humidity
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.


0.
CO2 rise and temperature rise are connected. But permanent high temperatures are connected to a drop in CO2.

1.
The Climate change is in the humidity and only secondary in temperature.

2.
The reconstruction of the temperature of the past is base on isotopes of oxygen, and they are depend on both temperature and number of mornings where the water/ice had evaporated.

3.
The change of CO2 in the atmosphere have two cause: The supply and attrition of CO2.

3.1
Majority of the supply by CO2 to the atmosphere, is from the oceans, and the oceans have the CO2 from natural oil well on the ocean floor. The CO2 go from the ocean by rise of temperature and by change of currents.

3.2
Majority of the attrition of CO2 to the atmosphere is by the rain. This growing by rise of CO2 in the atmosphere. And grow by the rainfall.
25-12-2010 19:02
WeatherRusty
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As such it slows the loss of thermal energy from the surface to space. Any doubling of CO2 brings about 3.7W/m^2 of increased downward radiation as measured from the tropopause. It does not matter if the the CO2 increases before or after an initial temperature rise. The effect of the increased CO2 is the same in either case.

If temperature were to rise slightly, say by orbital forcing, this would cause an increase in atmospheric CO2 as warmer sea water would release additional CO2 out of solution. A new equilibrium state having been established, the positive feedback by extra CO2 acting as a greenhouse gas would enhance the initial warming induced by the orbital forcing. This is what to take away from the ice core measurements of CO2 rise following temperature increase in the climate record by some 800 years.

If the CO2 comes before any temperature rise it still nonetheless acts as a greenhouse gas in the same manner. In the case where Man's activities iare adding CO2 to the environment at such a rate that the oceans can not totally absorb it all, the CO2 concentration is building up in the atmosphere and producing the same forcing as would be the case with the CO2 increase following temperate rise. The same forcing at 3.7W/m^2/2xCO2 arises and will be subject to similar positive feedbacks as in water vapor feedback and albedo changes.
25-12-2010 20:01
The Humidity
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
WeatherRusty wrote:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas. As such it slows the loss of thermal energy from the surface to space.

"Greenhouse gas'" are fantasy. The thermal energy from the sun is greater than the thermal energy from surface.

Any doubling of CO2 brings about 3.7W/m^2 of increased downward radiation as measured from the tropopause.

You have need to put water vapor with CO2, because they absorb the same light.
28-12-2010 20:40
WeatherRusty
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
"Greenhouse gas'" are fantasy. The thermal energy from the sun is greater than the thermal energy from surface.


Do you realize the Earth's surface receives more energy per unit area from it's own atmosphere than it does directly from the Sun? In fact the surface receives nearly double the radiant energy from the atmosphere than from the Sun! "Greenhouses gas" raise the temperature of Earth's surface by about 33C above what the Sun alone can do.

While the Sun is a very much hotter radiant body than Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere radiates from 180 angular degrees while the Sun only from 1/2 angular degree. The atmosphere radiates 24 hour per day. The Sun only when above the horizon.
Edited on 28-12-2010 21:11
28-12-2010 22:36
The Humidity
☆☆☆☆☆
(6)
WeatherRusty wrote:
"Greenhouse gas'" are fantasy. The thermal energy from the sun is greater than the thermal energy from surface.


Do you realize the Earth's surface receives more energy per unit area from it's own atmosphere than it does directly from the Sun? In fact the surface receives nearly double the radiant energy from the atmosphere than from the Sun! "Greenhouses gas" raise the temperature of Earth's surface by about 33C above what the Sun alone can do.

The temperature of Earth's surface by about 33C above an than a similar planet without atmosphere because the atmosphere is the boundary to space. The temperature of the atmospheric surface is about 33C lower than Earth's surface.


While the Sun is a very much hotter radiant body than Earth's atmosphere, the atmosphere radiates from 180 angular degrees while the Sun only from 1/2 angular degree. The atmosphere radiates 24 hour per day. The Sun only when above the horizon.

The atmospheric diameter is larger than Earth's diameter. And the light is broken in the atmosphere.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight

In a desert temperature drops about 40K in one night. Which may be a reflection of the sun's great power for days.
15-02-2011 23:07
DesertphileProfile picture☆☆☆☆☆
(33)
The Humidity wrote: "Greenhouse gas'" are fantasy.


In the same sense that sunlight is a fantasy, or gravity is a fancy.

CO2 being a greenhouse gas was demonstrated by C.J. Fox in 1909, A. Angstron in 1918, and Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916, 1917, and 1918. It was known ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO that without water vapor and carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, Earth would be a frozen lifeless chunk of dirt and ice.

"Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect"
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/2010_Schmidt_etal_1.pdf

"Principles of Planetary Climate" by R. T. Pierrehumbert
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/PrinciplesPlanetaryClimate/Data/dataPortal.html

"Infrared radiation and planetary temperature"
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc/PHTOAD-ft/vol_64/iss_1/33_1.shtml

http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf

[deleted by admin].
Edited by branner on 16-02-2011 00:01
16-02-2011 03:21
Hayduke
☆☆☆☆☆
(21)
[quote]Desertphile wrote:

CO2 being a greenhouse gas was demonstrated by C.J. Fox in 1909, A. Angstron in 1918, and Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916, 1917, and 1918. It was known ONE HUNDRED YEARS AGO that without water vapor and carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere, Earth would be a frozen lifeless chunk of dirt and ice.


Fortunately, the process of science did not stop in 1909. We now know much more about CO2 radiative forcing, the non-linear relationship between Atmospheric CO2 concentrations and global average surface temperatures.

We also have considerable doubts about the efficacy of constant fiddling with global surface temperature records, the effects of the Urban Heat Island Effect, and the results of mixing proxy climate records.

The Hockey Stick graph is thoroughly refuted.
12-05-2011 18:37
hotair
☆☆☆☆☆
(11)
Hayduke: I call bull on what you're saying.

Let me see or provide me with your link to a peer reviewed article saying the Hockey Stick graph is wrong.

I've read the papers the reviewed the Hockey Stick Graphs. Blemishes and all, those papers SUPPORTED it.

I'm really not interested in seeing Exxon funded bloggers and other entertainment sources. Show me something real and tangible.


As for fiddling surface temperatures, again, I call bull. Actual measurements show clearly that global warming is occurring. Specifically, a small rise in temperature should show a massive rise at the poles. This is happening. Correlating to these temperature changes, is the melting of the arctic ice. Even more nifty is that you can see your hockey stick in how the ice melts.

In short ALL the theory is holding fine.


Here's what Environment Canada says about how Canada's climate has changed. Including a massive hot spot over the arctic.
http://www.ec.gc.ca/adsc-cmda/default.asp?lang=En&n=77842065-1

As you can see here the arctic sea ice extent is reducing hugely.
http://nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Finally, you can see your hockey stick... right here.
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/seasonal.extent.1900-2007.jpg


If you're feeling curious, you can generate your own graph from Environment Canada here;
http://www.ec.gc.ca/glaces-ice/default.asp

Icegraph 1.03
Canadian Arctic
Plot Trendline
Generate Graphs

Under
Historical Total Accumulated Ice Coverage 1971 - 2010, 0514 - 1015
Pick "Stage of Development"

Its looking pretty hockey stick.
05-05-2014 11:16
Kano
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
It is quite true that a doubling of CO2 (by about year 2050) will cause 3.7watts per sq meter increased forcing that equates to a 1C rise, (big deal) that is insignicant compared to natural causes like solar/ocean cycles.
Even if it did cause some marginal outgassing of CO2, we would have to wait until we got to 1100ppm before we get another 1C rise.
09-05-2014 20:52
WeatherRusty
☆☆☆☆☆
(8)
You totally ignore equilibrium climate sensitivity over the Planck responce of 1.2C as a factor, which is estimated to reside somewhere between 1.5C and 4.5C per doubling of CO2 or it's equivalence in radiative forcing.
30-10-2015 16:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14338)
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.

Branner, aside from our modern understanding that CO2 has no superpowers to defy the laws of physics by magically creating thermal energy, we also have the underlying axiom of science which is that the way nature works now is the way nature worked in the past and is the way nature will work in the future.

If we assume that historical increases in the earth's temperature were followed chronologically by increased levels of atmospheric CO2, then we know that something else caused the temperature increase and that elevated CO2 levels are a subsequent result, not a cause.

Additionally, the primary argument being refuted is that elevated CO2 levels (and magical "greenhouse gases") are somehow the only explanation for the elevated atmospheric temperature. By showing that something other than CO2 caused the temperature increases we have rendered this particular argument false.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
RE: Also from November 16, 200911-11-2023 20:05
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.



I wish I had known to join back in November, 2009.

This website had so much potential.

There are plenty of vicious feedbacks involved in climate change.

Higher temperatures DO lead to more CO2 released to the atmosphere, as more CO2 leads to higher temperature.

Soil organic matter, for example, decomposes more rapidly as temperature rises. This releases more CO2 to the atmosphere.

Certainly not mutually exclusive. More like synergistic.
11-11-2023 23:14
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5191)
Im a BM wrote:
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.



I wish I had known to join back in November, 2009.

This website had so much potential.

There are plenty of vicious feedbacks involved in climate change.

Higher temperatures DO lead to more CO2 released to the atmosphere, as more CO2 leads to higher temperature.

Soil organic matter, for example, decomposes more rapidly as temperature rises. This releases more CO2 to the atmosphere.

Certainly not mutually exclusive. More like synergistic.


If higher temperature releases more CO2. And more CO2 leads to higher temperature. Shouldn't the planet have burned to a crispy brown by now? Sounds like thermal runaway. Yet, the temperature has remained in a range tolerable for life to endure. 'Greenhouse' gasses aren't a significant element. Which is a 'safe' scare tactic, since it doesn't make any difference. Seems like something more powerful regulates global temperature. Water would be my guess...
11-11-2023 23:55
James_
★★★★★
(2015)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.


I wish I had known to join back in November, 2009.

This website had so much potential.

There are plenty of vicious feedbacks involved in climate change.

Higher temperatures DO lead to more CO2 released to the atmosphere, as more CO2 leads to higher temperature.

Soil organic matter, for example, decomposes more rapidly as temperature rises. This releases more CO2 to the atmosphere.

Certainly not mutually exclusive. More like synergistic.


If higher temperature releases more CO2. And more CO2 leads to higher temperature. Shouldn't the planet have burned to a crispy brown by now? Sounds like thermal runaway. Yet, the temperature has remained in a range tolerable for life to endure. 'Greenhouse' gasses aren't a significant element. Which is a 'safe' scare tactic, since it doesn't make any difference. Seems like something more powerful regulates global temperature. Water would be my guess...



One thing necessary when reading about climate change research is to filter out CO2. There are scientists where if you filter out "CO2 is causing" then it reads completely different.
Most people don't understand that scientists who don't go along to get along will be ignored. 2 examples are a commentary about what ended the last ice age https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/ and ozone depletion over Antarctica causing spring warming in the south of Africa. https://phys.org/news/2013-10-ozone-hole-responsible-southern-africa.html
A larger hole in the ozone layer allows more UV radiation into the troposphere (what we live in). And water absorbs all UV radiation that reaches the oceans.
Edited on 12-11-2023 00:24
12-11-2023 04:12
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(2932)
Im a BM wrote:

There are plenty of vicious feedbacks involved in climate change.

Higher temperatures DO lead to more CO2 released to the atmosphere, as more CO2 leads to higher temperature.


You cannot stay here and hide from me. I will remind you and everyone who reads this that you admittedly don't understand thermodynamics, or even what heat is.

You run like the chicken shit you are from any conversation challenging your claim that temperature can rise without additional energy. It can't.

Would you like to try again describing the process that raises temperature by defying physics?

While you're at it, I'd sure like to know how the temperature of the entire earth is measured. How do we know the temperature is rising?


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
12-11-2023 15:53
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5191)
James_ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
branner wrote:
It's often used as an argument against the theory of anthropogenic global warming, that in the past, the temperature rise caused the CO2 rise, and not the other way round. But how can this be an argument against the theory that present CO2 rise causes temperature rise?
I can't see the point, because logically the two things (the behaviour of the past and the alleged behaviour of the present) are not mutually exclusive, and they can very well be true at the same time.


I wish I had known to join back in November, 2009.

This website had so much potential.

There are plenty of vicious feedbacks involved in climate change.

Higher temperatures DO lead to more CO2 released to the atmosphere, as more CO2 leads to higher temperature.

Soil organic matter, for example, decomposes more rapidly as temperature rises. This releases more CO2 to the atmosphere.

Certainly not mutually exclusive. More like synergistic.


If higher temperature releases more CO2. And more CO2 leads to higher temperature. Shouldn't the planet have burned to a crispy brown by now? Sounds like thermal runaway. Yet, the temperature has remained in a range tolerable for life to endure. 'Greenhouse' gasses aren't a significant element. Which is a 'safe' scare tactic, since it doesn't make any difference. Seems like something more powerful regulates global temperature. Water would be my guess...



One thing necessary when reading about climate change research is to filter out CO2. There are scientists where if you filter out "CO2 is causing" then it reads completely different.
Most people don't understand that scientists who don't go along to get along will be ignored. 2 examples are a commentary about what ended the last ice age https://nbi.ku.dk/english/sciencexplorer/earth_and_climate/golden_spike/determination_of_end_of_ice_age/ and ozone depletion over Antarctica causing spring warming in the south of Africa. https://phys.org/news/2013-10-ozone-hole-responsible-southern-africa.html
A larger hole in the ozone layer allows more UV radiation into the troposphere (what we live in). And water absorbs all UV radiation that reaches the oceans.


'Scientist' created the ozone hole in the 70s. Well, 'discovered'... But, quickly turned it into a research grant cash-cow. They had no idea if it was normal, or how long the hole has been there. Natural, and normal doesn't generate much interest, or free-money. Spin a crisis, and you have generous funding for life...
12-11-2023 16:13
James_
★★★★★
(2015)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:

There are plenty of vicious feedbacks involved in climate change.

Higher temperatures DO lead to more CO2 released to the atmosphere, as more CO2 leads to higher temperature.


You cannot stay here and hide from me. I will remind you and everyone who reads this that you admittedly don't understand thermodynamics, or even what heat is.

You run like the chicken shit you are from any conversation challenging your claim that temperature can rise without additional energy. It can't.

Would you like to try again describing the process that raises temperature by defying physics?

While you're at it, I'd sure like to know how the temperature of the entire earth is measured. How do we know the temperature is rising?



This is for Swanee, aka Alan Bauldree who is a Christian and he'll have to say this is right, he needs my soul because he's a Christian and the Bible says;
1 Corinthians 1:19; For it is written: 'I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.
He only claims to be mentally ill while he is a typical Christian and represents the church in Jesus' holy name.

I have to go by net CO2 equivalent emissions which is 6 x 10^9 tons. I really wish they said by what specific gas such as CH4, NOx, SOx, etc. This gets very much how many particles are in 1 mol, 6.023 X 10^23 and the weight of 1 mol of each molecular gas. They'll have an atomic mass based on the number of protons and neutrons they have. Then their weight by mol shows that as molecules they'll gain mass/weight. Is this right Swanee?
The average kinetic energy for 1 mol of air according to Swanee is about 1,924 watts of power. He told me this, he really, really did. And now you're convinced, right? Good to know you understand how smart Swanee is.

And with a weight of 6 x 10^9 (this is a rough estimate without know the difference between atomic mass of the particles and the weight of their molecules, just sloppy, right Swanee?. But the kinetic energy in that many tons of CO2 in the troposphere is
1,530,874,248,750,000,000 J or 1.5309 x 10^18 watts of power.
There are 1.78 × 10^20 mol of gas in the atmosphere. Then 1.5309 x 10^18 j divided by 1.78 x 10^20 mol equals 8.60056 x 10^-3 watts per mol on average. It's important to notice the minus sign in front of the 3 in 10^ -3. Move the decimal point 3 places to the left and it's 0.008 j/mol (watts per mol, a mol is about 22.4 cubic meters) and if we divide 0.008/22.4 = 0.000357143 w/m^3 (watts per cubic meter). Is this right Swanee? Can you check my work for me like you've always done?

And if 1,924 w/mol = 518º F or 287ºk (kelvin) from absolute 0º to average 58.7º F.
or 15.4º C., then everything points to ozone depletion being the actual threat. It is well known that more solar radiation = a warmer Earth. This actually verifies that.
Still, because fossil fuel emissions include both NOx and SOx which are harmful to the ozone layer. And everyone in here knows I've always been on about that aspect of climate change.
Deforestation (urban sprawl) and ozone depletion parallel global warming. Reducing ODSs (ozone depleting substances) should be the focus of any climate change policy.
SOx and NOx emissions originate as products of combustion that accompany power generation and the processing of pulping chemicals.

And Alan, at thenakedscientists.com website, they're no different than you are just as in many forums and in many churches you're typical. I show why Johann Bessler had a difficult life being 1/2 Polish and 1/2 German, it's about being able to fit in socially. I think sociologists will eat this stuff up.

p.s., Alan, if you would've been willing to work with me then you would've been known for being successful with perpetual motion and possibly Sustainable Farming but your faith in Jesus didn't teach you to be willing to work or willing to work with others. As a Christian prophet, you'll be famous for teaching what the Bible means, faith without works. And it has been your desire to be known as a Christian prophet, I think you'll get your wish. People will know what it means to be a Christian. Believing in Jesus makes you better.
You Christians Alan should know the Bible says;
2 Thessalonians 3:10; For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
In plain English Alan, Christians should work to earn the respect they desire and you as a Christian Prophet will be a witness to your children what it means to be a Christian., we're good because we believe in Jesus.
Edited on 12-11-2023 16:51
RE: nobody wants to play with you12-11-2023 20:56
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(595)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:

There are plenty of vicious feedbacks involved in climate change.

Higher temperatures DO lead to more CO2 released to the atmosphere, as more CO2 leads to higher temperature.


You cannot stay here and hide from me. I will remind you and everyone who reads this that you admittedly don't understand thermodynamics, or even what heat is.

You run like the chicken shit you are from any conversation challenging your claim that temperature can rise without additional energy. It can't.

Would you like to try again describing the process that raises temperature by defying physics?

While you're at it, I'd sure like to know how the temperature of the entire earth is measured. How do we know the temperature is rising?



Nobody wants to play with you.

Well, I don't speak for everyone, but nobody seems to respond to your posts.

I did attempt to have a rational discussion with you about thermodynamics.

I would say it was a waste of time but I learned something surprising.

Trolls seem to think that "greenhouse effect" is a reference to trapping convection currents in a confined space with a physical barrier.

There is certainly no way for greenhouse gases to do anything like that in the atmosphere.

Here is a tip. If you want to earn respect, insults will not help your cause.

If you want anyone to play with you, try being less of a...
12-11-2023 22:15
James_
★★★★★
(2015)
Im a BM wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:

There are plenty of vicious feedbacks involved in climate change.

Higher temperatures DO lead to more CO2 released to the atmosphere, as more CO2 leads to higher temperature.


You cannot stay here and hide from me. I will remind you and everyone who reads this that you admittedly don't understand thermodynamics, or even what heat is.

You run like the chicken shit you are from any conversation challenging your claim that temperature can rise without additional energy. It can't.

Would you like to try again describing the process that raises temperature by defying physics?

While you're at it, I'd sure like to know how the temperature of the entire earth is measured. How do we know the temperature is rising?



Nobody wants to play with you.

Well, I don't speak for everyone, but nobody seems to respond to your posts.

I did attempt to have a rational discussion with you about thermodynamics.

I would say it was a waste of time but I learned something surprising.

Trolls seem to think that "greenhouse effect" is a reference to trapping convection currents in a confined space with a physical barrier.

There is certainly no way for greenhouse gases to do anything like that in the atmosphere.

Here is a tip. If you want to earn respect, insults will not help your cause.

If you want anyone to play with you, try being less of a...



You mean you don't understand how the atmosphere works? Not my problem.

p.s., That's what Alan Bauldree always told me and yet I don't like him. He uses many aliases and stays anonymous, how he becomes credible, he promotes himself. And if he is mentally I'll as he claims the
N that would fit his psychological profile.

p.s.s., nobody in here has ever said "if you want to earn respect". Don't tell me this is another account of Alan's. He comes into what is considered a toxic forum and says "if you want to earn respect".

Alan, go to a Christian forum.
Edited on 12-11-2023 22:27
12-11-2023 23:07
James_
★★★★★
(2015)
@All, Alan Bauldree earned massive amounts of respect for his work https://www.youtube.com/@ABthehammer and I am being serious. Forum owners would show me this and say he's the best. He earned respect by being friends with who controlled forums. And as he just posted to me, no one will play with me if I don't learn to earn respect and he's willing to teach me.
And unfortunately there is no cyber stalking law in the U.S. He thought he got what he wanted when I posted that he was a perpetual motion God. You can read what he started saying when he said he wasn't Alan.
And in the past Alan has posted to me "little boy I'll call your daddy", "you have to do exactly what I say if you want to live" and when me and my friends find out where you live we're going to visit you and teach you a lesson about what happens when people don't do what we want".
Saying I need to "earn respect" is because other threats have not worked. He said that because my father was from Norway that he was ignorant and that he'd teach him how to earn a living in the U.S. He's either gay or a white supremacist and hates anyone that has lived in Europe but not an English speaking country.
Edited on 12-11-2023 23:17




Join the debate Differences between the past and the present time:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Every time I say that this board is dead, someone says something to prove me wrong, but901-01-2024 05:08
Physicists 'entangle' individual molecules for the first time, bringing about a new platform for 1721-12-2023 13:02
Time to Ban Swan?4507-11-2023 13:57
Quantum entanglement visualized for the first time ever1407-10-2023 19:05
Present temperature spike July '233127-09-2023 00:27
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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