Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is a joke.


Global warming is a joke.16-02-2017 23:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Even the Antarctic ice sheets are cracking up.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-02-2017 00:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Even the Antarctic ice sheets are cracking up.


Does that frighten you? Are you aware that the recovery of the ice sheet has shown such a sharp recovery that this is plainly weather related and not an effect of climate change?

If you have some sort of point to make, then by all means make it. This is supposed to be a scientific forum and not some sort of area where you can challenge your elders and betters with childish claims.

Let us discuss FACTS and not presumptions.
17-02-2017 00:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Even the Antarctic ice sheets are cracking up.


Does that frighten you? Are you aware that the recovery of the ice sheet has shown such a sharp recovery that this is plainly weather related and not an effect of climate change?

If you have some sort of point to make, then by all means make it. This is supposed to be a scientific forum and not some sort of area where you can challenge your elders and betters with childish claims.

Let us discuss FACTS and not presumptions.


You crack me up

Fact is that any statement you make is likely to be false.

Fact is the icesheats are cracking up.

Fact is you are not my better.

Thanks for making me laugh with that though.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-02-2017 01:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofs:
spot wrote:
Even the Antarctic ice sheets are cracking up.

recovery of the ice sheet has shown such a sharp recovery that this is plainly weather related...

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" ain't havin' no mental recovery. 10,000+ year old Wilkins, Ward Hunt, Larsen A, B, C, others bustin' up in 20 year chunks of time ain't weather. "wake-me-up" knows it, even while asleep. 386+ straight months have been over the 20th century average, but Solar TSI has been languid for decades, & low for 10 years (including a 3+ year TSI low setting a 100 year record. "wake-me-up" knows all this but thinks its gotta comment because it can't do "sigh-ants".... ya, we seein' all your 'rithmetic errors.
Edited on 17-02-2017 01:02
17-02-2017 01:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Even the Antarctic ice sheets are cracking up.


Does that frighten you? Are you aware that the recovery of the ice sheet has shown such a sharp recovery that this is plainly weather related and not an effect of climate change?

If you have some sort of point to make, then by all means make it. This is supposed to be a scientific forum and not some sort of area where you can challenge your elders and betters with childish claims.

Let us discuss FACTS and not presumptions.


You crack me up

Fact is that any statement you make is likely to be false.

Fact is the icesheats are cracking up.

Fact is you are not my better.

Thanks for making me laugh with that though.


I see I proved my point - not one single word of discussion and only crying in your milkshake.

Here's an article on NPR since you liberals don't like anything that isn't left wing:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/16/509565462/an-ice-shelf-is-cracking-in-antarctica-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think

"Luckman says climate change is certainly influencing this region. Larsen C used to have two neighbors to the north, Larsen A and Larsen B. As the air and water warmed, those ice shelves started melting and then splintered into shards in 1995 and 2002.

But the crack in Larsen C seems to have happened on its own, for different reasons.

"This is probably not directly attributable to any warming in the region, although of course the warming won't have helped," says Luckman. "It's probably just simply a natural event that's just been waiting around to happen.""
17-02-2017 12:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Even the Antarctic ice sheets are cracking up.


Does that frighten you? Are you aware that the recovery of the ice sheet has shown such a sharp recovery that this is plainly weather related and not an effect of climate change?

If you have some sort of point to make, then by all means make it. This is supposed to be a scientific forum and not some sort of area where you can challenge your elders and betters with childish claims.

Let us discuss FACTS and not presumptions.


You crack me up

Fact is that any statement you make is likely to be false.

Fact is the icesheats are cracking up.

Fact is you are not my better.

Thanks for making me laugh with that though.


I see I proved my point - not one single word of discussion and only crying in your milkshake.

Here's an article on NPR since you liberals don't like anything that isn't left wing:

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/01/16/509565462/an-ice-shelf-is-cracking-in-antarctica-but-not-for-the-reason-you-think

"Luckman says climate change is certainly influencing this region. Larsen C used to have two neighbors to the north, Larsen A and Larsen B. As the air and water warmed, those ice shelves started melting and then splintered into shards in 1995 and 2002.

But the crack in Larsen C seems to have happened on its own, for different reasons.

"This is probably not directly attributable to any warming in the region, although of course the warming won't have helped," says Luckman. "It's probably just simply a natural event that's just been waiting around to happen.""


Are you as much fun to be around in real life?


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-02-2017 17:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: Are you as much fun to be around in real life?


Even more so - I have actually managed R&D teams where things have to get done. And you'd have been the first one out the door because facts don't phase you, only your politics.
17-02-2017 19:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:

Even more so - I have actually managed R&D teams where things have to get done. And you'd have been the first one out the door because facts don't phase you, only your politics.


Of course you managed an R&D team petal and I'm sure you did very important and meaningful work, I believe you if it makes you happy, did the team look like this?




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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-02-2017 20:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

Even more so - I have actually managed R&D teams where things have to get done. And you'd have been the first one out the door because facts don't phase you, only your politics.


Of course you managed an R&D team petal and I'm sure you did very important and meaningful work, I believe you if it makes you happy, did the team look like this?



My but you have a very short memory. I worked on the first "real" heart/lung machine. I automated the PCR process to analyze DNA and keep morons like you from getting HIV from a blood transfusion. As if that did any good since you'll get it from your boyfriend who will purposely infect you.

I programmed Military poison gas detectors to keep our soldiers from dying from you moron's "no WND".

I designed and programmed gas chromatographs and liquid chromatographs. I worked on the teams of people that gave a Nobel Prize to it's manager and another that received an Emmy for lifetime achievement.

I worked to increase the power of the Berkeley Cyclotron. I worked at both the Lawrence Berkeley Labs and the Lawrence Livermore labs. I worked at Sandia National laboratories.

And I have been waiting for ONE SINGLE qualification that any of you True Believers have to say one thing in support of an insupportable hypothesis that has been proven incorrect on every single front.
17-02-2017 21:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

Even more so - I have actually managed R&D teams where things have to get done. And you'd have been the first one out the door because facts don't phase you, only your politics.


Of course you managed an R&D team petal and I'm sure you did very important and meaningful work, I believe you if it makes you happy, did the team look like this?



My but you have a very short memory. I worked on the first "real" heart/lung machine. I automated the PCR process to analyze DNA and keep morons like you from getting HIV from a blood transfusion. As if that did any good since you'll get it from your boyfriend who will purposely infect you.

I programmed Military poison gas detectors to keep our soldiers from dying from you moron's "no WND".

I designed and programmed gas chromatographs and liquid chromatographs. I worked on the teams of people that gave a Nobel Prize to it's manager and another that received an Emmy for lifetime achievement.

I worked to increase the power of the Berkeley Cyclotron. I worked at both the Lawrence Berkeley Labs and the Lawrence Livermore labs. I worked at Sandia National laboratories.

And I have been waiting for ONE SINGLE qualification that any of you True Believers have to say one thing in support of an insupportable hypothesis that has been proven incorrect on every single front.


I guess since then you have had a stroke or dementia has set in or something.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
17-02-2017 22:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]spot wrote: I guess since then you have had a stroke or dementia has set in or something.


And yet again you show not one single credential. But then I didn't expect you to because you have none.
18-02-2017 03:04
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
[b]spot wrote: I guess since then you have had a stroke or dementia has set in or something.


And yet again you show not one single credential. But then I didn't expect you to because you have none.

This is an anonymous internet forum. Anyone can claim to have whatever credentials they like, and these cannot be verified. It is therefore stupid to keep going on about credentials.

It is best to judge posters by the quality of their posts. Yours are crap. They're full of lies, half-lies and misunderstandings. You also can't use apostrophes properly and seem to be incapable of basic arithmetic. I therefore conclude that you are either lying about having any sort of professional background or are suffering from some sort of age-related ailment.
18-02-2017 06:07
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Surface Detail wrote: I therefore conclude that you are either lying about having any sort of professional background or are suffering from some sort of age-related ailment.

Correction:
I therefore conclude that you are lying about having any sort of professional background AND are suffering from some sort of age-related ailment.
18-02-2017 10:55
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
[b]spot wrote: I guess since then you have had a stroke or dementia has set in or something.


And yet again you show not one single credential. But then I didn't expect you to because you have none.


I think I said before I have a city and guilds in electronic servicing, which means nothing. But I do know enough about say stellar evolution to know that you are just making statements up from the top of your head if you think it makes you look clever.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
18-02-2017 16:06
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]spot wrote: I guess since then you have had a stroke or dementia has set in or something.


And yet again you show not one single credential. But then I didn't expect you to because you have none.


I think I said before I have a city and guilds in electronic servicing, which means nothing. But I do know enough about say stellar evolution to know that you are just making statements up from the top of your head if you think it makes you look clever.

spot is spot on & the nickname of wake is "wake-me-up". Anyone who thinks stars consistently have the same luminosity through much of their live cycle must have failed Astronomy 101, & slept through the course. Ah.... or didn't take it at all.
Edited on 18-02-2017 16:11
18-02-2017 21:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]spot wrote: I guess since then you have had a stroke or dementia has set in or something.


And yet again you show not one single credential. But then I didn't expect you to because you have none.


I think I said before I have a city and guilds in electronic servicing, which means nothing. But I do know enough about say stellar evolution to know that you are just making statements up from the top of your head if you think it makes you look clever.


Such qualifications gives you the ability to learn. But you do not learn easily as shown by every posting of yours. You would far more rather quote misrepresentations that share your political position than to actually THINK about how such things such as how we could have three years of "record high temperatures" that do NOT quote either the actual gains or the possible errors that would disprove the gains.

We have already seen January quoted as "the hottest January on record" when it wasn't even close.

When you're being made a fool of perhaps you should notice that. Or I have a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.
Edited on 18-02-2017 21:54
19-02-2017 01:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
[b]spot wrote: I guess since then you have had a stroke or dementia has set in or something.


And yet again you show not one single credential. But then I didn't expect you to because you have none.


I think I said before I have a city and guilds in electronic servicing, which means nothing. But I do know enough about say stellar evolution to know that you are just making statements up from the top of your head if you think it makes you look clever.


Such qualifications gives you the ability to learn. But you do not learn easily as shown by every posting of yours. You would far more rather quote misrepresentations that share your political position than to actually THINK about how such things such as how we could have three years of "record high temperatures" that do NOT quote either the actual gains or the possible errors that would disprove the gains.

We have already seen January quoted as "the hottest January on record" when it wasn't even close.

When you're being made a fool of perhaps you should notice that. Or I fyhave a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.
I have show evidence that it was, you have not brought forward any evidence that it was not, declareing something is not evidence.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
19-02-2017 19:10
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

We have already seen January quoted as "the hottest January on record" when it wasn't even close.

When you're being made a fool of perhaps you should notice that. Or I fyhave a nice bridge I'd like to sell you.
I have show evidence that it was, you have not brought forward any evidence that it was not, declareing something is not evidence.


Do you mean with: http://www.oneindia.com/international/january-2017-third-hottest-on-record-nasa-2349635.html
19-02-2017 19:14
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
This is the thread in question notice it refers to the year and not the month you muppet.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2016-hottest-year-on-record-d6-e1291.php
19-02-2017 21:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
This is the thread in question notice it refers to the year and not the month you muppet.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2016-hottest-year-on-record-d6-e1291.php


After being shown that the claim was that Jan 2017 was "the hottest on record" I then show you that it wasn't.

But when you have no argument you are forced to fall back on the stupid "2016 was the hottest year on record" after I showed you the statements of NASA themselves saying that was a total misrepresentation.

Also the scientist who just retired from NOAA stated that the temperature records for the last 20 years have been falsified to show warming where none occurred.

You just can't keep up from your own stupid lies being shown for what they are.

Let's here another "DUHHHHHHHHHHH" from you. It's getting so loud now we can hear you all the way from your little corner of the basement of your mother's home.
20-02-2017 20:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Wake wrote:the scientist who just retired from NOAA stated that the temperature records for the last 20 years have been falsified to show warming where none occurred.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" can't do nuthin' right, can't do science & can't interpret science, as shown by the following quote:
Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
http://registerguard.com/rg/news/35258240-76/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended.html.csp
////////
Bates appears miffed due to others NOT following his procedures. NOT following his procedures changed no science. Ah..... Bates retired & things changed in the workplace Bates used to work at. Who woulda thot sech thangs wood ev'r ooccur.
Edited on 20-02-2017 20:55
24-02-2017 17:21
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
litesong wrote:
Wake wrote:the scientist who just retired from NOAA stated that the temperature records for the last 20 years have been falsified to show warming where none occurred.

"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" can't do nuthin' right, can't do science & can't interpret science, as shown by the following quote:
Bates said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press that he was most concerned about the way data was handled, documented and stored, raising issues of transparency and availability. He said Karl didn't follow the more than 20 crucial data storage and handling steps that Bates created for NOAA. He said it looked like the June 2015 study was pushed out to influence the December 2015 climate treaty negotiations in Paris.

However Bates, who acknowledges that Earth is warming from man-made carbon dioxide emissions, said in the interview that there was "no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious."
http://registerguard.com/rg/news/35258240-76/major-global-warming-study-again-questioned-again-defended.html.csp
////////
Bates appears miffed due to others NOT following his procedures. NOT following his procedures changed no science. Ah..... Bates retired & things changed in the workplace Bates used to work at. Who woulda thot sech thangs wood ev'r ooccur.

Meanwhile in the Arctic:
For 386+ STRAIGHT months, global Earth temperatures have been above the 20th century average. This has occurred DESPITE the solar TSI energy output being languid for decades, & below normal for 10 years (including a 3+ year period of low solar TSI energy setting a 100 year low). When the sun returns to normal (& it will because it has INCREASED very slowly for 5 billion years), AGW effects will increase strongly. In late 2016, the Present High Arctic Berserker, PHAB, or FAB
(over-temperatures on nearly 4 million square kilometers of the High Arctic), jumped to 20degC over-temperature. MIND YOU!! This is NOT a local city temperature over say a 20 kilometer by 20 kilometer square. It is over a square almost 2000 kilometers by 2000 kilometers. Within the last 2 years in the MIDDLE OF WINTER, our Earth's North Pole heated above the freezing point of water for short times, on three occasions. Presently, Arctic sea ice VOLUME is 10,600 cubic kilometers LESS than the to date Arctic sea ice average year for the 1980's. The energy to melt such a cube of ice (almost 22 kilometers by 22 kilometers by 65000 feet high) is about 33 times the annual energy used by the United States of America. Lesser ice losses are occurring in the Antarctic (but increasing).
24-02-2017 18:25
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
This is the thread in question notice it refers to the year and not the month you muppet.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2016-hottest-year-on-record-d6-e1291.php


Didn't we just go through this? Even NASA is saying that "hottest year yet" is nothing more than BS. Are you THAT easily manipulated? Wake up.
24-02-2017 20:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
This is the thread in question notice it refers to the year and not the month you muppet.

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2016-hottest-year-on-record-d6-e1291.php


Didn't we just go through this? Even NASA is saying that "hottest year yet" is nothing more than BS. Are you THAT easily manipulated? Wake up.


We went through nothing. you are expecting allot if you think I'm going to read though your stream of consciousness just incase you put in something relevant to what I wrote previously.

NASA said no such thing.

Hows your Homophobia coping with your love of Milo Yiannopoulos BTW?

You are screwed up.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
24-02-2017 22:19
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[b]spot wrote:
We went through nothing. you are expecting allot if you think I'm going to read though your stream of consciousness just incase you put in something relevant to what I wrote previously.

NASA said no such thing.

Hows your Homophobia coping with your love of Milo Yiannopoulos BTW?

You are screwed up.


http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/16/scientists-balk-at-hottest-year-claims-we-are-arguing-over-the-significance-of-hundredths-of-a-degree-the-pause-continues/
24-02-2017 22:54
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Wake wrote: ....climatedepot

Quoting climate depot is talking to the right side bugs under the feathers of the right wing.




Join the debate Global warming is a joke.:

Remember me

▲ 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