Remember me
▼ Content

goodbye



Page 2 of 2<12
26-09-2017 00:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
GasGuzler wrote:
Adding to what I just said......

A few years back the only measurements needed for the global warming discussion was temperature. Now they would like to blame hot, cold, wind, rain, snow, floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and all weather events on global warming. So for any meaningful argument sake, they must provide all these numbers accurately. It should not be up to me or anyone else who enjoys the great tool of energy for the purpose of living comfortably. Yet Spot, who has not really said goodbye, wants me to run a landscape business on battery power. "if I learn to adapt, it should have no effect on my bottom line". Ha! Idiot. I will miss him if he decides it's too dangerous to post here due to the possibility of some dude in California flying over to England to rough him up a little over an air temperature disagreement.


Fortunately, cooler heads are prevailing. The Church of Global Warming, while still very vocal, is losing ground fast.

You can continue to run your landscape business using solid energy sources. (batteries are not an energy source. They must be charged from somewhere else, like a coal plan).

If spot decides that Wake's threats had any capability to them, then that's just being paranoid. I won't miss that in spot.

The amount of hackery, data theft, monetary cost, and time wasted to try to track down any one of us is simply not worth it, and could easily cause one to wind up in prison.

Why spot is even considering this a serious threat is beyond me.

Wake is being stupid too. You don't go describing your plan of attack against an enemy. It's Wake's way of being the barking dog. Woof! Woof! He is showing no more intelligence than a stupid barking dog.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 00:21
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
ITN wrote:
Okay...let's consider this line of thought:

What are you averaging? Temperature? Precipitation? Type of prevalent air mass movement? Cloud cover? Temperature variation? The effect of seasons? Air pressure? Wind speed and direction? Surface visual range? Type and frequency of storms?


All of it....and to get those averages accurately there would have to be recording stations like every 20 ft across the globe....and it would STILL be a question of accuracy. Think about the "climate" in your own home, which is regulated by thermostat. I have a well insulated 2004 built home and it can vary 2-3 degrees depending on which part of the house I'm in. How many recording stations in Antarctica? And Greenland?


How do you describe the type and frequency of storms when considering a whole globe?

How do you describe the humidify of the whole globe? Are you including the surface air only? How high is the 'surface' air? What about higher in the troposphere? What about the stratosphere? The mesosphere? The thermosphere? How do you describe a 'top' to the atmosphere?

How about precipitation? The source of that precip is evaporation from some water source. That source could even be plants, such as you get in the rain forests. Do you subtract that from the rain gauge? How could determine how much to subtract? What about virga?

How do you even consider temperature, when that temperature might be of the air, or the ocean, or deep underground, or high in the sky? What is the temperature? Just the surface? What about the typical weather station thermometer located several feet above the surface? It might be located on the roof, or on a post out in a field. What about the temperature underground? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? ALL of these are part of the average temperature of the Earth.

Let's consider your own home thermostat. As you know, the thermostat is a thermometer. But it only knows the temperature at the thermostat itself. It doesn't know the temperature in the attic, the basement, the bedroom with the door closed and the window open, etc.

In other words, it's not even possible to determine the temperature of your house.

Thermostats are simple relay switches. They don't have to be accurate. They are typically located in a hallway where there is good airflow and work well enough for a rough average assuming doors are open, windows, are closed, outside doors are closed, appliances turned off, etc. Like the outside, you must decrease any source of steeper temperature gradients in the home for the thermostat to be an accurate reading of the temperature of the entire home.

Antarctica has a recording station at each station any nation put down there. Even the cruise ships that visit have thermometers on board.

But Antarctica is the size of the United States plus a good hunk of Canada.

You see, even 'climate' is not an easy thing to define quantitatively. It's a purely subjective term. No theory can be built on a subjective term, since it must necessarily start from and be based on a void argument.

No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy.

Hence, no branch in science called 'climatology'. There are no theories there. There are nothing but religious arguments there.


All agreed. You are simply making my point better than I did.

For the record, I was thinking 2 meter observations, which is where it will become uninhabitable for mankind.
26-09-2017 00:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
ITN wrote:
Okay...let's consider this line of thought:

What are you averaging? Temperature? Precipitation? Type of prevalent air mass movement? Cloud cover? Temperature variation? The effect of seasons? Air pressure? Wind speed and direction? Surface visual range? Type and frequency of storms?


All of it....and to get those averages accurately there would have to be recording stations like every 20 ft across the globe....and it would STILL be a question of accuracy. Think about the "climate" in your own home, which is regulated by thermostat. I have a well insulated 2004 built home and it can vary 2-3 degrees depending on which part of the house I'm in. How many recording stations in Antarctica? And Greenland?


How do you describe the type and frequency of storms when considering a whole globe?

How do you describe the humidify of the whole globe? Are you including the surface air only? How high is the 'surface' air? What about higher in the troposphere? What about the stratosphere? The mesosphere? The thermosphere? How do you describe a 'top' to the atmosphere?

How about precipitation? The source of that precip is evaporation from some water source. That source could even be plants, such as you get in the rain forests. Do you subtract that from the rain gauge? How could determine how much to subtract? What about virga?

How do you even consider temperature, when that temperature might be of the air, or the ocean, or deep underground, or high in the sky? What is the temperature? Just the surface? What about the typical weather station thermometer located several feet above the surface? It might be located on the roof, or on a post out in a field. What about the temperature underground? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? ALL of these are part of the average temperature of the Earth.

Let's consider your own home thermostat. As you know, the thermostat is a thermometer. But it only knows the temperature at the thermostat itself. It doesn't know the temperature in the attic, the basement, the bedroom with the door closed and the window open, etc.

In other words, it's not even possible to determine the temperature of your house.

Thermostats are simple relay switches. They don't have to be accurate. They are typically located in a hallway where there is good airflow and work well enough for a rough average assuming doors are open, windows, are closed, outside doors are closed, appliances turned off, etc. Like the outside, you must decrease any source of steeper temperature gradients in the home for the thermostat to be an accurate reading of the temperature of the entire home.

Antarctica has a recording station at each station any nation put down there. Even the cruise ships that visit have thermometers on board.

But Antarctica is the size of the United States plus a good hunk of Canada.

You see, even 'climate' is not an easy thing to define quantitatively. It's a purely subjective term. No theory can be built on a subjective term, since it must necessarily start from and be based on a void argument.

No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy.

Hence, no branch in science called 'climatology'. There are no theories there. There are nothing but religious arguments there.


All agreed. You are simply making my point better than I did.

For the record, I was thinking 2 meter observations, which is where it will become uninhabitable for mankind.


Satellite observations can actually measure down to cm^2 though it's not necessary since square miles is more than sufficient.
26-09-2017 00:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
ITN wrote:
Okay...let's consider this line of thought:

What are you averaging? Temperature? Precipitation? Type of prevalent air mass movement? Cloud cover? Temperature variation? The effect of seasons? Air pressure? Wind speed and direction? Surface visual range? Type and frequency of storms?


All of it....and to get those averages accurately there would have to be recording stations like every 20 ft across the globe....and it would STILL be a question of accuracy. Think about the "climate" in your own home, which is regulated by thermostat. I have a well insulated 2004 built home and it can vary 2-3 degrees depending on which part of the house I'm in. How many recording stations in Antarctica? And Greenland?


I think most people would consider glaciers that have an elevation over 10,000 ft. or 3,048 meters that extend further south than the 47th parallel to be a significant variation. Most of what you're saying is needed is being unrealistic.

It is quite realistic. Steep temperature gradients can occur anywhere. Not just glaciers.
James_ wrote:
If you would research the methods used then you'd have a different attitude.

What methods? You are being vague here.
James_ wrote:
And since you are saying global climate, this means that if the same points of reference are used then over a period of decades changes in those temperatures can be observed.

Math error. Selection by Opportunity. This is not allowed in statistical math.
James_ wrote:
Meteorologist have recorded local weather for over a century in which snowfall, rainfall, etc. have been recorded. And since it is global weather that you say I don't think happens, it is only the trend that matters.

Math error. Preconclusion. Trends require at least two absolute measurements. You have none. Trends also must answer why those two measurements are important, and other measurements are not important.
James_ wrote:
Why localized areas won't matter is because the area around the Aral Sea has less rainfall than it did 50 years ago. That sea has about dried up because of human activity. This also slightly increases global temperature.

Lack of water in a certain place on the globe does not increase or decrease the global temperature.
And in the U.S., the Ogallala Aquifer as well as all aquifers west of the Mississippi River are becoming depleted. This should allow for more arid conditions west of the Mississippi River. This means that about 40% of the U.S. agricultural production is at risk. I think this is something that ITN likes as he very much dislikes Europeans.[/quote]
You keep saying I dislike Europeans for some reason. Why?
James_ wrote:
And as has been shown a lake can stop a tornado dead in it's tracks.

Nope. Tornadoes will happily truck right through a lake.
James_ wrote:
The heat needed to fuel it is removed.

Heat is not what causes the tornado. Unstable air causes the tornado. A tornado IS heat.
James_ wrote:
And with depleted ground water then the surface ground temperature can increase as well.

The presence or absence of ground water has no effect on average temperature in a region.
James_ wrote:
The Dust Bowl of the 1930's is one example of this.

The Dust Bowl was not due to heat. It was due to overuse of the soil and no ground cover for it. The fix was to import an aggressive ground cover plant. The dust bowl doesn't happen anymore, but the Kudzu problem is something you gotta see to believe.
James_ wrote:
But these localized events are regional climates.

Nope. Just weather.
James_ wrote:
They have only a minimal impact on the global climate which allows for an ice age to occur.

You mean the 'global climate' causes ice ages now???
James_ wrote:
...deleted portion already discusses elsewhere...
Myself, ITN doesn't like me because I say heat can be transported

You DO like to take things personally, don't you?

Heat cannot be 'transported'. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Correcting your bad science is not disliking you.
James_ wrote:
and that proper research into how CO2 effects our atmosphere hasn't been done yet.

We know the properties of CO2. We know it's specific heat value, we know its conductivity, and we know what frequencies of light it likes to absorb and emit. We know all that for the othe gases in the atmosphere too.
James_ wrote:
It can be done under controlled conditions in a laboratory to take the guess work out of it.

The information I described WAS done under controlled conditions in a lab. Labs, BTW, do NOT take the guesswork out of an experiment. The way the experiment is conducted takes the guesswork out of the experiment, not the location the experiment was performed.
James_ wrote:
This is one reason why computer modelling hasn't been very accurate.

Computer modelling isn't data. It is random number generated by a computer program according to someone's preconceived idea of what the 'data' should look like. This type of random number is of the type randU, the 'predictable' random number.
James_ wrote:
And GasGuzzler, by observing the different temperatures in your home and comparing those temperatures to the outside temperatures, etc. might be something some of the people in here would find of interest. It might help them to better understand that the global climate also has many regional climates as well and it is the over all net effect that is global warming or cooling. Our planet does have a long and slow cooling period which maybe in the next 1 or 2,000 years might be starting.

Use of 'might': 3

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 00:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
Adding to what I just said......

A few years back the only measurements needed for the global warming discussion was temperature. Now they would like to blame hot, cold, wind, rain, snow, floods, droughts, storms, hurricanes, tornadoes, and all weather events on global warming. So for any meaningful argument sake, they must provide all these numbers accurately. It should not be up to me or anyone else who enjoys the great tool of energy for the purpose of living comfortably. Yet Spot, who has not really said goodbye, wants me to run a landscape business on battery power. "if I learn to adapt, it should have no effect on my bottom line". Ha! Idiot. I will miss him if he decides it's too dangerous to post here due to the possibility of some dude in California flying over to England to rough him up a little over an air temperature disagreement.


Global warming is about one thing - Mean Global Temperature. Not rain fall, not snowfall in the mountains, not the thickness of ice packs or any of the rest of that. Those are separate variables that they have tried to convince you are somehow connected to MGT.


Okay. Global warming is about temperature. I guess that's what the 'warming' in 'global warming' means, eh?

Define 'global warming' without using a circular definition.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 01:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
Actually spot said he was coming over here and might look me up.

And you really think that's a serious threat???
Wake wrote:
So when I said that I would welcome it (and it's implied threat) he said that I would be crazy because he might bring a gun. He actually believed that I would show up to something like that without a witness. And since several people I know that could act as witnesses are retired cops they carry too. Let him bring a gun. If he showed it he could be arrested or shot. If he didn't he would discover that I NEVER start fights. I just end them.

No, you START them, liar.
Wake wrote:
We have nightmare telling us that you can't store heat.

You can't.
Wake wrote:
So I guess he believes that the Earth's temperature is the same as the applied energy from the Sun and that it becomes instantly cold as evening draws on.

Thermal energy is not heat. Go look it up.
Wake wrote:
He thinks you can't tell the difference between the energy bouncing off of the atmosphere which is almost entirely in the visible spectrum and the energy from the Earth which is entirely in the low IR spectrum.

Ah. You have finally turned to the Magick Bouncing Photon argument. It doesn't work for the Church of the Warmazombie either.
Wake wrote:
He continues to quote the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and yet he doesn't actually know how to use the calculation.

The equation is pretty straightforward.
Wake wrote:
When I quote the actual law which does not contain a correction for emissivity

The actual law has a term for emissivity. It is not a correction. It is a measured constant.
Wake wrote:
because that law is for Black Body Radiation

WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all bodies. You are now confusing a reference point with a theory.
Wake wrote:
- he tells me I don't know what the law is.

You don't, if you think you can just eliminate emissivity.
Wake wrote:
When I explain how you can MEASURE emissivity he gives a "NO YOU CAN'T".

Never did. To measure emissivity, you must first accurately know the temperature of the surface to be measured. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. You can't use satellites to measure temperature because they depend on emissivity, which you haven't determined yet.
Wake wrote:
Then we discover that James cannot read nightmare and my disagreements and says that we agree on everything.

He does seem to miss a lot.
Wake wrote:
This group is so difficult to understand because the people who do not know what they are talking about are the ones telling us all about it.

Like you? You are now using the same arguments as Greenman.
Wake wrote:
L8117 makes a comment that is bass ackwards. What sort of training does he have? He might be the most intelligent man on this group but without knowledge of what good is it?

Science isn't credentials. Neither is math. Neither is logic, Neither is philosophy. No one 'owns' any of them.

Basing your arguments on someone's credentials is an argument by false authority.

Wake wrote:
Greenman has already said that he wants to see human-kind killed off.

Actually, what he says is that human-kind WILL be killed off, not that he wants to see it.
Wake wrote:
That is a rather common idea among Environmentalists. I have gone to speeches at Stanford University in which the speaker actually said that to an entire audience composed mostly of Master's degrees and higher. These people who think this believe that if people were being eliminated that it wouldn't include them. Think about that for a minute.
While quite a lot of environmentalists DO want to kill off people, they don't specify who (just so long as its not them...THEY are the 'enlightened' ones).
[quote]Wake wrote:
"Still Learning" seems to be totally neutral which is a very pleasant change.

Heh. Give him time. You'll condemn him too, just like you eventually do with everyone that disagrees with you on any point.
Wake wrote:
Litebrain is simply insane. He will post to himself. In one spot I counted him holding a conversation with himself for six postings. Not adding information mind you but holding a conversation with himself.

Mostly a continuing rant about something. That and his self-appointed mission to repeat and update his 'data', even on dead topics.
Wake wrote:
What happened at the IPCC Venice meeting? No one was allowed to speak against man-made global warming.

How long do you suppose someone lasts in a meeting of the Cardinals if one speaks out against the Pope?


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 01:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
ITN wrote:
Okay...let's consider this line of thought:

What are you averaging? Temperature? Precipitation? Type of prevalent air mass movement? Cloud cover? Temperature variation? The effect of seasons? Air pressure? Wind speed and direction? Surface visual range? Type and frequency of storms?


All of it....and to get those averages accurately there would have to be recording stations like every 20 ft across the globe....and it would STILL be a question of accuracy. Think about the "climate" in your own home, which is regulated by thermostat. I have a well insulated 2004 built home and it can vary 2-3 degrees depending on which part of the house I'm in. How many recording stations in Antarctica? And Greenland?


How do you describe the type and frequency of storms when considering a whole globe?

How do you describe the humidify of the whole globe? Are you including the surface air only? How high is the 'surface' air? What about higher in the troposphere? What about the stratosphere? The mesosphere? The thermosphere? How do you describe a 'top' to the atmosphere?

How about precipitation? The source of that precip is evaporation from some water source. That source could even be plants, such as you get in the rain forests. Do you subtract that from the rain gauge? How could determine how much to subtract? What about virga?

How do you even consider temperature, when that temperature might be of the air, or the ocean, or deep underground, or high in the sky? What is the temperature? Just the surface? What about the typical weather station thermometer located several feet above the surface? It might be located on the roof, or on a post out in a field. What about the temperature underground? How deep? The atmosphere? How high? ALL of these are part of the average temperature of the Earth.

Let's consider your own home thermostat. As you know, the thermostat is a thermometer. But it only knows the temperature at the thermostat itself. It doesn't know the temperature in the attic, the basement, the bedroom with the door closed and the window open, etc.

In other words, it's not even possible to determine the temperature of your house.

Thermostats are simple relay switches. They don't have to be accurate. They are typically located in a hallway where there is good airflow and work well enough for a rough average assuming doors are open, windows, are closed, outside doors are closed, appliances turned off, etc. Like the outside, you must decrease any source of steeper temperature gradients in the home for the thermostat to be an accurate reading of the temperature of the entire home.

Antarctica has a recording station at each station any nation put down there. Even the cruise ships that visit have thermometers on board.

But Antarctica is the size of the United States plus a good hunk of Canada.

You see, even 'climate' is not an easy thing to define quantitatively. It's a purely subjective term. No theory can be built on a subjective term, since it must necessarily start from and be based on a void argument.

No theory, scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy.

Hence, no branch in science called 'climatology'. There are no theories there. There are nothing but religious arguments there.


All agreed. You are simply making my point better than I did.

For the record, I was thinking 2 meter observations, which is where it will become uninhabitable for mankind.


Satellite observations can actually measure down to cm^2 though it's not necessary since square miles is more than sufficient.


Satellites cannot measure absolute temperature.

Programming a satellite to average over a square mile and calling that the value is simply incorporating the same math error right into the satellite software itself.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 02:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:


Fortunately, cooler heads are prevailing. The Church of Global Warming, while still very vocal, is losing ground fast.



So the Ice Age did not end ? Once again your logic is perfect as your philosophy only allows you to know anything. This is funny because GasGuzzler believes that you know what you are talking about.
26-09-2017 04:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10189)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


Fortunately, cooler heads are prevailing. The Church of Global Warming, while still very vocal, is losing ground fast.



So the Ice Age did not end ? Once again your logic is perfect as your philosophy only allows you to know anything. This is funny because GasGuzzler believes that you know what you are talking about.


Non -sequitur. I am not talking about ice ages. I am talking about the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 06:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: I am talking about the Church of Global Warming.
IF "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" could disprove global warming, it would have its own church.... 'cept it ain't got no soul... thus its name, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight".
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate goodbye:

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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact