Remember me
▼ Content

goodbye



Page 1 of 212>
goodbye17-09-2017 18:26
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
You win I lose I have better things then interact with you idiots. If I want a serious disscussion I wont come here.

Also Wake and I have had a private discussion, he says I am making threats. I will post the full disscusion here so people know what really happened.

From Wake
Date 14. September 2017, 22:59
Subject Off for a Holiday
Tell you what - when you get into the Oakland you can call me at ***-***-**** and I'll come right over and take care of you.

What in the hell does Pho have to do with anything? Every other block around here they have Pho restaurants you ignorant moron.

I really do look forward to hearing from you. A Brit telling us all about how the US should run things will really go good in person.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 16:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Funny, I'm going to be honest with you, I don't like you, but before this joke gets out of hand let me just say as one human being to another. Thereatang people you don't know and arranging to meet like kids after school seems to be self destructive, I might bring a gun or anything. Seek help, for your kids sake, seriously.
From Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 17:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
By all means bring a gun. You don't seem to understand US laws and I sure wouldn't mind you spending the next ten years learning them the hard way. American federal prisons are not the prissy little things you seem to think they are.

I suggest you get some serious help since YOU are the one that said you were coming here.

And believe me - without a gun you would go to a hospital. And with a gun you'd either be shot by a cop friend or discover what happens when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Or perhaps you don't remember me saying that my best friend is a retired NCIS agent and my cousin has just retired as a police chief. Do you suppose for one second that I would trust a maniac like you to act like anything other than you are?

You know nothing and pretend to know all about climate change. It really gets to you that anyone can see through your facade.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 18:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Do your kids know that you are making these posts?

I'm not going to hurt you I'm not even going to try and meet you, I'm just saying you don't seem healthy and I don't see how offering people out over a scientific controversy this would end well for you if someone took you up on this, even if you came of physically better in the hypothetical encounter.

It Might end up in the news for people to laugh about.

"70 year old in gunfight with Brit in Oakland over dispute about climate change." Have you any idea how ridiculous this is?


From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.


To Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 09:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
If I was going to bring a gun to our meeting I wouldn't tell you. I'm just trying to point out how this sort of thing can go wrong.

Show your kids or cop friends what you are doing ask them if it's wise.

This joke is over goodbye.
Close

From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.


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.
17-09-2017 18:57
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
You win I lose I have better things then interact with you idiots. If I want a serious disscussion I wont come here.

Also Wake and I have had a private discussion, he says I am making threats. I will post the full disscusion here so people know what really happened.

From Wake
Date 14. September 2017, 22:59
Subject Off for a Holiday
Tell you what - when you get into the Oakland you can call me at ***-***-**** and I'll come right over and take care of you.

What in the hell does Pho have to do with anything? Every other block around here they have Pho restaurants you ignorant moron.

I really do look forward to hearing from you. A Brit telling us all about how the US should run things will really go good in person.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 16:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Funny, I'm going to be honest with you, I don't like you, but before this joke gets out of hand let me just say as one human being to another. Thereatang people you don't know and arranging to meet like kids after school seems to be self destructive, I might bring a gun or anything. Seek help, for your kids sake, seriously.
From Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 17:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
By all means bring a gun. You don't seem to understand US laws and I sure wouldn't mind you spending the next ten years learning them the hard way. American federal prisons are not the prissy little things you seem to think they are.

I suggest you get some serious help since YOU are the one that said you were coming here.

And believe me - without a gun you would go to a hospital. And with a gun you'd either be shot by a cop friend or discover what happens when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Or perhaps you don't remember me saying that my best friend is a retired NCIS agent and my cousin has just retired as a police chief. Do you suppose for one second that I would trust a maniac like you to act like anything other than you are?

You know nothing and pretend to know all about climate change. It really gets to you that anyone can see through your facade.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 18:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Do your kids know that you are making these posts?

I'm not going to hurt you I'm not even going to try and meet you, I'm just saying you don't seem healthy and I don't see how offering people out over a scientific controversy this would end well for you if someone took you up on this, even if you came of physically better in the hypothetical encounter.

It Might end up in the news for people to laugh about.

"70 year old in gunfight with Brit in Oakland over dispute about climate change." Have you any idea how ridiculous this is?


From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.


To Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 09:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
If I was going to bring a gun to our meeting I wouldn't tell you. I'm just trying to point out how this sort of thing can go wrong.

Show your kids or cop friends what you are doing ask them if it's wise.

This joke is over goodbye.
Close

From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.


I wonder how many find it interesting that Spot would threaten me with shooting me. Scum like him show themselves for what they really are - cowards that cannot face reality. A sickness that because they are the world's losers that everyone else should lose as well.

But that ain't the way it is, is it? People like Spot will remain losers for their entire lives. They wish to hurt others but others can more than defend themselves. So Spot and his cowardice are stuck with themselves. He has to look in the mirror every day.

The world isn't going to end tomorrow so that the True Believers can have the last laugh. They won't have anyone else to blame for the collapse of the human race.

Presently all signs are that the warm period is ending. The eco-terrorists are going to end up with empty hands. Like ISIS recruits in Europe the FBI is watching them closely.

What a horrifying experience to wish for the end of the human race and it is not arriving.

The other day I had $20 in my pocket and a homeless guy told me that he wanted a hamburger. So I got change and gave him $10. You know that guy probably needed a fix. And perhaps that fix he got was laced with fentanyl and killed that guy. And now I only have $2 on me after a cup of coffee and a scone. But that isn't what charity is about is it?

But hatred and suspicion is what the True Believers are all about. They haven't a trace of charity in their hearts. There is no room for anything other than evil on a scale that would frighten children. Too bad that scientists aren't children. Too bad that they never believed their Great Leader's claims of 97% from the start since you couldn't even get 97% of scientists to agree what the color red was.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/01/18/update-feds-conning-the-public-scientists-accuse-nasa-of-misleading-lying-about-hottest-year-claim/

CO2 levels were as high as today just 800 years ago according to recent plant stomata research that has brought ice core research under question.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/stomata.html

Spot - good riddance to you and all like you. Soon I expect to see the other True Believers dropping by the wayside as the climate begins to show it's true colors - cyclic behavior for which we have long historic record.
23-09-2017 20:46
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" woofed:....as the climate begins to show it's true colors - cyclic behavior....

AGW denier liar whiners been predictin' returning Ice Age temperatures for 20 years. Meanwhile:
1)...last 3 years were consecutive record highs
2)...present Arctic sea ice VOLUME-- ~ 10,000+ cubic kilometers LESS than the average months of 1980's. The energy needed to melt such a block of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
3) ~ 395 straight months-- over the average global temperatures of the 20th century. Yeah, get those temperatures back under the 20th century average. Has to be real simple..... cause AGW denier liar whiners say its all cyclical. Of course, "getting back under the average temperature of the 20th century" means that 400+ MONTHS into the future will have to be under the 20th century average because you have to balance ALL over-temperature MONTHS since ~ 1986 & many over-temperature months during the 1900 to 1986 period.

Let's get this cyclical global temperature drop going & continuing.... so's AGW denier liar whiners can be right.... 400 months(probably more) into the future!
Edited on 23-09-2017 21:33
24-09-2017 10:31
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
spot wrote:
You win I lose I have better things then interact with you idiots. If I want a serious disscussion I wont come here.

Also Wake and I have had a private discussion, he says I am making threats. I will post the full disscusion here so people know what really happened.

From Wake
Date 14. September 2017, 22:59
Subject Off for a Holiday
Tell you what - when you get into the Oakland you can call me at ***-***-**** and I'll come right over and take care of you.

What in the hell does Pho have to do with anything? Every other block around here they have Pho restaurants you ignorant moron.

I really do look forward to hearing from you. A Brit telling us all about how the US should run things will really go good in person.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 16:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Funny, I'm going to be honest with you, I don't like you, but before this joke gets out of hand let me just say as one human being to another. Thereatang people you don't know and arranging to meet like kids after school seems to be self destructive, I might bring a gun or anything. Seek help, for your kids sake, seriously.
From Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 17:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
By all means bring a gun. You don't seem to understand US laws and I sure wouldn't mind you spending the next ten years learning them the hard way. American federal prisons are not the prissy little things you seem to think they are.

I suggest you get some serious help since YOU are the one that said you were coming here.

And believe me - without a gun you would go to a hospital. And with a gun you'd either be shot by a cop friend or discover what happens when you don't have any idea what you're talking about. Or perhaps you don't remember me saying that my best friend is a retired NCIS agent and my cousin has just retired as a police chief. Do you suppose for one second that I would trust a maniac like you to act like anything other than you are?

You know nothing and pretend to know all about climate change. It really gets to you that anyone can see through your facade.

To Wake
Date 15. September 2017, 18:07
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Do your kids know that you are making these posts?

I'm not going to hurt you I'm not even going to try and meet you, I'm just saying you don't seem healthy and I don't see how offering people out over a scientific controversy this would end well for you if someone took you up on this, even if you came of physically better in the hypothetical encounter.

It Might end up in the news for people to laugh about.

"70 year old in gunfight with Brit in Oakland over dispute about climate change." Have you any idea how ridiculous this is?


From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.


To Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 09:42
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
If I was going to bring a gun to our meeting I wouldn't tell you. I'm just trying to point out how this sort of thing can go wrong.

Show your kids or cop friends what you are doing ask them if it's wise.

This joke is over goodbye.
Close

From Wake
Date 16. September 2017, 15:30
Subject RE: Off for a Holiday
Too bad I've already shown your message to them. They are like me and think that you meet a challenge head on. That if you were to pull a gun that a by standing observer would blow you away.

So by all means give me a call. You have my phone number and I'm more than anxious to meet someone like you. After all, I'm just a poor helpless 73 year old. Come and get me.

Spot, don't let a crazy old fart like that run you off. It's about to get good.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
24-09-2017 13:20
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Spot,
I've had the same problems with Wake and ITN. It is frustrating when some people have trouble staying on topic. I think even with scientists that they have problems as well because climate change is a lot more than just saying rising co2 levels.
24-09-2017 17:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
The science is still an important and interesting issue but this forum makes it impossible to discuss.

ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.
24-09-2017 18:38
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]spot wrote: ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

I agree with spot. Many years ago, I surprisingly discovered that many AGW denier liar whiners were also bestial, a large percentage being racists. A larger percentage than humanly hoped, of THAT percentage were egotistically driven with wayward reasons to threaten AGW advocates. On other AGW denier liar whiner webcysts (no misspelling), I've seen many AGW advocates leave such webcysts because of threats.
AGW denier liar whiners have no community. As indicated, many AGW denier liar whiners disavow their humanity. Unlike spot & many AGW advocates tho, instead of leaving such webcysts, I often advertise the racism within AGW denier liar whiners. On rare occasions I write the very threats of AGW denier liar whiners, pouring glaring abundant limelight, instead of darkness, on the deepest threatening, racist non-existent souls.
Edited on 24-09-2017 18:49
24-09-2017 20:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
James_ wrote:
Spot,
I've had the same problems with Wake and ITN. It is frustrating when some people have trouble staying on topic. I think even with scientists that they have problems as well because climate change is a lot more than just saying rising co2 levels.


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


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2017 20:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
spot wrote:
The science is still an important and interesting issue but this forum makes it impossible to discuss.

ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.


What science??? I have not seen any science from you at all!

I'm annoying to you because I call you out for your BS.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2017 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
litesong wrote:
[b]spot wrote: ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

I agree with spot. Many years ago, I surprisingly discovered that many AGW denier liar whiners were also bestial, a large percentage being racists. A larger percentage than humanly hoped, of THAT percentage were egotistically driven with wayward reasons to threaten AGW advocates. On other AGW denier liar whiner webcysts (no misspelling), I've seen many AGW advocates leave such webcysts because of threats.
AGW denier liar whiners have no community. As indicated, many AGW denier liar whiners disavow their humanity. Unlike spot & many AGW advocates tho, instead of leaving such webcysts, I often advertise the racism within AGW denier liar whiners. On rare occasions I write the very threats of AGW denier liar whiners, pouring glaring abundant limelight, instead of darkness, on the deepest threatening, racist non-existent souls.


Another mutual pat each other on the back society.

Okay...so we've established that:

spot is ticked off because he can't have a serious discussion about global warming as a science without getting called out for it.

James is ticked off because he can't stay on topic and blames any Outsider that happens to be around for it.

Litebeer is ticked off because he is being racist and blaming any Outsider that happens to be around for it, describing them as 'hate filled <usual litebeer language> racists that are out to get him'.

Wake is ticked off because I keep correcting him on his attempts to change theories of science and for his bad math, and for his occasional logic errors.

NONE of you guys have left the forum, as you ALL have promised you would do.

ALL of you are liars.

ALL of you are religious nuts that confuse religion and science...yes, I'm including YOU in that one, Wake!).



All of you threaten to leave here and go play in the kiddie pool somewhere. All of you have found that in posting here, you might get splashed in the face. All of you whine and cry like little children when it happens, and you go back to threatening to leave and go back to a kiddie pool somewhere.

GAWD what a bunch of lying whiners.


The Parrot Killer
24-09-2017 23:08
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Spot,
I've had the same problems with Wake and ITN. It is frustrating when some people have trouble staying on topic. I think even with scientists that they have problems as well because climate change is a lot more than just saying rising co2 levels.


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


Posting with you is circular in and of itself because your ego is like a black hole. This is because no intelligence can radiate from it. All it does is to suck all intelligent thought from this forum because your philosophy only allows for your flawed logic.
24-09-2017 23:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.


Posting with you is circular in and of itself because your ego is like a black hole. This is because no intelligence can radiate from it. All it does is to suck all intelligent thought from this forum because your philosophy only allows for your flawed logic.


Can't do it, eh?

You would rather insult (a fallacy) and describe flawed logic (a fallacy, known as a fallacy fallacy).

All I am asking for is a definition by some other means than using the phrase itself.

The best I got out of anyone here is defining 'climate change' as 'global warming'. They still couldn't define 'global warming'.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2017 00:53
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
[b]spot wrote: ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

I agree with spot. Many years ago, I surprisingly discovered that many AGW denier liar whiners were also bestial, a large percentage being racists. A larger percentage than humanly hoped, of THAT percentage were egotistically driven with wayward reasons to threaten AGW advocates. On other AGW denier liar whiner webcysts (no misspelling), I've seen many AGW advocates leave such webcysts because of threats.
AGW denier liar whiners have no community. As indicated, many AGW denier liar whiners disavow their humanity. Unlike spot & many AGW advocates tho, instead of leaving such webcysts, I often advertise the racism within AGW denier liar whiners. On rare occasions I write the very threats of AGW denier liar whiners, pouring glaring abundant limelight, instead of darkness, on the deepest threatening, racist non-existent souls.


Another mutual pat each other on the back society.

Okay...so we've established that:

spot is ticked off because he can't have a serious discussion about global warming as a science without getting called out for it.

James is ticked off because he can't stay on topic and blames any Outsider that happens to be around for it.

Litebeer is ticked off because he is being racist and blaming any Outsider that happens to be around for it, describing them as 'hate filled <usual litebeer language> racists that are out to get him'.

Wake is ticked off because I keep correcting him on his attempts to change theories of science and for his bad math, and for his occasional logic errors.

NONE of you guys have left the forum, as you ALL have promised you would do.

ALL of you are liars.

ALL of you are religious nuts that confuse religion and science...yes, I'm including YOU in that one, Wake!).



All of you threaten to leave here and go play in the kiddie pool somewhere. All of you have found that in posting here, you might get splashed in the face. All of you whine and cry like little children when it happens, and you go back to threatening to leave and go back to a kiddie pool somewhere.

GAWD what a bunch of lying whiners.


Not really the problem is your 73 year old mate wants to beat me up while his cop friends look on with guns just in case I get the upper hand in the encounter, you are just boring but if you want to think it's because I can't deal with your superior intelect that's fine.


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.
25-09-2017 01:35
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Wake wrote:The other day I had $20 in my pocket and a homeless guy told me that he wanted a hamburger. So I got change and gave him $10. You know that guy probably needed a fix. And perhaps that fix he got was laced with fentanyl and killed that guy. And now I only have $2 on me after a cup of coffee and a scone. But that isn't what charity is about is it?

A better charity ya coulda done was, take him for his burger (or something healthier), while you had the scone & a cup of coffee. Maybe he woulda turned the burger down. Then, ya woulda known he wanted drugs. If he accepted your burger, then both of ya woulda had sumpun to eat & some conversation.
One lady carries nuts & fruit around with her. When people want money (for a burger), she gives out lots of nuts, apples, peaches, pears, tomatoes.... Not only do they get nutrients, but some wholesome fluids, too....meals in skins, for sure.
25-09-2017 02:58
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.


Posting with you is circular in and of itself because your ego is like a black hole. This is because no intelligence can radiate from it. All it does is to suck all intelligent thought from this forum because your philosophy only allows for your flawed logic.


Can't do it, eh?

You would rather insult (a fallacy) and describe flawed logic (a fallacy, known as a fallacy fallacy).

All I am asking for is a definition by some other means than using the phrase itself.

The best I got out of anyone here is defining 'climate change' as 'global warming'. They still couldn't define 'global warming'.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion.


You've already stated that only you know anything. Myself, I do not think you are a good teacher. Maybe you should start giving us the correct answers so we will know what the correct answer is ?
25-09-2017 10:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
litesong wrote:
[b]spot wrote: ITN is just annoying and trollish but Wake is on another level, as you can see, and possibly dangerous, I chose not to associate with such people.

I agree with spot. Many years ago, I surprisingly discovered that many AGW denier liar whiners were also bestial, a large percentage being racists. A larger percentage than humanly hoped, of THAT percentage were egotistically driven with wayward reasons to threaten AGW advocates. On other AGW denier liar whiner webcysts (no misspelling), I've seen many AGW advocates leave such webcysts because of threats.
AGW denier liar whiners have no community. As indicated, many AGW denier liar whiners disavow their humanity. Unlike spot & many AGW advocates tho, instead of leaving such webcysts, I often advertise the racism within AGW denier liar whiners. On rare occasions I write the very threats of AGW denier liar whiners, pouring glaring abundant limelight, instead of darkness, on the deepest threatening, racist non-existent souls.


Another mutual pat each other on the back society.

Okay...so we've established that:

spot is ticked off because he can't have a serious discussion about global warming as a science without getting called out for it.

James is ticked off because he can't stay on topic and blames any Outsider that happens to be around for it.

Litebeer is ticked off because he is being racist and blaming any Outsider that happens to be around for it, describing them as 'hate filled <usual litebeer language> racists that are out to get him'.

Wake is ticked off because I keep correcting him on his attempts to change theories of science and for his bad math, and for his occasional logic errors.

NONE of you guys have left the forum, as you ALL have promised you would do.

ALL of you are liars.

ALL of you are religious nuts that confuse religion and science...yes, I'm including YOU in that one, Wake!).



All of you threaten to leave here and go play in the kiddie pool somewhere. All of you have found that in posting here, you might get splashed in the face. All of you whine and cry like little children when it happens, and you go back to threatening to leave and go back to a kiddie pool somewhere.

GAWD what a bunch of lying whiners.


Not really the problem is your 73 year old mate wants to beat me up while his cop friends look on with guns just in case I get the upper hand in the encounter, you are just boring but if you want to think it's because I can't deal with your superior intelect that's fine.


Not my mate, dude. He's threatened to beat me up as well. Guess that's his way to deal with people...beat them into submission.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2017 10:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'climate change' or 'global warming' without using circular definitions.


Posting with you is circular in and of itself because your ego is like a black hole. This is because no intelligence can radiate from it. All it does is to suck all intelligent thought from this forum because your philosophy only allows for your flawed logic.


Can't do it, eh?

You would rather insult (a fallacy) and describe flawed logic (a fallacy, known as a fallacy fallacy).

All I am asking for is a definition by some other means than using the phrase itself.

The best I got out of anyone here is defining 'climate change' as 'global warming'. They still couldn't define 'global warming'.

The Church of Global Warming is a religion.


You've already stated that only you know anything. Myself, I do not think you are a good teacher. Maybe you should start giving us the correct answers so we will know what the correct answer is ?


The correct answer is there is NO definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change' that make any kind of sense. They are void arguments. Science has no theories based on void arguments, since no theory of any kind can exist on one. The only way these phrases have a definition at all is through a circular one.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2017 18:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

The correct answer is there is NO definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change' that make any kind of sense. They are void arguments. Science has no theories based on void arguments, since no theory of any kind can exist on one. The only way these phrases have a definition at all is through a circular one.


This is because you believe that only your opinion matters. This means that you nullify, cancel out ie., void all people who are not you. This gives you the status of being God. Are you ? If not then the flaw in your logic is that you do not allow for yourself to be wrong.
To show how easy it is to show the flaw in your philosophy, a graph about temperature change. In your flawed logic you do not allow for Ice Ages or the peak warming period that marks the change in direction from warming to cooling. And this changes the climate as well. The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.
Myself, I have always maintained the position that more research is needed. This is because there is much we do not know or understand about climate change.
Attached image:


Edited on 25-09-2017 18:44
25-09-2017 19:00
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.


Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

It comes down to a question of degree of accuracy. How much "faith" are you going to put into the accuracy that is available to us? I used to think we at least had a good handle on basic global temps....and I found out we don't. I then started researching only United States temps. Turns how there is a high variability of info just in the US. I then researched small areas, 10 recording stations within 200 miles. Again, extreme variability over decades of data.

ITN is right. "There is no way to determine the global temperature with any useful degree of accuracy".
Edited on 25-09-2017 19:20
25-09-2017 19:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
GasGuzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.


Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.


I accept that we have Ice Ages and then a warming period between them. How is that making an argument for no global climate ? I did show a graph that shows we have global warming and cooling.

What I stated is that there are different types of climates within our global climate. And what does ITN say ?
>> The correct answer is there is NO definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change' that make any kind of sense. They are void arguments. Science has no theories based on void arguments, since no theory of any kind can exist on one. The only way these phrases have a definition at all is through a circular one. <<
It seems his philosophy does not allow for any understanding of our environment or of science.
Edited on 25-09-2017 19:46
25-09-2017 19:52
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
James wrote:
What I stated is that there are different types of climates within our global climate.

This is an argument for no "global climate".
ITN's position is since there is no global climate, there can be no (global) climate change.
Edited on 25-09-2017 19:52
25-09-2017 20:02
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.


Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

It comes down to a question of degree of accuracy. How much "faith" are you going to put into the accuracy that is available to us? I used to think we at least had a good handle on basic global temps....and I found out we don't. I then started researching only United States temps. Turns how there is a high variability of info just in the US. I then researched small areas, 10 recording stations within 200 miles. Again, extreme variability over decades of data.

ITN is right. "There is no way to determine the global temperature with any useful degree of accuracy".


It is fairly easy though not highly accurate to use satellite data to measure the emissions from Earth. I say not highly accurate because the orbits of the satellites and the rotation of the Earth cause errors in measurement.
25-09-2017 20:07
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
My knowledge of these satellites is limited. However I do believe it's fair say say I could give them some weight IF.......
1) We had another 50-100 years of data
2) I trusted the dirty politician making the mathematical "adjustments" for the dirty orbit.
Edited on 25-09-2017 20:47
25-09-2017 20:12
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzler wrote:
Mt knowledge of these satellites is limited. However I do believe it's fair say say I could give them some weight IF.......
1) We had another 50-100 years of data
2) I trusted the dirty politician making the mathematical "adjustments" for the dirty orbit.


Remember I said that we could measure the temperature via satellite. Since this is day to day we don't need 50-100 years of data. That would only be significant for calculating climate.

And I didn't say that we could trust NASA and NOAA to report it accurately. From the rest of their information I would strongly doubt that NOAA or NASA could be trusted with a lead pencil.
25-09-2017 20:46
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Wake wrote:
Since this is day to day we don't need 50-100 years of data. That would only be significant for calculating climate.


I would trust it for a general trend, up or down, with a lot more years of data.....that's all I'm saying. What the satellites measure is way to variable for short term info.
25-09-2017 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

The correct answer is there is NO definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change' that make any kind of sense. They are void arguments. Science has no theories based on void arguments, since no theory of any kind can exist on one. The only way these phrases have a definition at all is through a circular one.


This is because you believe that only your opinion matters.
James_ wrote:
This means that you nullify, cancel out ie., void all people who are not you.

Nope. It means you can't define 'climate change'. You are evading and trying to blame me for your inability to define the phrase you depend on for all your arguments.
James_ wrote:
This gives you the status of being God. Are you ? If not then the flaw in your logic is that you do not allow for yourself to be wrong.

HAHAHAHAHA! It doesn't take a God to point out that you can't define 'global warming' or 'climate change'!
James_ wrote:
To show how easy it is to show the flaw in your philosophy,

No philosophy here. I am asking for a definition. I say you can't give one.
James_ wrote:
a graph about temperature change.

So you want to turn to using a graph of random numbers showing 'global warming' to define 'global warming'???
James_ wrote:
In your flawed logic you do not allow for Ice Ages or the peak warming period that marks the change in direction from warming to cooling.

Not using logic here either. I am asking you for a definition.
James_ wrote:
And this changes the climate as well.

So 'climate change' is defined as 'climate change'??? Nope. Circular definition.
James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet.

This is why they have different flora and fauna.

True. Not because they've 'changed'.
James_ wrote:
Myself, I have always maintained the position that more research is needed. This is because there is much we do not know or understand about climate change.

I know you can't define it. Until you do, research is rather pointless, isn't it?


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2017 21:05
spot
★★★★☆
(1209)
Into the Night wrote:

Not my mate, dude. He's threatened to beat me up as well. Guess that's his way to deal with people...beat them into submission.


Fair enough, you repeatedly called him our for the way he was acting.


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.
25-09-2017 21:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
Since this is day to day we don't need 50-100 years of data. That would only be significant for calculating climate.


I would trust it for a general trend, up or down, with a lot more years of data.....that's all I'm saying. What the satellites measure is way to variable for short term info.


http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_March_2017_v6.jpg

Ask and it shall be done.
25-09-2017 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
GasGuzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.


Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather.

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?

A big part of the problem in describing 'global' weather by using averages is that there are so many numbers to average, and depending on which one you use, you get a different (and equally useless) result.

Weather is more than one factor. Which one are you going to use? Just temperature? Then we are no longer talking about weather, we are talking about a global average temperature (which does exist).
GasGuzler wrote:
What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances.

This is correct. This effects the calculation of the margin of error in statistics, a required calculation.
GasGuzler wrote:
Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

It actually can't claim any precision at all beyond the observed temperature gradient.
GasGuzler wrote:
It comes down to a question of degree of accuracy. How much "faith" are you going to put into the accuracy that is available to us? I used to think we at least had a good handle on basic global temps....and I found out we don't. I then started researching only United States temps. Turns how there is a high variability of info just in the US. I then researched small areas, 10 recording stations within 200 miles. Again, extreme variability over decades of data.

ITN is right. "There is no way to determine the global temperature with any useful degree of accuracy".


This affects not only graphs of global temperature now, but global temperatures of the past, such as is presented here. These graphs are literally random numbers (of type randU), and are built for supporting some political or (usually) religious purpose.

Even worse is the use of this flawed data to try to falsify the theories of thermodynamics or the theories behind Planck's laws. You have probably noticed how these attempts try to redefine the theory.

Similar inabilities to determine things like a global sea level or a global emissivity have the same flaw in the mathematics and lack of data.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2017 21:45
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
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?
Edited on 25-09-2017 21:46
25-09-2017 22:29
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
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.
25-09-2017 22:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
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.
If you would research the methods used then you'd have a different attitude. 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. 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.
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.
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.
And as has been shown a lake can stop a tornado dead in it's tracks. The heat needed to fuel it is removed. And with depleted ground water then the surface ground temperature can increase as well. The Dust Bowl of the 1930's is one example of this. But these localized events are regional climates. They have only a minimal impact on the global climate which allows for an ice age to occur.
So what is it you want to discuss ? With your house it does have an average temperature. Place a thermometer in each room and record the temperature every 12 hours. Maybe there's a thermometer with memory that records either the high or low temperature. https://www.acurite.com/compact-indoor-thermometer-high-low-records.html You'll have a day time and night time temperature. Also meter the amount of KwH that your heat pump is using if that's what's heating and cooling your home. I think after a few months that you will see a trend when compared to what the season/outside weather is. And then if you want the monthly average temperature can be factored in.
And if you have kids then the KwH might increase when they're out of school. This is because of coming inside or going outside more often. And this is the basis of science. It's creating a hypothesis, then experimenting and/or collecting data and then considering what has been observed by suing an analytical process by taking the time to consider your work.
Myself, ITN doesn't like me because I say heat can be transported and that proper research into how CO2 effects our atmosphere hasn't been done yet. It can be done under controlled conditions in a laboratory to take the guess work out of it. This is one reason why computer modelling hasn't been very accurate.
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.
25-09-2017 23:01
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
And as has been shown a lake can stop a tornado dead in it's tracks. The heat needed to fuel it is removed.

Happens every time a tornado goes over water. It's called a waterspout. If it died immediately after hitting water, I highly doubt it was the water that caused it. The energy for the tornado came from the parent super cell, and and the amount of shear in the atmosphere is what caused it to rotate. There are two common reason for the ending of a tornado.
1) It is what's called a cyclical super cell. The same cell can produce multiple tornadoes and they appear and disappear. To me it's all the same tornado if it's from the same cell. But the NOAA like to report more, so that's what ya get.
2) Often times there is a dominant cell in a cluster. This dominant cell can rob energy from other cells. If a new cell goes up to the south, it has a good chance at become dominant, depending on dynamics. This new cell will cut off the warm moist inflow to the previously dominant cell. Tornadoes and severe storms are almost always a very fluid situation. Very unpredictable. I would like to look at any sources you have though to back up that statement. However, without seeing a radar picture at the time of death,or other raw data maps, difficult to prove the lake killed it.
with depleted ground water then the surface ground temperature can increase as well.

How? I know my well is 185 ft deep.
So what is it you want to discuss ? With your house it does have an average temperature. Place a thermometer in each room and record the temperature every 12 hours.

Exactly! That would be a thermometer roughly every 15 ft in my house. Want to accurately measure global temp?.......

About my house.... the basement...in the winter, can be 5-7 degrees cooler. Why? Because the vents are in the ceiling. Very difficult to force warmer heat down......something to think about for those of you who think CO2 is heated by the surface, and then reheats the surface.
Edited on 25-09-2017 23:03
25-09-2017 23:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
James_ wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.


Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.


I accept that we have Ice Ages and then a warming period between them. How is that making an argument for no global climate ? I did show a graph that shows we have global warming and cooling.

Temperature is but one aspect of weather. Are you talking about 'global climate' or the average temperature of the Earth?

If you discussing the average temperature of the Earth, you must conform to the demands of statistical math. With our current level and distribution of instrumentation, we cannot determine the temperature of the Earth.
James_ wrote:
What I stated is that there are different types of climates within our global climate. And what does ITN say ?
>> The correct answer is there is NO definition for 'global warming' or 'climate change' that make any kind of sense. They are void arguments. Science has no theories based on void arguments, since no theory of any kind can exist on one. The only way these phrases have a definition at all is through a circular one. <<
It seems his philosophy does not allow for any understanding of our environment or of science.

Theories of science work quite well. They have not been falsified. They do not depend on 'climate' for any of them, since 'climate' is an unspecifiable term. There is no way to quantify 'climate'.

Thus, there is no branch in science for 'climate'. Meteorology, which is a branch of science about weather and its patterns, stems from quantifiable things such as rainfall, temperature how air masses move over a particular area., etc.

Climate is different. There is no way to quantify 'weather over a long time', since 'a long time' is no a specific time unit.

Thus, it is possible to have different climates, but they do not 'change'. Describing things like ice ages or warm periods of the Earth is only trying to specify what 'a long time' is. It is a meaningless value.

The question must be asked for any 'climate change' usage:

Why are starting and ending times an example important? Why are any other times NOT important?

We can look at your own city and say it's warming. The starting and ending times happen to be 3am to noon.

We can also say it's cooling. The starting and ending times happen to be noon to 3am.

We can also say nothing is happening. The starting and ending times happen to be from 6:00pm to 6:01pm.

Just what is 'a long time'? It's an important point since climate is define as 'weather over a long time' or some such similar description.

No theory can exist on a void argument, not even a non-scientific one.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2017 23:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
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.
25-09-2017 23:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
James_ wrote:
The Arctic and Antarctic have different climates than the equatorial region of our planet. This is why they have different flora and fauna.


Um, you just made the argument that there is no global climate.

However, I do disagree with ITN here. There IS a global climate, which is the average of all weather. What is that average? No one has a clue due to lack of good data and the extreme variables over short distances. Even though I love your graph showing the lack of warming in this peak we are in, it is also based on flawed data. It is certainly a general idea, but not possibly accurate enough to claim any kind of precision in which to change our lives for.

It comes down to a question of degree of accuracy. How much "faith" are you going to put into the accuracy that is available to us? I used to think we at least had a good handle on basic global temps....and I found out we don't. I then started researching only United States temps. Turns how there is a high variability of info just in the US. I then researched small areas, 10 recording stations within 200 miles. Again, extreme variability over decades of data.

ITN is right. "There is no way to determine the global temperature with any useful degree of accuracy".


It is fairly easy though not highly accurate to use satellite data to measure the emissions from Earth.

Satellites cannot measure temperature. They can't determine which light is from Planck radiance or from reflections. They can only measure within a band of light, not all light. You don't know the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
I say not highly accurate because the orbits of the satellites and the rotation of the Earth cause errors in measurement.

It is not accurate at all. Satellites simply cannot measure the absolute temperature of the Earth.

Again, you are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and trying to define your own to replace it.


The Parrot Killer
25-09-2017 23:36
GasGuzler
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
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.


Agreed. However, when they try to use these extra things to support their theory, it is easily seen as a pot of boiling hooey.
25-09-2017 23:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzler wrote:
Mt knowledge of these satellites is limited. However I do believe it's fair say say I could give them some weight IF.......
1) We had another 50-100 years of data
2) I trusted the dirty politician making the mathematical "adjustments" for the dirty orbit.


Remember I said that we could measure the temperature via satellite. Since this is day to day we don't need 50-100 years of data. That would only be significant for calculating climate.

And I didn't say that we could trust NASA and NOAA to report it accurately. From the rest of their information I would strongly doubt that NOAA or NASA could be trusted with a lead pencil.


Ok. It's time to do the algebra and show you why you are full of shit.

Let's start with the formula: radiance = SBconstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

We want to isolate temperature from the rest of the equation. We'll use the simplified form of:

r=C*E*T^4
In this form, the reference point E=1 (a perfectly absorptive ideal) results in the highest radiance for a given temperature. In other words, radiance is the same as absorptivity..

Also in this form, the reference point E=0 (a perfectly reflective surface) results in a zero for Planck radiance regardless of temperature. The only light coming from such an ideal is reflected light.

Isolate out emissivity, resulting in r/E=C*T^4
Isolate out the SBconstant, resulting in r/(E*C)=T^4

In this new form, the reference point E=1 simplifies the equation down to r/C=T^4. That's ok.
Also in the new form, the reference point E=0 results in an infinite temperature, regardless of radiance.

What is wrong?


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10183)
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.


The Parrot Killer
26-09-2017 00:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzler wrote:
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.


Agreed. However, when they try to use these extra things to support their theory, it is easily seen as a pot of boiling hooey.


Actually spot said he was coming over here and might look me up. 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.

We have nightmare telling us that you can't store heat. 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.

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.

He continues to quote the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and yet he doesn't actually know how to use the calculation. When I quote the actual law which does not contain a correction for emissivity because that law is for Black Body Radiation - he tells me I don't know what the law is. When I explain how you can MEASURE emissivity he gives a "NO YOU CAN'T".

Then we discover that James cannot read nightmare and my disagreements and says that we agree on everything.

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.

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?

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

"Still Learning" seems to be totally neutral which is a very pleasant change.

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.

Frank Lansner passed on some real data but the insanity that followed made him leave in horror.

The one thing I'm reminded of is:

"Keith Briffa: For the record, I do believe that the proxy data do show unusually warm conditions in recent decades. I am not sure that this unusual warming is so clear in the summer responsive data. I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1000 years ago. I do not believe that global mean annual temperatures have simply cooled progressively over thousands of years as Mike appears to and I contend that that there is strong evidence for major changes in climate over the Holocene (not Milankovich) that require explanation and that could represent part of the current or future background variability of our climate. I think the Venice meeting will be a good place to air these issues."

What happened at the IPCC Venice meeting? No one was allowed to speak against man-made global warming.
Edited on 26-09-2017 00:25
Page 1 of 212>





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