Remember me
▼ Content

Greenman



Page 3 of 6<12345>>>
14-08-2017 15:47
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy sllimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: .... CO2 is a trace gas....

Additions:
Increasing man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 controls quantities of phase change, infra-red energy absorbing water vapor. AGW denier liar whiners who separate AGW effects of man-made, non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing CO2 from AGW effects of phase change, infra-red energy absorbing water vapor are..... AGW denier liar whiners.
14-08-2017 16:15
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are either stupid or a liar - which is it? The statistical average of the satellite reports are zero. Got that Mr. Mathematics? Zero. And because it's rising near the end means absolutely nothing since the normal chaotic weather patterns normally run between five and ten years. The NASA chart shows a clear increase of ONE degree that we all know never occurred.

Since any sort of engineer would be able to discern that either you are lying about being some sort of engineer or you're lying about understanding anything at all about AGW. So what is it?


Maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm not stupid enough to try to tell other people that there is no increase in the global average temperature based on this chart.

Anybody can see that there has been an increase. What you are talking about is that Dr Spenser determined that there is no statistical increase from 1998 and 2016. And that is even though there was a slight increase in 2016. That is all eplained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/
There has however been a measured 0.16C rise in temperature per decade since those satellite readings were available, which is also close to what NOAA's land and sea based data shows. Yes, the land and sea based data does not agree, but it is close enough to be useful in determining warming trends. It's getting hotter, you idiot.


No - you're wrong - you are stupid. As I pointed out - over a 93 year period with a growth in CO2 of 17% there was more warming per year than in 38 years with a 24% increase EVEN if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about.

You don't know anything about physics are love to show that fact off to everyone available.

You are so clueless that you don't even understand that there isn't some sort of magik unlimited energy for CO2 to absorb. That the one band of CO2 absorption spectra that isn't totally blanketed by H2O is completely absorbed at levels of about 200 ppm. Meaning that NO ADDITIONAL CO2 HAS ANY EFFECT.

But by all means tell us about how yous be de jeenus.
14-08-2017 18:49
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
GreenMan wrote:
water heats quicker when more heat is applied,

Is there anything that heats slower when more heat is applied?
it's an observation that anyone makes as they are learning how to cook.

Interesting you mention cooking. Last night had a little neighborhood gathering. I loaded the grill with the first round of Iowa corn fed beef. 14 big fat juicy burgers sizzling. Yes we are members of PETA here...People Eating Tasty Animals. The first 14 burgers went on and filled the grill. I like a nice hot grill around 550-600 degrees. I was having trouble maintaining that temp though with all that meat. Why? My beef was absorbing the heat and there wasn't enough to go around, and the heat source was running at full steam. I finished cooking those 14 and put the last 2 on the grill. 600 degrees no problem.
So, I had more heat absorption and a lower temp. Impossible!

INT may actually be right, CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool itself.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work the same on you air conditioning knob, so turning the thermostat down to 65 won't cool your house any quicker. That'll just make it get colder, eventually. But turning the thermostat to 90 will make it get warmer quicker, if you are using a heat pump, because that will make the heat strips kick in.

Heats strips are simply an auxiliary heat source to add BTU in emergency. Extremely inefficient by the way. Excessive use could cause us all to die.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
14-08-2017 19:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Green Man I

think everyone you are interacting with is a troll with the possible exception of James who is wrong anyway. Into the night and Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past. Into the night is crazy, you would think if everyone you spoke to and everything you could read disagred with you on the basic laws of thermodynamics you would question yourself.

Tim the plumber likes getting people to work out math problems when he is to stupid and lazy to do them himself and Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.
14-08-2017 19:56
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
spot wrote:
Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Greenman,
Spot is a cell phone repair person that rides his bike to work to save our lives. Big thanks to him. He is also a science fiction enthusiast.
Yes indeed, I love to annoy people that are more educated than myself. It is so funny to me when they are knee deep in some mathematics or chemically explosive formula and they forget to apply the common sense basics to the equation.
True, Spot, no way I have that many friends, but my wife is hot and that helps a lot!


By the way Spot, 14+2=16 burgers.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Edited on 14-08-2017 19:58
14-08-2017 20:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Cyberstalking me? Thats sweet. I don't think common sense allways applies here Reading the odd book and watching horizon proves that you guys are wrong. I find what is actually happening in the world more interesting then made up stuff. And don't flatter yourself I'm not annoyed.
14-08-2017 20:48
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past.


I guess the only way that you could make yourself and your lack of credentials feel good about your total lack of scientific knowledge is to deny that anyone else knows anything. Bring in the clowns - and spot is there.
14-08-2017 20:58
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Greenman,
Spot is a cell phone repair person that rides his bike to work to save our lives. Big thanks to him. He is also a science fiction enthusiast.
Yes indeed, I love to annoy people that are more educated than myself. It is so funny to me when they are knee deep in some mathematics or chemically explosive formula and they forget to apply the common sense basics to the equation.
True, Spot, no way I have that many friends, but my wife is hot and that helps a lot!


By the way Spot, 14+2=16 burgers.
14-08-2017 21:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
GasGuzzler wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
water heats quicker when more heat is applied,

Is there anything that heats slower when more heat is applied?
it's an observation that anyone makes as they are learning how to cook.

Interesting you mention cooking. Last night had a little neighborhood gathering. I loaded the grill with the first round of Iowa corn fed beef. 14 big fat juicy burgers sizzling. Yes we are members of PETA here...People Eating Tasty Animals. The first 14 burgers went on and filled the grill. I like a nice hot grill around 550-600 degrees. I was having trouble maintaining that temp though with all that meat. Why? My beef was absorbing the heat and there wasn't enough to go around, and the heat source was running at full steam. I finished cooking those 14 and put the last 2 on the grill. 600 degrees no problem.
So, I had more heat absorption and a lower temp. Impossible!

INT may actually be right, CO2 is just another way for the surface to cool itself.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work the same on you air conditioning knob, so turning the thermostat down to 65 won't cool your house any quicker. That'll just make it get colder, eventually. But turning the thermostat to 90 will make it get warmer quicker, if you are using a heat pump, because that will make the heat strips kick in.

Heats strips are simply an auxiliary heat source to add BTU in emergency. Extremely inefficient by the way. Excessive use could cause us all to die.


Sounds tasty! I assume you eventually got your meat cooked.

You are quite right. The amount of meat loaded up the BBQ and temporarily cooled the BBQ. Cooking is an averaging process between the BTU's the BBQ is putting out and the cold meat.

Heat is by conduction (the way most thermal energy is lost from the surface to the atmosphere), convection (moving hotter air itself), and radiance (the way the surface loses energy to space, and to CO2, water vapor, methane, and a variety of other substances.

All mass, including the surface and including the atmosphere, lose energy to space by radiance. The atmosphere is slightly 'redder' because it is cooler, and because it is a gas it is dimmer, but the radiance is there all the same from both. Viewed from space, the surface of the Earth is the brightest thing radiating into space. The atmosphere just helps.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-08-2017 21:23
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Greenman,
Spot is a cell phone repair person that rides his bike to work to save our lives. Big thanks to him. He is also a science fiction enthusiast.
Yes indeed, I love to annoy people that are more educated than myself. It is so funny to me when they are knee deep in some mathematics or chemically explosive formula and they forget to apply the common sense basics to the equation.
True, Spot, no way I have that many friends, but my wife is hot and that helps a lot!


By the way Spot, 14+2=16 burgers.


Spot is a telephone repair person? That reminds me of a story: between jobs a sailing friend needed help. He installed commercial telephone systems in large office buildings in San Francisco. It was an income so I took him up on it.

At one point we were installing a telephone system on the 31st floor of a building which is a real pain in the butt. You have to pull wires up perhaps 3 stories at a time, tie it down so that you don't lose the ends, then climb up another 3 stories and push the pull wire down etc.

Anyway, I got the 50 lines up and Hawkins started installing the wires in the 31st floor interconnect room. I went back down to the basement interconnect room. I laid the wires into the panels. When I did this I always cut the lengths exactly correct and then snapped them into the connector panels and then would cross connect them to the telephone company lines. I was extremely neat. The telephone company people were so sloppy that there would be wires hanging out of the interconnect panels.

I finished the panel and on the way out my tool belt caught on one of the telephone company panels and broke a couple of connections. So I started repairing them. This panel was so bad I decided to fix them all. As I was doing this the door to the Interconnect Room opened and in walked a telephone company supervisor and perhaps a dozen trainees. He saw me working on this panel and sniffed loudly and said, "That's the way those commercial guys work." And then he walked over to my panels and pointed them out and said, "Now this is the way it's done by AT&T."

I was finished and walked upstairs to Hawkins and we both had a good laugh since we had both been getting rich off of the horrible work that the telephone company did. Not one of the commercial telephone companies would have their systems installed by the telephone company because all they had was continuous complaints. And they always called Hawk Telephone for installations first. So he had work into the 21st century.

Watching spot's intellectual capacity I can well believe he's nothing more than a telephone repairman.
14-08-2017 22:29
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
spot wrote:
Cyberstalking me? Thats sweet. I don't think common sense allways applies here Reading the odd book and watching horizon proves that you guys are wrong. I find what is actually happening in the world more interesting then made up stuff. And don't flatter yourself I'm not annoyed.


Cyberstalking? Ha! No, just putting the puzzle together with a little applied common sense. I should have been a cop.
Annoyed yet?


If what's going on in the world is more interesting than made up stuff, why do you feel the need to post made up stuff? Do we really need to revisit the disappearing penguin population again? I hope not, you were so painfully wrong that I got hurt.


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
14-08-2017 22:53
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Cyberstalking me? Thats sweet. I don't think common sense allways applies here Reading the odd book and watching horizon proves that you guys are wrong. I find what is actually happening in the world more interesting then made up stuff. And don't flatter yourself I'm not annoyed.


Cyberstalking? Ha! No, just putting the puzzle together with a little applied common sense. I should have been a cop.
Annoyed yet?


If what's going on in the world is more interesting than made up stuff, why do you feel the need to post made up stuff? Do we really need to revisit the disappearing penguin population again? I hope not, you were so painfully wrong that I got hurt.


Like the True Believers other statements: Walrus can only mate on ice. Strange that it seems to have made no dent in herd numbers to make on beaches.

Or what about "we only have 5,000 polar bears left and they can't survive without ice flows." Things are so bad that the number of polar bears has shrunk to 25,000. I'm telling you they really need more ice.
14-08-2017 23:18
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gassed & guzzling" gushed: I should have been a cop.

Lots of cops are old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pigs. You'll have lots of company. As slow as Charlottesville cops were to act at the riot, some of them musta been white supremists themselves.
14-08-2017 23:39
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
Wake wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Cyberstalking me? Thats sweet. I don't think common sense allways applies here Reading the odd book and watching horizon proves that you guys are wrong. I find what is actually happening in the world more interesting then made up stuff. And don't flatter yourself I'm not annoyed.


Cyberstalking? Ha! No, just putting the puzzle together with a little applied common sense. I should have been a cop.
Annoyed yet?


If what's going on in the world is more interesting than made up stuff, why do you feel the need to post made up stuff? Do we really need to revisit the disappearing penguin population again? I hope not, you were so painfully wrong that I got hurt.


Like the True Believers other statements: Walrus can only mate on ice. Strange that it seems to have made no dent in herd numbers to make on beaches.

Or what about "we only have 5,000 polar bears left and they can't survive without ice flows." Things are so bad that the number of polar bears has shrunk to 25,000. I'm telling you they really need more ice.


And no less ridiculous is Greenman with his emergency shelter because "it's going to get hot...damn hot" he says.

If Greenhorn can't handle 1 degree, then I say Groinman needs to grow a pair.

What's funny though is that we've shown a temp decline in his backyard over the last 100+ years. Run for the bunkers bro!


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
15-08-2017 00:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Cyberstalking me? Thats sweet. I don't think common sense allways applies here Reading the odd book and watching horizon proves that you guys are wrong. I find what is actually happening in the world more interesting then made up stuff. And don't flatter yourself I'm not annoyed.


Cyberstalking? Ha! No, just putting the puzzle together with a little applied common sense. I should have been a cop.
Annoyed yet?


If what's going on in the world is more interesting than made up stuff, why do you feel the need to post made up stuff? Do we really need to revisit the disappearing penguin population again? I hope not, you were so painfully wrong that I got hurt.


Well your mostly right about what I said about myself, the mobile phone thing was bought up because some idiot thought spectography proved something and I used spectrometers so I knew that he was talking rubbish. I don't think he learned anything he still thinks he's a genius despite being and totally and utterly wrong but hey freedom of speech and all that.

Penguins however I am not an expert in so I have to go on what people who actually study penguins say. Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.

But you figured out that the peer reviewed article I was referencing was rubbish just using common sense and despite not knowing anything about penguins.

Genius.


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.
Edited on 15-08-2017 00:48
15-08-2017 00:51
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?
15-08-2017 00:57
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Look see that's what I'm talking about. you haven't a clue but using "common sense" you have declared yourself the winner in an argument.

And ITN, you leave a bit of slack for a reason. chop everything down and if the panel needs rewiring how are you supposed to do that?

If you were trained you would know that, instead you just make work for the poor sod that comes after you.

cowboy


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.
15-08-2017 01:07
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1726)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Precisely! You tell me something is dead from a 1 degree rise in average temp and common sense screams at me that someone is fullashit. I don't even have to Giggle it. I know they don't keep the Polar Bear cages in the zoo at -30F!

A heatwave is a different story. Heatwaves do kill, but a heatwave is far too often associated and even mistaken for global warming. (Hello Groinman)


gasguzzler, calling the jet stream the "Norwegian jet stream" is a bigoted statement. -James-
Edited on 15-08-2017 01:08
15-08-2017 01:07
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
[quote]spot wrote: I used spectrometers so I knew that he was talking rubbish/quote]

Then obviously you're an expert. Tell us - what did you use a spectrometer for?
15-08-2017 01:08
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are either stupid or a liar - which is it? The statistical average of the satellite reports are zero. Got that Mr. Mathematics? Zero. And because it's rising near the end means absolutely nothing since the normal chaotic weather patterns normally run between five and ten years. The NASA chart shows a clear increase of ONE degree that we all know never occurred.

Since any sort of engineer would be able to discern that either you are lying about being some sort of engineer or you're lying about understanding anything at all about AGW. So what is it?


Maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm not stupid enough to try to tell other people that there is no increase in the global average temperature based on this chart.

Anybody can see that there has been an increase. What you are talking about is that Dr Spenser determined that there is no statistical increase from 1998 and 2016. And that is even though there was a slight increase in 2016. That is all eplained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/
There has however been a measured 0.16C rise in temperature per decade since those satellite readings were available, which is also close to what NOAA's land and sea based data shows. Yes, the land and sea based data does not agree, but it is close enough to be useful in determining warming trends. It's getting hotter, you idiot.


No - you're wrong - you are stupid. As I pointed out - over a 93 year period with a growth in CO2 of 17% there was more warming per year than in 38 years with a 24% increase EVEN if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about.

You don't know anything about physics are love to show that fact off to everyone available.

You are so clueless that you don't even understand that there isn't some sort of magik unlimited energy for CO2 to absorb. That the one band of CO2 absorption spectra that isn't totally blanketed by H2O is completely absorbed at levels of about 200 ppm. Meaning that NO ADDITIONAL CO2 HAS ANY EFFECT.

But by all means tell us about how yous be de jeenus.


Do you see that black line in the graph, that runs horizontally across the graph at location 0? That my illiterate friend is the 1981-2010 average. If the blue and red line goes above that black line, it means it was warmer then than the 1981-2010 average. And if the blue and red lines go below the black line, then it was colder than the 1981-2010 average. I don't want to rush you, so when that has sunk in, take a look at the blue and red lines before 1998 [it's about center of the graph, and is that big hot spot]. Do you see how they are primarily below the black line? Now take a look to the right of 1998. Do you see how they are primarily above the black line? That's because it was warmer then than the average. I don't mean to embarass you in front of all these people, but that means that it is getting warmer.

Your argument is just a talking point, and it has made a fool out of you. The point is that 2016 was not hotter from a statistical view, because it wasn't significantly hotter. It has to be significantly hotter before they will call it a rise. But they are just talking about 2 years, and not the overall trend. But you are running it into the trend, as if it isn't getting hotter, just because 2016 was just slightly warmer than 2018. That has nothing to do with the overall trend.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 01:15
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Precisely! You tell me something is dead from a 1 degree rise in average temp and common sense screams at me that someone is fullashit. I don't even have to Giggle it. I know they don't keep the Polar Bear cages in the zoo at -30F!

A heatwave is a different story. Heatwaves do kill, but a heatwave is far too often associated and even mistaken for global warming. (Hello Groinman)



Quick quiz question; what was the average global temperature difference between now and the last glaciation?

Another quick quiz question; what are average temperatures predicted to be in 100 years time should we continue to do nothing about CO2 emissions?

You can google this information in a few seconds folks.

Or you can be an edgy genius and give your own personal interpretation.


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.
15-08-2017 01:16
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
spot wrote:
Green Man I

think everyone you are interacting with is a troll with the possible exception of James who is wrong anyway. Into the night and Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past. Into the night is crazy, you would think if everyone you spoke to and everything you could read disagred with you on the basic laws of thermodynamics you would question yourself.

Tim the plumber likes getting people to work out math problems when he is to stupid and lazy to do them himself and Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Yes I see. But there might be some people coming through here that are really looking for information about AGW. They come in here, and they get these insane retards spewing their troll nonsense. The climate gods don't even want them, because they are blemished. So we can't even sacrifice them. Shaming them into rational thought doesn't work, because they get to hide behind their cyber shield. So maybe the Internet just isn't the place for climate change discussions.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 01:17
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
[quote]spot wrote: I used spectrometers so I knew that he was talking rubbish/quote]

Then obviously you're an expert. Tell us - what did you use a spectrometer for?


To see if the the phone was functioning basically, why?


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.
15-08-2017 01:18
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Look see that's what I'm talking about. you haven't a clue but using "common sense" you have declared yourself the winner in an argument.

And ITN, you leave a bit of slack for a reason. chop everything down and if the panel needs rewiring how are you supposed to do that?

If you were trained you would know that, instead you just make work for the poor sod that comes after you.

cowboy


You being you don't understand why penguins are found in the arctic regions and so believe that they can't live in warmer climates. You are really a laugh.

Penguins are found on every southern continent and many of the islands including the Galapagos Islands which is near the equator. But you think that there is some sort of necessity for Antarctic penguins to live near ice - even though they mostly nest on rocky shores.
15-08-2017 01:21
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Green Man I

think everyone you are interacting with is a troll with the possible exception of James who is wrong anyway. Into the night and Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past. Into the night is crazy, you would think if everyone you spoke to and everything you could read disagred with you on the basic laws of thermodynamics you would question yourself.

Tim the plumber likes getting people to work out math problems when he is to stupid and lazy to do them himself and Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Yes I see. But there might be some people coming through here that are really looking for information about AGW. They come in here, and they get these insane retards spewing their troll nonsense. The climate gods don't even want them, because they are blemished. So we can't even sacrifice them. Shaming them into rational thought doesn't work, because they get to hide behind their cyber shield. So maybe the Internet just isn't the place for climate change discussions.


Trolls got to troll



Try Reddit.


http://grist.org/climate-energy/reddits-science-forum-banned-climate-deniers-why-dont-all-newspapers-do-the-same/


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.
15-08-2017 01:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Green Man I

think everyone you are interacting with is a troll with the possible exception of James who is wrong anyway. Into the night and Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past. Into the night is crazy, you would think if everyone you spoke to and everything you could read disagred with you on the basic laws of thermodynamics you would question yourself.

Tim the plumber likes getting people to work out math problems when he is to stupid and lazy to do them himself and Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Yes I see. But there might be some people coming through here that are really looking for information about AGW. They come in here, and they get these insane retards spewing their troll nonsense. The climate gods don't even want them, because they are blemished. So we can't even sacrifice them. Shaming them into rational thought doesn't work, because they get to hide behind their cyber shield. So maybe the Internet just isn't the place for climate change discussions.

It's rather amusing to watch Wake swearing blind that the UAH temperature graph doesn't show any temperature rise. Shades of Comical Ali there!
15-08-2017 01:28
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Look see that's what I'm talking about. you haven't a clue but using "common sense" you have declared yourself the winner in an argument.

And ITN, you leave a bit of slack for a reason. chop everything down and if the panel needs rewiring how are you supposed to do that?

If you were trained you would know that, instead you just make work for the poor sod that comes after you.

cowboy


You being you don't understand why penguins are found in the arctic regions and so believe that they can't live in warmer climates. You are really a laugh.

Penguins are found on every southern continent and many of the islands including the Galapagos Islands which is near the equator. But you think that there is some sort of necessity for Antarctic penguins to live near ice - even though they mostly nest on rocky shores.


So confident one could almost think you know what you are talking about.

You should talk to the scientists that are observing Adélie penguins, the scientists who's work I referenced. I'm sure your musings on the subject would be very helpful to their research.

Genius.


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.
15-08-2017 01:33
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are either stupid or a liar - which is it? The statistical average of the satellite reports are zero. Got that Mr. Mathematics? Zero. And because it's rising near the end means absolutely nothing since the normal chaotic weather patterns normally run between five and ten years. The NASA chart shows a clear increase of ONE degree that we all know never occurred.

Since any sort of engineer would be able to discern that either you are lying about being some sort of engineer or you're lying about understanding anything at all about AGW. So what is it?


Maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm not stupid enough to try to tell other people that there is no increase in the global average temperature based on this chart.

Anybody can see that there has been an increase. What you are talking about is that Dr Spenser determined that there is no statistical increase from 1998 and 2016. And that is even though there was a slight increase in 2016. That is all eplained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/
There has however been a measured 0.16C rise in temperature per decade since those satellite readings were available, which is also close to what NOAA's land and sea based data shows. Yes, the land and sea based data does not agree, but it is close enough to be useful in determining warming trends. It's getting hotter, you idiot.


No - you're wrong - you are stupid. As I pointed out - over a 93 year period with a growth in CO2 of 17% there was more warming per year than in 38 years with a 24% increase EVEN if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about.

You don't know anything about physics are love to show that fact off to everyone available.

You are so clueless that you don't even understand that there isn't some sort of magik unlimited energy for CO2 to absorb. That the one band of CO2 absorption spectra that isn't totally blanketed by H2O is completely absorbed at levels of about 200 ppm. Meaning that NO ADDITIONAL CO2 HAS ANY EFFECT.

But by all means tell us about how yous be de jeenus.


Do you see that black line in the graph, that runs horizontally across the graph at location 0? That my illiterate friend is the 1981-2010 average. If the blue and red line goes above that black line, it means it was warmer then than the 1981-2010 average. And if the blue and red lines go below the black line, then it was colder than the 1981-2010 average. I don't want to rush you, so when that has sunk in, take a look at the blue and red lines before 1998 [it's about center of the graph, and is that big hot spot]. Do you see how they are primarily below the black line? Now take a look to the right of 1998. Do you see how they are primarily above the black line? That's because it was warmer then than the average. I don't mean to embarass you in front of all these people, but that means that it is getting warmer.

Your argument is just a talking point, and it has made a fool out of you. The point is that 2016 was not hotter from a statistical view, because it wasn't significantly hotter. It has to be significantly hotter before they will call it a rise. But they are just talking about 2 years, and not the overall trend. But you are running it into the trend, as if it isn't getting hotter, just because 2016 was just slightly warmer than 2018. That has nothing to do with the overall trend.


And yet again you show you haven't the faintest idea of statistical analysis. Weather patterns are chaotic and that means they are completely unpredictable. Just the drought of the dust bowl years was 10 years long across the entire middle America. The weather patterns in that area were deranged for well over 20 years. That means you have to AVERAGE 30 or 40 years at a time to get a baseline average and stupid you doesn't know how to do that.

Averaging the time of that satellite data gives and average of ZERO change from 1979.

But as usual you aren't answering my question - are you claiming that NASA is lying with their chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg ?

Or are you going to tell us all about something else you don't know about?
15-08-2017 01:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


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.
15-08-2017 01:38
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GasGuzzler wrote:
spot wrote:
Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.


Greenman,
Spot is a cell phone repair person that rides his bike to work to save our lives. Big thanks to him. He is also a science fiction enthusiast.
Yes indeed, I love to annoy people that are more educated than myself. It is so funny to me when they are knee deep in some mathematics or chemically explosive formula and they forget to apply the common sense basics to the equation.
True, Spot, no way I have that many friends, but my wife is hot and that helps a lot!


By the way Spot, 14+2=16 burgers.


Nothing wrong with riding a bike to work.

But you really got my attention when you said you provide free burgers for people who want to sleep with you wife. Throw in some beer, and I might just come over the next time you decide to experiment with climate control using your barbecue grill.

And people should be able to apply common sense when building equations. I thought you had to, because what you are actually doing is attempting to explain nature, mathematically. The only way it will work is if it accounts for natural effects accurately. So I'm thinking that you are getting your kicks out of poking holes in other people's explanations, and it doesn't matter to you if your reasoning is flawed. You are just trying to get them to answer more and more questions until they get frustrated.

Too bad. If you had a brain, you would spend your time more wisely. You are here, so why not begin investing in your future by learning what other people have to teach you? Who knows, you might even start to appreciate those who ride their bikes to work.

Oh yeah. Is your wife blonde, or at least have those sexy blonde streaks in her hair?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 01:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: Penguins are famous for living in cold climates so it seems plausible to me that warmer conditions aren't universally beneficial to all species of penguin.


Do you mean like at almost every single zoo in the world?


Precisely! You tell me something is dead from a 1 degree rise in average temp and common sense screams at me that someone is fullashit. I don't even have to Giggle it. I know they don't keep the Polar Bear cages in the zoo at -30F!

A heatwave is a different story. Heatwaves do kill, but a heatwave is far too often associated and even mistaken for global warming. (Hello Groinman)



Quick quiz question; what was the average global temperature difference between now and the last glaciation?

Another quick quiz question; what are average temperatures predicted to be in 100 years time should we continue to do nothing about CO2 emissions?

You can google this information in a few seconds folks.

Or you can be an edgy genius and give your own personal interpretation.


And another jeenus chimes in - we BELIEVE that there was a 5 degree lower GMT in the middle of the last ice age.

We also know that not one single model has ever been even vaguely correct on the predictions of temperature changes even over the shortest periods of time in the last 40 years. But you are willing not only to accept predictions 100 years in the future but to accept the absolute most extreme predictions that have already been shown to be wrong.

We also know that we are supposed to be panic'd because "It is presently warmer now than it's been for the last 1000 years."

Well gee, that happens to be the last warm period - the Medieval Warm Period. And 1000 years before that was the Roman Warm Period and 1000 years before that the Mycenaean Warm Period - and those three were significantly warmer than today. In fact, presently the MGT is lower than it's been since the end of the last Ice Age.

But at the moment I'm far more interested in where and how you used spectrometers. Since you know nothing about climate I really have to know the other things you know nothing about.
Edited on 15-08-2017 01:58
15-08-2017 01:49
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are either stupid or a liar - which is it? The statistical average of the satellite reports are zero. Got that Mr. Mathematics? Zero. And because it's rising near the end means absolutely nothing since the normal chaotic weather patterns normally run between five and ten years. The NASA chart shows a clear increase of ONE degree that we all know never occurred.

Since any sort of engineer would be able to discern that either you are lying about being some sort of engineer or you're lying about understanding anything at all about AGW. So what is it?


Maybe I'm just stupid, but I'm not stupid enough to try to tell other people that there is no increase in the global average temperature based on this chart.

Anybody can see that there has been an increase. What you are talking about is that Dr Spenser determined that there is no statistical increase from 1998 and 2016. And that is even though there was a slight increase in 2016. That is all eplained here:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2017/01/global-satellites-2016-not-statistically-warmer-than-1998/
There has however been a measured 0.16C rise in temperature per decade since those satellite readings were available, which is also close to what NOAA's land and sea based data shows. Yes, the land and sea based data does not agree, but it is close enough to be useful in determining warming trends. It's getting hotter, you idiot.


No - you're wrong - you are stupid. As I pointed out - over a 93 year period with a growth in CO2 of 17% there was more warming per year than in 38 years with a 24% increase EVEN if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about.

You don't know anything about physics are love to show that fact off to everyone available.

You are so clueless that you don't even understand that there isn't some sort of magik unlimited energy for CO2 to absorb. That the one band of CO2 absorption spectra that isn't totally blanketed by H2O is completely absorbed at levels of about 200 ppm. Meaning that NO ADDITIONAL CO2 HAS ANY EFFECT.

But by all means tell us about how yous be de jeenus.


Do you see that black line in the graph, that runs horizontally across the graph at location 0? That my illiterate friend is the 1981-2010 average. If the blue and red line goes above that black line, it means it was warmer then than the 1981-2010 average. And if the blue and red lines go below the black line, then it was colder than the 1981-2010 average. I don't want to rush you, so when that has sunk in, take a look at the blue and red lines before 1998 [it's about center of the graph, and is that big hot spot]. Do you see how they are primarily below the black line? Now take a look to the right of 1998. Do you see how they are primarily above the black line? That's because it was warmer then than the average. I don't mean to embarass you in front of all these people, but that means that it is getting warmer.

Your argument is just a talking point, and it has made a fool out of you. The point is that 2016 was not hotter from a statistical view, because it wasn't significantly hotter. It has to be significantly hotter before they will call it a rise. But they are just talking about 2 years, and not the overall trend. But you are running it into the trend, as if it isn't getting hotter, just because 2016 was just slightly warmer than 2018. That has nothing to do with the overall trend.


And yet again you show you haven't the faintest idea of statistical analysis. Weather patterns are chaotic and that means they are completely unpredictable. Just the drought of the dust bowl years was 10 years long across the entire middle America. The weather patterns in that area were deranged for well over 20 years. That means you have to AVERAGE 30 or 40 years at a time to get a baseline average and stupid you doesn't know how to do that.

Averaging the time of that satellite data gives and average of ZERO change from 1979.

But as usual you aren't answering my question - are you claiming that NASA is lying with their chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#/media/File:Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg ?

Or are you going to tell us all about something else you don't know about?

You are a complete idiot. Do you ever read what you write, to sorta give it a reality check. Like this little quip, for example.

Wake wrote:
Averaging the time of that satellite data gives and average of ZERO change from 1979.


What does that even mean, "Averaging the time?"

And what do you mean by asking me if I'm claiming that NASA is lying with their chart?

No.

WTF?

I think NASA is being as accurate as possible with their chart. What's the matter with their chart? Does it show you something that you don't want to know?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 01:54
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote: But you really got my attention when you said you provide free burgers for people who want to sleep with you wife. Throw in some beer, and I might just come over the next time you decide to experiment with climate control using your barbecue grill.


Now you're going to try to convince us you are heterosexual.
15-08-2017 01:56
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.
15-08-2017 02:03
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


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.
15-08-2017 02:10
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


This is the one the idiot meant to link to.

And it shows warming too.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
15-08-2017 02:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


And you can't even understand English since I asked you to compare the NASA chart and that of the Satellite Data. Seems like neither you or Greenman can tell the difference between those two charts.
15-08-2017 02:13
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


This is the one the idiot meant to link to.

And it shows warming too.


I knew that English had to be a second language for you pair.

Which one is right "mate"? From what I can see you don't even know what I'm talking about. Pretty slow I'd say.
15-08-2017 02:23
spot
★★★★☆
(1323)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


This is the one the idiot meant to link to.

And it shows warming too.


I knew that English had to be a second language for you pair.

Which one is right "mate"? From what I can see you don't even know what I'm talking about. Pretty slow I'd say.


Yea you got us, they aren't exactly the same so it proves the last 150 years of climate science is a hoax.


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.
15-08-2017 02:44
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:


That does not show warming? what drugs are you on?


It doesn't surprise me in the least that you think that the graph of NASA and that of Dr. Spencer are the same thing.


Mate, that graph is from your link.


This is the one the idiot meant to link to.

And it shows warming too.


I knew that English had to be a second language for you pair.

Which one is right "mate"? From what I can see you don't even know what I'm talking about. Pretty slow I'd say.


Oh, I finally see the problem. One of us got confused by the scaling differences between the two graphs. It's a common ploy used by the Church of AGW Denial High Priests to make it look like there is no change, when there really was one. People don't realize that graphs can be scaled so that changes are flatlined. But this graph shows the satellite data and the land based data on the same scale, both time and temperature.


Of course now, the retard is going to claim that the data is wrong, because it looks different than what Dr Spenser's graph looks like.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Page 3 of 6<12345>>>





Join the debate Greenman:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
GreenMan's Climate Model4001-03-2018 21:16
Greenman and Education909-11-2017 04:08
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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