Greenman

"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....

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.

GreenMan wrote:
water heats quicker when more heat is applied,

it's an observation that anyone makes as they are learning how to cook.

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.

spot wrote:
Gazguzzler just likes annoying people there is no way he has that many friends that he would need 14 burgers.

spot wrote: Wake are not scientists Wake at best was a technician that worked with scientists in the dim and distant past.

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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)

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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

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.

spot wrote:


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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.