Remember me
▼ Content

Greenman



Page 1 of 6123>>>
Greenman08-08-2017 20:17
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
I told you the projects I worked on. As a matter of fact that was only about a third of them. It used to be that companies would hire Research and Development staff and then upon completion of a project they would lay all of them off. So two years was a long project.

What I didn't tell you was that I was a high school dropout and the only education I started with was six months of basic electronics in the Air Force. From there I'm also VFW.

You said that you were an Operations Engineer? What is that since that covers everything from a city inspector to some rather complex feedback systems.

When you break into this group with that hogwash about AGW you well deserve to be laughed at. You plainly do not understand the science and how it has been corrupted by "environmentalists" who do not know that they are far more of a danger to man than the "environmental damage" that has been wrought mostly by companies that simply didn't know any better.

People, and that includes companies, tend to do things the way they've always been done. In a recent movie "Numbers" it was made to look like a manager unfairly took credit for the work that his "calculators" did. Managers ALWAYS took credit for the people working for them and still do. This was not racism but the way things have always been done. Company Presidents take credit for success of a company don't they?

Modern coal power plants are cleaner than most natural gas power plants and yet we had Obama closing them down and putting thousands of men out of work.

As an example of the corruption - Dr. Michael Mann - the inventor of the hockey stick curve pressed a liable suit against a Canadian climate scientist who claimed that Dr. Mann counterfeited data.

In a Canadian court Mann asked for a recess in order to prepare his case and was granted it on the grounds that he immediately turn over his data. He did not. This puts him in contempt of court and that will be dealt with as the recess ends.

More importantly his otherwise published data plainly shows that he indeed did counterfeit the data and he will without question not only lose his lawsuit as soon as the case is heard.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/scientist-michael-mann-commits-contempt-court-climate-science-trial-century/

There are two charts here in which Dr. Bell's charts show the absolutely known temperature levels showing both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which are totally missing from Mann's.

Mark Twain said, "It's easier to fool people that to convince them they've been fooled."

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/media/hpropaganda.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/19/social-media-proganda-manipulating-public-opinion-bots-accounts-facebook-twitter

This comes straight from Stanford which is also known for propagandizing their students to the far left.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2016/12/20/liberal-professors/

The question is: why have you allowed yourself to be told what is happening rather than researching it yourself?
09-08-2017 08:42
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake, I haven't weighed in on Mann's Hockey Stick Graph yet, but since you basically challenged me, here goes.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Graphs_of_Global_Warming#/media/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

That is a graph that is made from several temperature reconstructions, for the period of time that Mann covered in his now infamous "Hockey Puck Graph." When compared to Mann's and Bell's Charts, it looks like Mann has it a LOT closer, with Bell showing an almost 10C rise during the Medieval Times, when there was an increase of only about 0.2C. So Mann is correct, and Tim Bell is a loser. Mann should go ahead and produce his climate data and resolve this issue, because it is Bell who obviously manufactured alternative facts.

The web page that the graph came from also has other Climate Related Graphs that appear to be genuine, without any kind of political skew applied, so I'm going to archive it, by including it in this message.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Graphs_of_Global_Warming

I am a Controls Engineer [not Operations Engineer]. I write computer code that controls automated machinery. Temperature Control was something that I had to learn about early on in my career, so understanding Global Warming was quite easy for me. What we have here is called an Open Loop Control System, where the Controlled Element [that's the earth] responds to a change in the Heating Element [that's the Sun, Dust, and GHGs]. If the Heating Element gets warmer, then the Controlled Element gradually warms. It works much like the eye on your stove at home. If you turn the Control Know to Low, only a little heat is applied to the Heating Element, and the Controlled Element [pot of water] warms at a low rate. That's as opposed to a Closed Loop Control System, which is what your oven is. Your oven has a thermostat that switches off when a certain heat is met inside your oven. That causes the Heating Element to turn off, and maintain a somewhat even temperature. It would be nice if we had one of those things on our Planetary Heat Control System, but we don't. The planet is simply going to warm until it is as hot as the Heating Element. So the problem with understanding the Climate of our planet involves simply figuring out what controls the Heating Element.

Thanks to a lot of work done in our scientific community, we know that the Heating Element for our planet includes insolation [heat] from the sun [which varies over time due to the Milankovitch Affect] and Greenhouse Gases [according to some daring scientists]. If that is so, then it should just be a matter of figuring out what the mixing ratio of each of those is. So that is what I set out to do, back in 2008 while I was laid off from work.

Back then, there was some controversy about Global Warming, but not nearly as much as there is now. Some people doubted it, but most people had absolutely no opinion on the matter. But it occurred to me that if what the scientists were saying about Greenhouse Gases, then it should just be a matter of obtaining real climate records of the past and working out the ratios. What I mean by that is figuring out how much each of the Greenhouse Gases affected the Earth's Average Temperature. It occurred to me that each gas should have a particular amount of heat that it could add to the Heating Element, or actually trapped since Greenhouse Gases are supposed to act like a blanket. They don't actually produce heat, they simply warm up and hold heat for a while [according to the theories that I was able to understand]. The Greenhouse Gases in reality are analogous to insulation that you put in your walls when building a house, except they allow energy from the sun to pass through on its way in, but trap the actual heat on its way out [according to the GHG theory].

So I went off in search of Climate Data on the Internet. Back then it wasn't so hard to find, because there wasn't so much misleading information out there. All there was back then was scientific opinions, as opposed to now when most of what you find is Skeptic Confusion. I found out that there had been many studies on ice cores from around the planet, that they could determine the temperature of the air when the snow was formed, as well as the Greenhouse Gas levels at the time. There were many ice cores and none of them were made by Climate Scientists intent on misleading the world. They instead were done by scientists who just wanted to see what was there. Their data is still readily available on the Internet, but it comes in a hard to use form.

You have to take the raw data provided, and average it, because there is a lot of data from the more recent ice, and little data from the older ice due to compression. And another problem that averages solve is getting the gas age to line up with the deuterium age [which is where they determine the temperature]. For example, the gas age might be listed as 1500 and the closest deuterium age is 1400 or 1700. By averaging the data to 1000 years, I was able to determine what the GHG levels were for any particular time. It was also necessary to interpolate either the gas data or the deuterium data for some periods of time with the oldest data because of compression. We might only have one reading for several thousand years, for example.

The data I chose to work with was from a study done at EPICA Dome C in Antarctica. I used that data because it was the most comprehensive and it went back further than any other, at 800,000 years. It took me close to a year to realize all of what I just explained, and apply it, but that's what I did. I thank Obama for giving me the time to do it, because he provided Extended Unemployment, which I took full advantage of. I would send out my resume each day, and then go to work on my Excel Spreadsheet.

I built a spreadsheet that contained the 1,000 year averages for Insolation, CO2, CH4, and later Dust. I built it so that I could adjust the ratios of the gases and see what the results were. Just trial and error, until I found a ratio that when applied to all samples, accurately calculated the planet's temperature, as demonstrated by the graph that I will try to remember to attach to this message.

This is the algorithm that I was able to derive, which shows the ratios of each part of the Heating Element.

H=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((F5^4)/Y$1)+((H5^4)/Y$2)+(J5^4)/Y$3))

H - Heat W/m2
C5 - Insolation W/m2
D5 - Dust ng/g
F5 - CO2 ppmv
H5 - CH4 ppbv
J5 - N20 ppbv
Y$1 - Constant 1,000,000,000
Y$2 - Constant 250,000,000,000
Y$3 - Constant 1,000,000,000,000

Simply plug the current values into that formula, and you will be able to see how much effective heat is being applied to the earth. I can provide that Excel Spreadsheet to anyone who is curious about Global Warming, whether they want to confirm it or deny it. Just send me an email address.

So to answer your question, I have not just been told what is happening, I put in the time to research it myself. And what I determined is that we are in deep trouble, as a whole. It's worse than the Church of Global Warming even says it is. They act like we can fix this problem if we all just fork over a chunk of our cash and stop using so much energy in our daily routines. That's total BS, and as bad as the skeptical claim that CO2 does not cause the planet to warm. I see two sides of this problem. One side is trying to convince everyone that there is a solution if we would all just comply, and the other side is trying to convince everyone that there isn't even a problem. Neither side is correct, because even if we did totally eliminate our use of CO2 producing fuels, we are going to continue getting warmer for hundreds or even thousands of years. And that is because of the shelf life of CO2. It won't just go away when we stop producing it. It will take untold years for the CO2 levels to drop back to pre-Industrial levels, and it won't matter if people start dying before then, because it doesn't care. It is physics, and has no heart.

But anyway, feel free to laugh at me if you want. I'm a big boy and I don't care if people laugh, because I know the truth. And those who laugh now will cry later.

And in case anyone is wondering, I'm not an environmentalist, a tree hugger, or anything else that depicts those who think we can solve this problem. I am sure that we won't solve this problem, and am preparing for my own family's survival, by investing in a retreat that is off grid and away from other people. That way we [or whoever is left of my family] will have somewhere to go when things get rough. So you guys can categorize me as a Survivalist, who has given up hope on humanity solving this problem. As far as I am concerned, it is up to each individual to prepare his own way through this. Those who do nothing will suffer. Those who prepare might get killed also. But at least if you are trying to preserve your family, then you should be allowed to return to earth, as long as there are vehicles [bodies] available for your return. And as far as I can tell, those who do nothing to preserve their own family, will have no vehicle available for their return, and will not be allowed back. It's Self-Judgement, in a Big Way. And even if you don't believe it, it still happens, because your beliefs don't really affect reality.

Wake wrote:
I told you the projects I worked on. As a matter of fact that was only about a third of them. It used to be that companies would hire Research and Development staff and then upon completion of a project they would lay all of them off. So two years was a long project.

What I didn't tell you was that I was a high school dropout and the only education I started with was six months of basic electronics in the Air Force. From there I'm also VFW.

You said that you were an Operations Engineer? What is that since that covers everything from a city inspector to some rather complex feedback systems.

When you break into this group with that hogwash about AGW you well deserve to be laughed at. You plainly do not understand the science and how it has been corrupted by "environmentalists" who do not know that they are far more of a danger to man than the "environmental damage" that has been wrought mostly by companies that simply didn't know any better.

People, and that includes companies, tend to do things the way they've always been done. In a recent movie "Numbers" it was made to look like a manager unfairly took credit for the work that his "calculators" did. Managers ALWAYS took credit for the people working for them and still do. This was not racism but the way things have always been done. Company Presidents take credit for success of a company don't they?

Modern coal power plants are cleaner than most natural gas power plants and yet we had Obama closing them down and putting thousands of men out of work.

As an example of the corruption - Dr. Michael Mann - the inventor of the hockey stick curve pressed a liable suit against a Canadian climate scientist who claimed that Dr. Mann counterfeited data.

In a Canadian court Mann asked for a recess in order to prepare his case and was granted it on the grounds that he immediately turn over his data. He did not. This puts him in contempt of court and that will be dealt with as the recess ends.

More importantly his otherwise published data plainly shows that he indeed did counterfeit the data and he will without question not only lose his lawsuit as soon as the case is heard.

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2017/07/scientist-michael-mann-commits-contempt-court-climate-science-trial-century/

There are two charts here in which Dr. Bell's charts show the absolutely known temperature levels showing both the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age which are totally missing from Mann's.

Mark Twain said, "It's easier to fool people that to convince them they've been fooled."

https://web.stanford.edu/class/e297c/war_peace/media/hpropaganda.html

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jun/19/social-media-proganda-manipulating-public-opinion-bots-accounts-facebook-twitter

This comes straight from Stanford which is also known for propagandizing their students to the far left.

http://www.bostonmagazine.com/news/article/2016/12/20/liberal-professors/

The question is: why have you allowed yourself to be told what is happening rather than researching it yourself?



~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Attached image:

09-08-2017 16:43
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Wake, I haven't weighed in on Mann's Hockey Stick Graph yet, but since you basically challenged me, here goes.

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Graphs_of_Global_Warming#/media/File:1000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

That is a graph that is made from several temperature reconstructions, for the period of time that Mann covered in his now infamous "Hockey Puck Graph." When compared to Mann's and Bell's Charts, it looks like Mann has it a LOT closer, with Bell showing an almost 10C rise during the Medieval Times, when there was an increase of only about 0.2C. So Mann is correct, and Tim Bell is a loser. Mann should go ahead and produce his climate data and resolve this issue, because it is Bell who obviously manufactured alternative facts.

The web page that the graph came from also has other Climate Related Graphs that appear to be genuine, without any kind of political skew applied, so I'm going to archive it, by including it in this message.
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Valued_image_candidates/Graphs_of_Global_Warming

I am a Controls Engineer [not Operations Engineer]. I write computer code that controls automated machinery. Temperature Control was something that I had to learn about early on in my career, so understanding Global Warming was quite easy for me. What we have here is called an Open Loop Control System, where the Controlled Element [that's the earth] responds to a change in the Heating Element [that's the Sun, Dust, and GHGs]. If the Heating Element gets warmer, then the Controlled Element gradually warms. It works much like the eye on your stove at home. If you turn the Control Know to Low, only a little heat is applied to the Heating Element, and the Controlled Element [pot of water] warms at a low rate. That's as opposed to a Closed Loop Control System, which is what your oven is. Your oven has a thermostat that switches off when a certain heat is met inside your oven. That causes the Heating Element to turn off, and maintain a somewhat even temperature. It would be nice if we had one of those things on our Planetary Heat Control System, but we don't. The planet is simply going to warm until it is as hot as the Heating Element. So the problem with understanding the Climate of our planet involves simply figuring out what controls the Heating Element.

Thanks to a lot of work done in our scientific community, we know that the Heating Element for our planet includes insolation [heat] from the sun [which varies over time due to the Milankovitch Affect] and Greenhouse Gases [according to some daring scientists]. If that is so, then it should just be a matter of figuring out what the mixing ratio of each of those is. So that is what I set out to do, back in 2008 while I was laid off from work.

Back then, there was some controversy about Global Warming, but not nearly as much as there is now. Some people doubted it, but most people had absolutely no opinion on the matter. But it occurred to me that if what the scientists were saying about Greenhouse Gases, then it should just be a matter of obtaining real climate records of the past and working out the ratios. What I mean by that is figuring out how much each of the Greenhouse Gases affected the Earth's Average Temperature. It occurred to me that each gas should have a particular amount of heat that it could add to the Heating Element, or actually trapped since Greenhouse Gases are supposed to act like a blanket. They don't actually produce heat, they simply warm up and hold heat for a while [according to the theories that I was able to understand]. The Greenhouse Gases in reality are analogous to insulation that you put in your walls when building a house, except they allow energy from the sun to pass through on its way in, but trap the actual heat on its way out [according to the GHG theory].

So I went off in search of Climate Data on the Internet. Back then it wasn't so hard to find, because there wasn't so much misleading information out there. All there was back then was scientific opinions, as opposed to now when most of what you find is Skeptic Confusion. I found out that there had been many studies on ice cores from around the planet, that they could determine the temperature of the air when the snow was formed, as well as the Greenhouse Gas levels at the time. There were many ice cores and none of them were made by Climate Scientists intent on misleading the world. They instead were done by scientists who just wanted to see what was there. Their data is still readily available on the Internet, but it comes in a hard to use form.

You have to take the raw data provided, and average it, because there is a lot of data from the more recent ice, and little data from the older ice due to compression. And another problem that averages solve is getting the gas age to line up with the deuterium age [which is where they determine the temperature]. For example, the gas age might be listed as 1500 and the closest deuterium age is 1400 or 1700. By averaging the data to 1000 years, I was able to determine what the GHG levels were for any particular time. It was also necessary to interpolate either the gas data or the deuterium data for some periods of time with the oldest data because of compression. We might only have one reading for several thousand years, for example.

The data I chose to work with was from a study done at EPICA Dome C in Antarctica. I used that data because it was the most comprehensive and it went back further than any other, at 800,000 years. It took me close to a year to realize all of what I just explained, and apply it, but that's what I did. I thank Obama for giving me the time to do it, because he provided Extended Unemployment, which I took full advantage of. I would send out my resume each day, and then go to work on my Excel Spreadsheet.

I built a spreadsheet that contained the 1,000 year averages for Insolation, CO2, CH4, and later Dust. I built it so that I could adjust the ratios of the gases and see what the results were. Just trial and error, until I found a ratio that when applied to all samples, accurately calculated the planet's temperature, as demonstrated by the graph that I will try to remember to attach to this message.

This is the algorithm that I was able to derive, which shows the ratios of each part of the Heating Element.

H=(C5-(D5^0.25)+(((F5^4)/Y$1)+((H5^4)/Y$2)+(J5^4)/Y$3))

H - Heat W/m2
C5 - Insolation W/m2
D5 - Dust ng/g
F5 - CO2 ppmv
H5 - CH4 ppbv
J5 - N20 ppbv
Y$1 - Constant 1,000,000,000
Y$2 - Constant 250,000,000,000
Y$3 - Constant 1,000,000,000,000

Simply plug the current values into that formula, and you will be able to see how much effective heat is being applied to the earth. I can provide that Excel Spreadsheet to anyone who is curious about Global Warming, whether they want to confirm it or deny it. Just send me an email address.

So to answer your question, I have not just been told what is happening, I put in the time to research it myself. And what I determined is that we are in deep trouble, as a whole. It's worse than the Church of Global Warming even says it is. They act like we can fix this problem if we all just fork over a chunk of our cash and stop using so much energy in our daily routines. That's total BS, and as bad as the skeptical claim that CO2 does not cause the planet to warm. I see two sides of this problem. One side is trying to convince everyone that there is a solution if we would all just comply, and the other side is trying to convince everyone that there isn't even a problem. Neither side is correct, because even if we did totally eliminate our use of CO2 producing fuels, we are going to continue getting warmer for hundreds or even thousands of years. And that is because of the shelf life of CO2. It won't just go away when we stop producing it. It will take untold years for the CO2 levels to drop back to pre-Industrial levels, and it won't matter if people start dying before then, because it doesn't care. It is physics, and has no heart.

But anyway, feel free to laugh at me if you want. I'm a big boy and I don't care if people laugh, because I know the truth. And those who laugh now will cry later.

And in case anyone is wondering, I'm not an environmentalist, a tree hugger, or anything else that depicts those who think we can solve this problem. I am sure that we won't solve this problem, and am preparing for my own family's survival, by investing in a retreat that is off grid and away from other people. That way we [or whoever is left of my family] will have somewhere to go when things get rough. So you guys can categorize me as a Survivalist, who has given up hope on humanity solving this problem. As far as I am concerned, it is up to each individual to prepare his own way through this. Those who do nothing will suffer. Those who prepare might get killed also. But at least if you are trying to preserve your family, then you should be allowed to return to earth, as long as there are vehicles [bodies] available for your return. And as far as I can tell, those who do nothing to preserve their own family, will have no vehicle available for their return, and will not be allowed back. It's Self-Judgement, in a Big Way. And even if you don't believe it, it still happens, because your beliefs don't really affect reality.


You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.
09-08-2017 19:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
Wake wrote:

You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.


Some site you frequent has posted that as evidence that Trump is right and the scientists are wrong. You did not read it and have no idea how it fits in with everything else published on the subject or any issues that it may or may not have.


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.
09-08-2017 19:27
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.


Some site you frequent has posted that as evidence that Trump is right and the scientists are wrong. You did not read it and have no idea how it fits in with everything else published on the subject or any issues that it may or may not have.


"Some site" - That was a paper referenced by Science Magazine. I know that you aren't very bright but most people know that the papers published in Science Magazine are distinguished.

While your brain is extinguished.
09-08-2017 19:39
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.


Some site you frequent has posted that as evidence that Trump is right and the scientists are wrong. You did not read it and have no idea how it fits in with everything else published on the subject or any issues that it may or may not have.


"Some site" - That was a paper referenced by Science Magazine. I know that you aren't very bright but most people know that the papers published in Science Magazine are distinguished.

While your brain is extinguished.


I'm not arguing that its a serious paper or not, The implications are interesting although I'm sure discussing it with a lowlife who's idea of settling a disagreement on a scientific issue is to to permanently disable someone would be fruitless

I'm saying that you discovered it in a blog and have no idea of the implications or validity of it.


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.
09-08-2017 20:29
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
I'm not arguing that its a serious paper or not, The implications are interesting although I'm sure discussing it with a lowlife who's idea of settling a disagreement on a scientific issue is to to permanently disable someone would be fruitless

I'm saying that you discovered it in a blog and have no idea of the implications or validity of it.


You are not an American citizen from your remarks about not living in this country. If you are British you are apparently one of those that believes that anyone that voted for Brexit is deplorable. But you're too frightened of them to say it out loud. If you're Canadian you are sucking at the tit of a nanny state. You disgrace the memory of the Canadian Army in WW II.

So I find your quivering fear of me rather humorous. I do not start fights - ever. But I end them in such a manner as to make it clear to the opponent that he should thereafter know better.

You assume that I found that in a blog and not from reading Science Magazine because it would never occur to you that some people actually subscribe to many science publications. Or that my bookshelves are filled with follow up study material.
09-08-2017 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10215)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.


Some site you frequent has posted that as evidence that Trump is right and the scientists are wrong. You did not read it and have no idea how it fits in with everything else published on the subject or any issues that it may or may not have.


Scientists are wrong all the time. Didn't you know there is often debate among scientists over some new theory?

Science isn't scientists. Science isn't even people. Science is just a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

Consensus is not used in science.

You are also making an argument from randU by inferring that all scientists say 'global warming' is a valid theory. You are completely ignoring the scientists that agree with Trump.

the 'global warming theory' is not even a valid theory at all, not even a non-scientific one. It is based on logical fallacies and not internally consistent. Even ignoring this, it is not externally consistent with existing theories of science (specifically the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law).


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2017 21:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10215)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:

You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.


Some site you frequent has posted that as evidence that Trump is right and the scientists are wrong. You did not read it and have no idea how it fits in with everything else published on the subject or any issues that it may or may not have.


"Some site" - That was a paper referenced by Science Magazine. I know that you aren't very bright but most people know that the papers published in Science Magazine are distinguished.

While your brain is extinguished.


Science isn't a magazine either.


The Parrot Killer
09-08-2017 23:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote:
I'm not arguing that its a serious paper or not, The implications are interesting although I'm sure discussing it with a lowlife who's idea of settling a disagreement on a scientific issue is to to permanently disable someone would be fruitless

I'm saying that you discovered it in a blog and have no idea of the implications or validity of it.


You are not an American citizen from your remarks about not living in this country. If you are British you are apparently one of those that believes that anyone that voted for Brexit is deplorable. But you're too frightened of them to say it out loud. If you're Canadian you are sucking at the tit of a nanny state. You disgrace the memory of the Canadian Army in WW II.

So I find your quivering fear of me rather humorous. I do not start fights - ever. But I end them in such a manner as to make it clear to the opponent that he should thereafter know better.

You assume that I found that in a blog and not from reading Science Magazine because it would never occur to you that some people actually subscribe to many science publications. Or that my bookshelves are filled with follow up study material.


If this is a Dick swinging contest I have done things that prove I am not a physical coward, I told you I worked in hospital security, and no body ended up permanently disabled as if that's something to be proud of. And I voted against Brexit but I have friends who voted the other way, we can discuss it and piss take about it. Becase we are not mentalists.


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.
09-08-2017 23:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: I have done things that prove I am not a physical coward, I told you I worked in hospital security, and no body ended up permanently disabled as if that's something to be proud of. And I voted against Brexit but I have friends who voted the other way, we can discuss it and piss take about it. Becase we are not mentalists.


If there is one thing that is really dangerous it's hospital security.
10-08-2017 00:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: I have done things that prove I am not a physical coward, I told you I worked in hospital security, and no body ended up permanently disabled as if that's something to be proud of. And I voted against Brexit but I have friends who voted the other way, we can discuss it and piss take about it. Becase we are not mentalists.


If there is one thing that is really dangerous it's hospital security.


You have had issues with hospital security? Why am I not shocked?


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.
10-08-2017 00:11
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: You have had issues with hospital security? Why am I not shocked?


You believe you've shown courage by being in hospital security? You are a joke.
10-08-2017 00:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
You seem to have an issue.
10-08-2017 00:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote: You seem to have an issue.


You are shaking in your boots that I might attack you from 5,000 miles away but you've shown courage by working in hospital security - no doubt checking id badges at the entrance to operating areas.

You're a hoot.
10-08-2017 00:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: You seem to have an issue.


You are shaking in your boots that I might attack you from 5,000 miles away but you've shown courage by working in hospital security - no doubt checking id badges at the entrance to operating areas.

You're a hoot.


I know what I did, but Im not going to outmach your lies Your insistence that you know what you're talking about is more of a hoot.


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.
10-08-2017 01:06
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
spot wrote:
Wake wrote:
spot wrote: You seem to have an issue.


You are shaking in your boots that I might attack you from 5,000 miles away but you've shown courage by working in hospital security - no doubt checking id badges at the entrance to operating areas.

You're a hoot.


I know what I did, but Im not going to outmach your lies Your insistence that you know what you're talking about is more of a hoot.


I gave you all the references so that you don't have to believe me. Oh, that's right - you much prefer governments that counterfeit data in order to keep you shaking in your boots over something they say will happen in another 100 years.

Since you're English I wonder why you have such a problem spelling your own language.
10-08-2017 01:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."
10-08-2017 02:30
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."


You don't even understand what you're reading do you?
10-08-2017 02:54
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."


You don't even understand what you're reading do you?

It would seem that I've understood it better than you.

Nowhere does the paper claim that "10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today" as you seem to think. It does say that the oceans are still colder today than they were then, but that's no surprise. It takes a long time to warm that much water - much longer than the few decades for which AGW has been operating. However, it also says that the oceans, though still cold, are now warming at a very rapid rate, which is consistent with AGW.
Edited on 10-08-2017 02:54
10-08-2017 02:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10215)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."


It is not possible to determine the average temperature of the ocean to any useful degree of accuracy either. There is extremely little instrumentation for it, even today.

10,000 years ago there was none.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 03:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10215)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."


You don't even understand what you're reading do you?

It would seem that I've understood it better than you.

Nowhere does the paper claim that "10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today" as you seem to think. It does say that the oceans are still colder today than they were then, but that's no surprise. It takes a long time to warm that much water - much longer than the few decades for which AGW has been operating. However, it also says that the oceans, though still cold, are now warming at a very rapid rate, which is consistent with AGW.


It is not possible to determine the average temperature of the ocean water either at it's surface or at any chosen depth to any useful accuracy. We don't have enough instrumentation.

No one can say whether the oceans are getting warmer, colder, or just staying the same.

Since the Sun hasn't changed appreciably recently, I would assume the ocean water is likely remaining the same temperature.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 03:07
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."


It is not possible to determine the average temperature of the ocean to any useful degree of accuracy either. There is extremely little instrumentation for it, even today.

10,000 years ago there was none.

Perhaps you should do some reading and educate yourself on the use of proxies to determine temperature. Oh, sorry, you don't believe in educating yourself, do you? As you were then, feel free to remain ignorant.
10-08-2017 03:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10215)
Surface Detail wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."


It is not possible to determine the average temperature of the ocean to any useful degree of accuracy either. There is extremely little instrumentation for it, even today.

10,000 years ago there was none.

Perhaps you should do some reading and educate yourself on the use of proxies to determine temperature. Oh, sorry, you don't believe in educating yourself, do you? As you were then, feel free to remain ignorant.


Proxies do not determine temperature. Their use as temperature indicators is speculation.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 03:34
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Wake wrote:

You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.


Wake, why would I have a hard time explaining a magazine article? And why should I even bother to explain a magazine article? And then, after deciding to take a look at the article, I find that I have to sign in to read the stupid article, lol. So I didn't bother.

So I'm just going to answer your almost question. You are correct, everything did not die a fiery death following the end of the Younger Dryas period. And the planet did warm to a bit above where we are now. After that it began to slowly cool down. I attached a screenshot of the last 25,000 from my Climate Model that shows the planet coming out of the last Glacial Period, and it also shows the period of time you are talking about. You might also notice that it quite accurately calculated the end of the Glacial Period and even the Younger Dryas [which is supposedly unexplained by our illustrious climate science community].

But as for the question you infer, that's right, it got warmer and everything didn't die in a big fire ball that could be seen in the next galaxy. So I suppose you want to know why we should be concerned about it now, since we know it has been hotter before and we didn't explode. The answer to that is simple, if you understand what's going on now, versus what was going on then. Back then, the planet was responding to a 11ppmv rise in CO2 and a 115ppbv rise in CH4 [methane]. So it looks like it was mostly the methane that brought the planet out of the Younger Dryas Period. Where did the methane come from, back before evil men were drilling oil well everywhere, you wonder? Methane is naturally produced by little bugs that eat wet rotting wood. So if you have say a major flood event, all over the world, you would likely see an increase in methane production by those little bugs, which would proliferate. Was there a flood all over the world before that? Yes, because the oceans had been coming up in slugs. I mean that the ocean was rising at slow rates, as now, and then at rapid rates, like we have never seen before, because of Meltwater Pulses, which are caused by huge meltwater lakes breaking their dams and suddenly deluging the ocean with their load of fresh water. There was also, preceding the Younger Dryas, and probably causing the Younger Dryas cooling, a huge collapse of ice, that once covered the ocean from North America across Greenland and Iceland and over Great Britain and into Europe. As the glacier retreated, it began to melt above the ocean, because of the now warmer ocean water. So it basically began to shrink from the bottom up, and eventually became a huge dome covering the ocean, supported by columns of ice resting on the islands. At some point in time, that huge ice dome collapsed into the ocean, and the world felt it, because there would have been tsunamis on every coast. Since most animal life on the planet lives near the ocean, we should also see a dip in the CO2 levels at that time, because a lot of animal life would have die then, either by the tsunamis or by the sudden cold induced by that much ice hitting the ocean and then spreading out.

I'm thinking I probably over-explained that a bit, but it provides some of the more retarded member of this forum a little fodder for their silly remarks.

Oh yeah, the reason to be concerned now, is because that little rise in temperature then was nothing compared to what the planet has in store for it now. We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then, and the CH4 levels have increased over 10 times as much also. That means it's going to get hot, boys and girls. Damn hot. And it ain't gonna stop getting hotter just because we can't take it anymore. It's going to get hotter until all that CO2 gets absorbed back into the planet. Or it might cool off a bit if a major volcanic eruption occurs, or an asteroid strikes the planet.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Attached image:

10-08-2017 04:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10215)
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, the reason to be concerned now, is because that little rise in temperature then was nothing compared to what the planet has in store for it now. We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then, and the CH4 levels have increased over 10 times as much also. That means it's going to get hot, boys and girls. Damn hot. And it ain't gonna stop getting hotter just because we can't take it anymore. It's going to get hotter until all that CO2 gets absorbed back into the planet. Or it might cool off a bit if a major volcanic eruption occurs, or an asteroid strikes the planet.


CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't. It is not an energy source.

Methane does not warm the planet. It can't. It is not an energy source (unless you burn it).

'All that' CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. You need it to survive.

In 1958, Mauna Loa measured a concentration of 0.032% of the atmosphere.

We have NO records of carbon dioxide before then.

400ppm is NOT ten times 320ppm.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 04:37
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."


You don't even understand what you're reading do you?

It would seem that I've understood it better than you.

Nowhere does the paper claim that "10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today" as you seem to think. It does say that the oceans are still colder today than they were then, but that's no surprise. It takes a long time to warm that much water - much longer than the few decades for which AGW has been operating. However, it also says that the oceans, though still cold, are now warming at a very rapid rate, which is consistent with AGW.


You are seriously inept at reading. 1. Surface warming does not mean that intermediate depth or deep water is going to warm. 2. The fact that waters were much warmer 10,000 years ago doesn't mean that it was colder than does it? 3. The authors are making the assumption that there is global warming and that is causing the heating of the surface layers.

They give GOOD data. But making any assumptions from that is amateurish.
10-08-2017 06:34
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, the reason to be concerned now, is because that little rise in temperature then was nothing compared to what the planet has in store for it now. We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then, and the CH4 levels have increased over 10 times as much also. That means it's going to get hot, boys and girls. Damn hot. And it ain't gonna stop getting hotter just because we can't take it anymore. It's going to get hotter until all that CO2 gets absorbed back into the planet. Or it might cool off a bit if a major volcanic eruption occurs, or an asteroid strikes the planet.


CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't. It is not an energy source.

Methane does not warm the planet. It can't. It is not an energy source (unless you burn it).

'All that' CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. You need it to survive.

In 1958, Mauna Loa measured a concentration of 0.032% of the atmosphere.

We have NO records of carbon dioxide before then.

400ppm is NOT ten times 320ppm.


Parrot Face, you are quite a remarkable character. And a rarity. I find it remarkable that someone was able to teach a retard how to type.

Into the Night wrote:
CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't. It is not an energy source.


Have you ever put a coat on, on a blustery day? Did that coat warm you? If you thought it warmed you, you must be crazy, because it can't. It is not an energy source. With your reasoning, the only way to get warm is to go back inside and hang out next to the heater, which is an energy source. I suppose we just wear coats to be fashionable.

Into the Night wrote:
'All that' CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. You need it to survive.


Oh wow, you are such a genius, you were able to put two bizarre thoughts together, and then state them as some kind of deep philosophical messages, with hidden meanings. A trace gas cannot possibly account for Global Warming, and that trace gas is not a pollutant, because we need it to survive. So on the one hand, we are to understand from you that a trace gas is irrelevant, because it is just barely even there. And on the other hand, we are to understand from you that a trace gas is relevant, because if not for that trace gas, all plants would die. And we need plants, or we will die. What an astute observation, my idiotic friend. Somehow those plants can make due with a trace gas, but because it's just a trace gas, then it can't have any affect on the temperature of the planet. It's just too small to make a difference. Ok, I got it. And I will remember that, so you don't have to repeat it again. It just shows your intelligence, or the lack thereof.

Into the Night wrote:
In 1958, Mauna Loa measured a concentration of 0.032% of the atmosphere.

We have NO records of carbon dioxide before then.


Maybe if you shout that out loud enough it will become a fact. Of course, you would also need to figure out how to destroy almost a million years of climate data that says otherwise. You see, my lightheaded friend, when snow falls, it traps air. That trapped air becomes locked in the ice that the snow later becomes, as more snow falls on top of it. So a bunch of loser scientists decided to go down to the bottom of the earth, and drill some holes in that ice they got down there. And they saw all those little air bubbles in that ice they got out of that hole, and were able to measure how much of this, and how much of that it had in it. And when they got done checking all their little slices of ice, they put all those numbers in order and published their results. And I'm sure they did that just so people like you can argue with them about whether or not they know what they are talking about. So if you don't mind, please take your silly proclamations down the hall, and address the guys who provided us with a climate record, including CO2 and CH4, that stretches back 800,000 years.

Into the Night wrote:
400ppm is NOT ten times 320ppm.


You are sharp as a tack, ain't ya boy. But you do apparently have reading comprehension skills, in spite of your exquisite mathematical skills. I'm sure your mommy is very proud of you, but she's going to need to send you to some remedial reading school, so you can get caught up on the basics of understanding the English language.

But maybe I can give you a few pointers now, because it might take a while to get you scheduled in to the next class. So let's take the sentence you were commenting on, as an example.

"We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then, and the CH4 levels have increased over 10 times as much also."

First, notice the word "also" at the end of that sentence. It tells us to include that statement with the first one. Then take a look at the first part of that sentence. See how it says "We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then?" It's talking about the increase then, versus the increase now, not the level of gas. The increase in the gas level is 10 times more now than what the increase was then. I said what that increase was in the message you are responding to. "Back then, the planet was responding to a 11ppmv rise in CO2 and a 115ppbv rise in CH4 [methane]." You know what the current levels are, and you should know what they were before the Industrial Revolution began. So you can easily determine that the statement is correct. We are seeing an increase in GHG levels that are 10 times as severe as what happened 10-11,000 years ago.

Ok, I'll make a deal with you. You appear to be able to fall asleep even while reading, so I need you to pick your computer up and move to one of these open desks up front. That way I can bump you on the shoulder every once in a while to wake you up. And if we do that long enough, you might be able to at least take the Final Exam.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
10-08-2017 08:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10215)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
You are going to have a hard time explaining http://science.sciencemag.org/content/342/6158/617

Showing that just 10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today without the everything on Earth dying a fiery death.

The authors of the paper explain it quite well themselves:

"It is clear that much of the heat that humans have put into the atmosphere through greenhouse gas emissions will be absorbed by the ocean. But the absorption time takes hundreds of years, much longer than the current rate of warming and the planet will keep warming. Our study puts the modern observations into a long-term context. Our reconstruction of Pacific Ocean temperatures suggests that in the last 10,000 years, the Pacific mid-depths have generally been cooling by about 2 degrees centigrade until a minimum about 300 years during the period known as the Little Ice Age.

After that, mid-depth temperatures started warming but at a very slow rate. Then, since about 1950, temperatures from just below the sea surface to ~1000 meter, increased by 0.18 degrees C. This seemingly small increase occurred an order of magnitude faster than suggested by the gradual change during the last 10,000 years thereby providing another indication for global warming. But our results also show the temperature of the ocean interior is still much colder than at any time in the past 10,000 years thus, lagging the changes we see at the ocean surface."


You don't even understand what you're reading do you?

It would seem that I've understood it better than you.

Nowhere does the paper claim that "10,000 - 8,000 years ago it was dramatically warmer than today" as you seem to think. It does say that the oceans are still colder today than they were then, but that's no surprise. It takes a long time to warm that much water - much longer than the few decades for which AGW has been operating. However, it also says that the oceans, though still cold, are now warming at a very rapid rate, which is consistent with AGW.


You are seriously inept at reading. 1. Surface warming does not mean that intermediate depth or deep water is going to warm. 2. The fact that waters were much warmer 10,000 years ago doesn't mean that it was colder than does it? 3. The authors are making the assumption that there is global warming and that is causing the heating of the surface layers.

They give GOOD data. But making any assumptions from that is amateurish.


What data?


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 08:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10215)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, the reason to be concerned now, is because that little rise in temperature then was nothing compared to what the planet has in store for it now. We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then, and the CH4 levels have increased over 10 times as much also. That means it's going to get hot, boys and girls. Damn hot. And it ain't gonna stop getting hotter just because we can't take it anymore. It's going to get hotter until all that CO2 gets absorbed back into the planet. Or it might cool off a bit if a major volcanic eruption occurs, or an asteroid strikes the planet.


CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't. It is not an energy source.

Methane does not warm the planet. It can't. It is not an energy source (unless you burn it).

'All that' CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. You need it to survive.

In 1958, Mauna Loa measured a concentration of 0.032% of the atmosphere.

We have NO records of carbon dioxide before then.

400ppm is NOT ten times 320ppm.


Parrot Face, you are quite a remarkable character. And a rarity. I find it remarkable that someone was able to teach a retard how to type.

Into the Night wrote:
CO2 does not warm the planet. It can't. It is not an energy source.


Have you ever put a coat on, on a blustery day? Did that coat warm you? If you thought it warmed you, you must be crazy, because it can't. It is not an energy source.

Ah yes...the Magick Blanket argument again. No, a coat is not an energy source. YOU are.
GreenMan wrote:
With your reasoning, the only way to get warm is to go back inside and hang out next to the heater, which is an energy source. I suppose we just wear coats to be fashionable.

Put that coat on a rock. The rock will not get warm.

Insulation reduces heat. It prevents things from warming up and from cooling down by decoupling heat. If you put a blanket around the Earth, the Earth will be colder, now warmer. You cut it off from the Sun.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
'All that' CO2 is 0.04% of the atmosphere. You need it to survive.


Oh wow, you are such a genius, you were able to put two bizarre thoughts together, and then state them as some kind of deep philosophical messages, with hidden meanings.

No hidden meanings. It's right up front in plain view.
GreenMan wrote:
A trace gas cannot possibly account for Global Warming,

CO2 cannot possibly account for 'global warming' not because it is a trace gas, but because it has no such magick properties as you claim.
GreenMan wrote:
and that trace gas is not a pollutant, because we need it to survive.

It isn't a pollutant. It is a naturally occurring substance.
GreenMan wrote:
So on the one hand, we are to understand from you that a trace gas is irrelevant, because it is just barely even there. And on the other hand, we are to understand from you that a trace gas is relevant, because if not for that trace gas, all plants would die. And we need plants, or we will die. What an astute observation, my idiotic friend. Somehow those plants can make due with a trace gas, but because it's just a trace gas, then it can't have any affect on the temperature of the planet. It's just too small to make a difference. Ok, I got it. And I will remember that, so you don't have to repeat it again. It just shows your intelligence, or the lack thereof.

No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. It doesn't matter what the concentration is.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
In 1958, Mauna Loa measured a concentration of 0.032% of the atmosphere.

We have NO records of carbon dioxide before then.


Maybe if you shout that out loud enough it will become a fact.

No one was measuring CO2 concentration until 1958. The technique is somewhat questionable in accuracy even today.
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, you would also need to figure out how to destroy almost a million years of climate data that says otherwise.

There is no million years of climate data.
GreenMan wrote:
You see, my lightheaded friend, when snow falls, it traps air.

Air is permeable in snow.
GreenMan wrote:
That trapped air becomes locked in the ice that the snow later becomes, as more snow falls on top of it. So a bunch of loser scientists decided to go down to the bottom of the earth, and drill some holes in that ice they got down there.

Air is permeable in ice.
GreenMan wrote:
And they saw all those little air bubbles in that ice they got out of that hole, and were able to measure how much of this, and how much of that it had in it. And when they got done checking all their little slices of ice, they put all those numbers in order and published their results.

Big hairy deal.
GreenMan wrote:
And I'm sure they did that just so people like you can argue with them about whether or not they know what they are talking about. So if you don't mind, please take your silly proclamations down the hall, and address the guys who provided us with a climate record, including CO2 and CH4, that stretches back 800,000 years.

Speculation. Air passes through ice and snow.
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
400ppm is NOT ten times 320ppm.


You are sharp as a tack, ain't ya boy. But you do apparently have reading comprehension skills, in spite of your exquisite mathematical skills. I'm sure your mommy is very proud of you, but she's going to need to send you to some remedial reading school, so you can get caught up on the basics of understanding the English language.

But maybe I can give you a few pointers now, because it might take a while to get you scheduled in to the next class. So let's take the sentence you were commenting on, as an example.

"We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then, and the CH4 levels have increased over 10 times as much also."

First, notice the word "also" at the end of that sentence. It tells us to include that statement with the first one. Then take a look at the first part of that sentence. See how it says "We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then?" It's talking about the increase then, versus the increase now, not the level of gas.

The rate of increase is NOT 10 times. It is a fairly smooth curve. The slope of that curve does not increase by 10 times from 1958. It barely increases at all.
\
GreenMan wrote:
The increase in the gas level is 10 times more now than what the increase was then.

400ppm is not 10 times 320ppm. The rate of increase has barely changed at all.
GreenMan wrote:
I said what that increase was in the message you are responding to. "Back then, the planet was responding to a 11ppmv rise in CO2 and a 115ppbv rise in CH4 [methane]." You know what the current levels are, and you should know what they were before the Industrial Revolution began. So you can easily determine that the statement is correct. We are seeing an increase in GHG levels that are 10 times as severe as what happened 10-11,000 years ago.

You don't know what happened 10,000 years ago. The speculative conclusions about what the ice cores supposedly tell us is not data.


The Parrot Killer
10-08-2017 15:22
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Parrot Face, you are quite a remarkable character. And a rarity. I find it remarkable that someone was able to teach a retard how to type.

Have you ever put a coat on, on a blustery day? Did that coat warm you? If you thought it warmed you, you must be crazy, because it can't. It is not an energy source. With your reasoning, the only way to get warm is to go back inside and hang out next to the heater, which is an energy source. I suppose we just wear coats to be fashionable.

Oh wow, you are such a genius, you were able to put two bizarre thoughts together, and then state them as some kind of deep philosophical messages, with hidden meanings. A trace gas cannot possibly account for Global Warming, and that trace gas is not a pollutant, because we need it to survive. So on the one hand, we are to understand from you that a trace gas is irrelevant, because it is just barely even there. And on the other hand, we are to understand from you that a trace gas is relevant, because if not for that trace gas, all plants would die. And we need plants, or we will die. What an astute observation, my idiotic friend. Somehow those plants can make due with a trace gas, but because it's just a trace gas, then it can't have any affect on the temperature of the planet. It's just too small to make a difference. Ok, I got it. And I will remember that, so you don't have to repeat it again. It just shows your intelligence, or the lack thereof.

Maybe if you shout that out loud enough it will become a fact. Of course, you would also need to figure out how to destroy almost a million years of climate data that says otherwise. You see, my lightheaded friend, when snow falls, it traps air. That trapped air becomes locked in the ice that the snow later becomes, as more snow falls on top of it. So a bunch of loser scientists decided to go down to the bottom of the earth, and drill some holes in that ice they got down there. And they saw all those little air bubbles in that ice they got out of that hole, and were able to measure how much of this, and how much of that it had in it. And when they got done checking all their little slices of ice, they put all those numbers in order and published their results. And I'm sure they did that just so people like you can argue with them about whether or not they know what they are talking about. So if you don't mind, please take your silly proclamations down the hall, and address the guys who provided us with a climate record, including CO2 and CH4, that stretches back 800,000 years.

You are sharp as a tack, ain't ya boy. But you do apparently have reading comprehension skills, in spite of your exquisite mathematical skills. I'm sure your mommy is very proud of you, but she's going to need to send you to some remedial reading school, so you can get caught up on the basics of understanding the English language.

But maybe I can give you a few pointers now, because it might take a while to get you scheduled in to the next class. So let's take the sentence you were commenting on, as an example.

"We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then, and the CH4 levels have increased over 10 times as much also."

First, notice the word "also" at the end of that sentence. It tells us to include that statement with the first one. Then take a look at the first part of that sentence. See how it says "We have increased the CO2 levels 10 times more now than then?" It's talking about the increase then, versus the increase now, not the level of gas. The increase in the gas level is 10 times more now than what the increase was then. I said what that increase was in the message you are responding to. "Back then, the planet was responding to a 11ppmv rise in CO2 and a 115ppbv rise in CH4 [methane]." You know what the current levels are, and you should know what they were before the Industrial Revolution began. So you can easily determine that the statement is correct. We are seeing an increase in GHG levels that are 10 times as severe as what happened 10-11,000 years ago.

Ok, I'll make a deal with you. You appear to be able to fall asleep even while reading, so I need you to pick your computer up and move to one of these open desks up front. That way I can bump you on the shoulder every once in a while to wake you up. And if we do that long enough, you might be able to at least take the Final Exam.


20 points to Greenman. But you do have a few errors in there.

1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

But CO2 does not transfer energy via radiation in the troposphere. Conduction and convection are responsible. So CO2 has no effect because of radiation until it gets to the stratosphere and CO2 there is even more of a trace gas there than in the troposphere. So blaming CO2 for warming is a non-starter.

2. Photosynthesis cuts off almost completely at 180 ppm and reduces a great deal at 200 ppm. At the start of the 20th Century CO2 was at 280 ppm. Dangerously low. So additional CO2 is a god-send and not a danger.

In 1900 the entire world's population was less than one billion and today is over 7 billion and most do not starve to death which was not uncommon in 1900.'

3. None of this is very important because MAN was incapable of producing any measurable amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1886 when the warming period started. In fact, man could have had NO effect on the atmosphere whatsoever until WW II. But the warming trend had been in the process for 50 years.

4. Air bubbles in ice sheets are almost entirely meaningless. Freeze a bottle of carbonated water and thaw it out and you'll discover that it isn't carbonated anymore. The CO2 will have transported out of the water during the freezing process.

A more accurate method of measuring CO2 is via fossilized plant stomata. Some plants have a direct correlation between the number of stomata and the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. Two studies have shown that not only has CO2 exceeded 400 ppm in the past 2,000 years several times but that the changes were very rapid both rising and falling.

So, yes, Nightmare is a nutter, but you aren't helping any scientific understanding by passing out the idea that CO2 is anything other than helpful.
10-08-2017 15:38
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground
10-08-2017 16:04
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


Why would you not mention that Arrhenius was refuted by Robert Woods in 1909? If that too painful for you to face? Dr. Michael Mann was the person who revived that falsified theory from the ashes of history.
10-08-2017 16:42
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


Why would you not mention that Arrhenius was refuted by Robert Woods in 1909?

Because he wasn't. No-one has been able to duplicate Woods' experiment, and it has been shown to have been poorly conceived. See, for example:

Failure to duplicate Wood's 1909 greenhouse experiment

Now, why would you pick out an obviously flawed experiment to support your claim while ignoring the extensive experimental and theoretical evidence that refutes it? Why are you fooling yourself?
10-08-2017 17:03
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


Why would you not mention that Arrhenius was refuted by Robert Woods in 1909?

Because he wasn't. No-one has been able to duplicate Woods' experiment, and it has been shown to have been poorly conceived. See, for example:

Failure to duplicate Wood's 1909 greenhouse experiment

Now, why would you pick out an obviously flawed experiment to support your claim while ignoring the extensive experimental and theoretical evidence that refutes it? Why are you fooling yourself?


Let me explain something to you: every greenhouse on Earth reproduces Dr. Woods experiment. Arrhenius made the claim that CO2 acted as a greenhouse and that is why he called them "greenhouse gases".

But greenhouses do not work by insulating the inside from the outside but precisely as Dr. Woods explained - by shielding the inside from convective cooling. If you open the door of a greenhouse it looses all its heat. Rapidly!

How is it that you don't have the most basic knowledge of the world around you and yet try to tell us all about some moron's claims?
10-08-2017 17:17
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
1. CO2 being necessary for photosynthesis is not the same as CO2 as a trace gas being responsible for global warming. That entire stupid idea is from Dr. Michael Mann.

No, you give Dr. Mann far too much credit. That honour belongs to Svante Arrhenius, who showed back in 1896 that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere would affect the temperature of the Earth:

On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground


Why would you not mention that Arrhenius was refuted by Robert Woods in 1909?

Because he wasn't. No-one has been able to duplicate Woods' experiment, and it has been shown to have been poorly conceived. See, for example:

Failure to duplicate Wood's 1909 greenhouse experiment

Now, why would you pick out an obviously flawed experiment to support your claim while ignoring the extensive experimental and theoretical evidence that refutes it? Why are you fooling yourself?


Let me explain something to you: every greenhouse on Earth reproduces Dr. Woods experiment. Arrhenius made the claim that CO2 acted as a greenhouse and that is why he called them "greenhouse gases".

But greenhouses do not work by insulating the inside from the outside but precisely as Dr. Woods explained - by shielding the inside from convective cooling. If you open the door of a greenhouse it looses all its heat. Rapidly!

How is it that you don't have the most basic knowledge of the world around you and yet try to tell us all about some moron's claims?

Oh dear, Wake, you poor, confused fool!


The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with actual greenhouses!
It is called that simply because of the way that gases such as CO2 allow energy in the form of visible light to pass through while hindering the passage of energy in the form of IR radiation. The effect is analogous to the way in which the glass of a greenhouse allows radiation to pass through but prevents heat loss by convection.
10-08-2017 17:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote: The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with actual greenhouses!
It is called that simply because of the way that gases such as CO2 allow energy in the form of visible light to pass through while hindering the passage of energy in the form of IR radiation. The effect is analogous to the way in which the glass of a greenhouse allows radiation to pass through but prevents heat loss by convection.


Since you are unfamiliar with the English language I'll explain something to you: Arrhenius plainly said that "is the mean temperature of the ground influenced by the heat absorbing gases in the atmosphere".

THAT IS ACTING AS AN INSULATOR YOU IGNORANT FOOL.
10-08-2017 18:05
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with actual greenhouses!
It is called that simply because of the way that gases such as CO2 allow energy in the form of visible light to pass through while hindering the passage of energy in the form of IR radiation. The effect is analogous to the way in which the glass of a greenhouse allows radiation to pass through but prevents heat loss by convection.


Since you are unfamiliar with the English language I'll explain something to you: Arrhenius plainly said that "is the mean temperature of the ground influenced by the heat absorbing gases in the atmosphere".

THAT IS ACTING AS AN INSULATOR YOU IGNORANT FOOL.

YES, BUT BY HINDERING IR RADIATION, NOT CONVECTION, YOU UTTER MORON.
10-08-2017 19:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Surface Detail wrote:
Wake wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: The greenhouse effect has nothing to do with actual greenhouses!
It is called that simply because of the way that gases such as CO2 allow energy in the form of visible light to pass through while hindering the passage of energy in the form of IR radiation. The effect is analogous to the way in which the glass of a greenhouse allows radiation to pass through but prevents heat loss by convection.


Since you are unfamiliar with the English language I'll explain something to you: Arrhenius plainly said that "is the mean temperature of the ground influenced by the heat absorbing gases in the atmosphere".

THAT IS ACTING AS AN INSULATOR YOU IGNORANT FOOL.

YES, BUT BY HINDERING IR RADIATION, NOT CONVECTION, YOU UTTER MORON.


And as Woods showed CO2 is a trace gas and cannot "hinder radiation" of any sort in the troposphere.

But as usual you are making it up as you go along.
10-08-2017 20:19
spot
★★★★☆
(1216)
I'm not the one with the credentials but didn't Surface Detail just post a link that calls Woods experiment into question?
Page 1 of 6123>>>





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