Remember me
▼ Content

GWP (Global Warming Potential)



Page 2 of 2<12
13-10-2017 06:28
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1535)
Greenthings wrote:
Can you calculate the Kilowatts?

Nope. Can't do it and never said I could, nor did I ever poke fun at someone for not being educated in math. However, you buddy Litebeer makes a habit of it. Thought I'd give him a chance to put up or finally shut up.
...the true potential of a storm. Harnessing that energy would solve the world's energy problem...

Ah, there it is again. A solution to a nonexistent problem that involves less food. You want electricity or rain this week?
13-10-2017 09:35
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Greenthings wrote:
Can you calculate the Kilowatts?

Nope. Can't do it and never said I could, nor did I ever poke fun at someone for not being educated in math. However, you buddy Litebeer makes a habit of it. Thought I'd give him a chance to put up or finally shut up.
...the true potential of a storm. Harnessing that energy would solve the world's energy problem...

Ah, there it is again. A solution to a nonexistent problem that involves less food. You want electricity or rain this week?


Ah, Litesong is funny as hell sometimes.

And how is it that my solution involves less food?

But I didn't think it completely through, apparently. I haven't calculated the amount of energy requirements yet, so I don't know if we will need to harness all of the earth's natural energy, and totally eliminate storms or not. Maybe we can get by with just taking a small chunk out, along and along.

But you know what. As crazy as it might sound to you, the separation of hydrogen and oxygen does involve energy, which is converted to electricity when the two atoms combine again. I think that energy is where the sparks come from that fly out of the clouds [yes, I know, some people think they fly into the clouds, and sometimes they do, but not usually] and kill unsuspecting people, who are out just having a good time with their friends, drinking beer and playing golf.
"We didn't even consider that thunder storm, it was a mile or two away, and then all of the sudden, there was a bright flash of light, and Billy Bob fell down and started rolling around clutching his chest."
The power that just killed Billy Bob was enough to run Willacoochee all year. [That's the little town I grew up in, and it doesn't take much] So I say let's let Billy Bob live a few more years, and figure out how to harness some of that energy, to solve our problem, which we do have.
You know, fuel cells are becoming more and more popular these days. They can be used for powering individual buildings, like hospitals or motels, or even shopping malls. They are also being used to power city buses. And soon they will be available for small scale electrical generation, to power things like your computer, or iPad. I love my iPad, don't you?


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 13-10-2017 09:35
13-10-2017 10:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum.

Maybe because you keep making the same mistakes. It's the same mistakes the Church of Global Warming has made for quite a long time now. It's in their scripture.
James_ wrote:
I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?

Pleading now? No, I will not stop.
James_ wrote:
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.

Another typical lame attempt to insult.

One thing about the Church of Global Warming, it's certainly predictable when they run out of arguments and can't counter my statements anymore.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 10:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum. I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.


Parrot doesn't sympathize with anyone. And if he is Native American then I'm going to reevaluate my understanding of Native Americans.

You already said that. Aren't you done re-evaluating yet???
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, Parrot gets to say that you, or I, or anyone else that comes along keeps saying the same things ad nauseum, which forces him to respond with his favorite BS ad nauseum.

I am not forced to say anything. I choose to.
GreenMan wrote:
You can't win with a guy like that, because he doesn't possess the mental capacity to ever admit that he is wrong about anything.

It is YOU that is denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann law. It is YOU that is denying mathematics. It is YOU that is denying logic. Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
And he doesn't understand his own spiritual being, so there is no sense in appealing to that either. He doesn't care where this life leads him into the future.

You are not God. You don't get to say how God judges anyone. You don't speak for God.
GreenMan wrote:
He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?

You ARE cold. You don't care about future generations.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 10:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James_ wrote:
I think it goes more to his philosophy. He can only be validated by his falsifying another. It's a self destructive cycle. His beliefs do not allow him to be a part of something. If they allowed for that then his validation of self would come from his contribution and not from his retribution.

Don't give up your day job for psychology. You suck at it.
James_ wrote:
@GreenMan,
My experiment started out as a possible method for improving carbon capture.

We don't need to carbon capture. Plants do just fine at that job.
James_ wrote:
I do have some specific concerns about global warming.

Of course you do. You are on of the faithful of the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
It is possible that ozone depletion

The ozone layer is not being depleted. It never was being depleted, other than the daily and seasonal cycles that affect regions of it.
James_ wrote:
is allowing for more heat into the lower troposphere.

You can't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't decrease entropy in a system.
James_ wrote:
If so then the increase in co2 and water vapor would increase the amount of energy in our atmosphere.

They are not energy sources. They can't increase the energy in the atmosphere.
James_ wrote:
An example of this is that it can be 95° F. in Jacksonville, Fl. with a humiture of 117° F.

Humidity is measured as a percent of water in the air to saturation. There is no such thing as 'humiture'.
James_ wrote:
This demonstrates that the energy in our atmosphere can increase without the actual temperature having a significant rise.

Now you are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics.
James_ wrote:
What this can allow for is the average global temperature to remain low while the energy in our atmosphere increases.

Thermal energy IS temperature, stupid.
James_ wrote:
Litesong might have gotten it right when he/she said that when the oceans release energy then it takes time for the oceans to recharge.

Litebeer doesn't understand the concept of specific heat. Neither do you.
James_ wrote:
This would help to explain the hurricanes this year.

Hurricanes are not caused by warm ocean water. Measured water along the equatorial area has not changed.
James_ wrote:
It would be possible to research online to see if the severe weather around the Gulf of Mexico has a tendency to be cyclical.

Since you deny the historical data at the National Hurricane Center, I guess you'll never know. (hint: it's not cyclical.)
James_ wrote:
If so then tsunamis might also be the same in the Pacific and Indian Oceans.

Tsunamis are not cyclical at all either.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 10:25
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum. I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.


Parrot doesn't sympathize with anyone. And if he is Native American then I'm going to reevaluate my understanding of Native Americans.

You already said that. Aren't you done re-evaluating yet???
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, Parrot gets to say that you, or I, or anyone else that comes along keeps saying the same things ad nauseum, which forces him to respond with his favorite BS ad nauseum.

I am not forced to say anything. I choose to.
GreenMan wrote:
You can't win with a guy like that, because he doesn't possess the mental capacity to ever admit that he is wrong about anything.

It is YOU that is denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann law. It is YOU that is denying mathematics. It is YOU that is denying logic. Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
And he doesn't understand his own spiritual being, so there is no sense in appealing to that either. He doesn't care where this life leads him into the future.

You are not God. You don't get to say how God judges anyone. You don't speak for God.
GreenMan wrote:
He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?

You ARE cold. You don't care about future generations.


Look dickweed, I'm in here because I do care about the future of humanity. You are in here because you care about preserving your glutinous way of life. You are so busy stuffing your fat face with delicacies that you haven't bothered to look around and see what's happening to where they came from.

You are so removed from reality that it doesn't really make sense to respond to you, except to point that out in case anyone misses it. You can't twist the laws of Physics around to suit your selfish desires, and then accuse people of denying science, lol. I'm not a science denier. That would be you. Oh, and it doesn't matter if you deny your destiny either. It is dependent on the choices you make, whether you like how it ends up or not. And you don't get to blame it on no one telling you, because you have been told/warned. Deny that, bitch.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
13-10-2017 10:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say.

Ooooooh. What a threat!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

James_ wrote:
Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?

Followed by a plea. No, I will not stop correcting your bad science.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 10:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Here are some other nutjobs you can team up with:

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/ozone-hole-and-gw-faq.html#.WdOnwGhSw2w


Back to your cyber bullying I see. Heck of a good way to discuss science. I will say bad things about you if you don't accept what I say. Maybe you and ITN should go back to posting with each other ?


You as a grown man being "bullied" says a whole lot about you. And none of it is complimentary.

That was actual data and since it contradicted you I'm bullying you.

Between you and Greenman I guess you can solve the world's problems by watching it burn to the ground.

Too bad it won't.


You trying to keep up with ITN ? You make little if any sense. I know, you're twisting my words. You saw where I posted where the record level of CO2 is going to restore the ozone layer which will reflect more sunlight back into space thus actually helping our planet to cool.

Ozone doesn't reflect sunlight. It absorbs it, creating oxygen.
James_ wrote:
This is why you said watching it burn to the ground which it won't do because by doing nothing the problem will resolve itself.

There is not problem to resolve.
James_ wrote:
If my solution is feasible it might save some lives and property along the way.

No solution is needed. No lives and property are lost due to your perceived 'problem'.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 11:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Wake wrote:
When I spoke of the heat island effect it has to do with heat being stored in these concrete jungles.

You can't store heat. Concrete becomes hotter than grass because grass uses the energy to grow itself. Concrete just gets hot. Since concrete has a lower specific heat than vegetation, concrete cools more rapidly at night than grass does.

The 'heat island' effect is something that occurs only during the day.

Wake wrote:
Nightmare actually believes that if you have some grass around an airport there's no heat island effect with the New York International Airport.

There is no New York International Airport.
Wake wrote:
Next Thursday they expect a very mild rain. Perhaps an average over 5,000 square miles of 1/3rd of an inch. This small light rain has the atmosphere carrying around 2,250 TONS of water at a speed of 30+ mph So a light rain shower would require what? 70,000 kwatts? Or more power than all of these counties use in a year.

A single power station near New York city puts out several hundred megawatts of power. That's per hour, mac. New York city has several dozen such power plants, but gets most of its power from Niagara Falls, which is capable of generating 2200 megawatts.

In a single year, ONE of these smaller power stations (not Niagara) produces some 3TW of power. Considerably more than 70MW.

Considerably more than a mild rain over 60 sq miles.

The difference is that we can't put that power into the rain or the cloud producing it.

Kind of like a 500hp boat with a missing propeller. Doesn't go very fast, does it?

Wake wrote:
If you do not grasp the extent of Mother Nature you cannot even guess at what climate change is.


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


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 11:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.

Meanwhile:
litesong wrote:
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB
could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB
existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
/////////
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB
(2), or FAB
(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB
(1), or FAB
(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Update:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Oh, yeah, again!! Present High Arctic Berserker(1) or FAB
(1) is dead..... long live FAB
(2) !!!


Ah! Trying to change the subject with a big copynpaste that no one reads?
Again...can you calculate the Kilowatts?


Can you calculate the Kilowatts, Jizzy? Your fkbuddy Wake couldn't. He just drug 70,000kw out of his ass, and has no idea the true potential of a storm. Harnessing that energy would solve the world's energy problem [Which you guys don't even know we have].


It IS possible to calculate the energy in a typical rainstorm over a fixed area.

Assuming an area of 60sq miles, and a storm producing 1 inch of rain, and a typical terminal velocity of a raindrop at 10m/s (about the usual velocity), then you can use the kinetic energy formula E=0.5*m*v^2 to calculate the energy produced by the rain.

The result comes out to about 7MW.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 11:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
At the end of the day if no other way is found to encourage ozone to occur then the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere needs to be increased.
...deleted Holy Link and Quotes...

You don't have to encourage it. Ozone production is automatic wherever there is oxygen and sunshine.
James_ wrote:
And with the experiment that I am pursuing, it would give scientists something to think about.

Not likely.
James_ wrote:
Since no scientist has disputed the IPCC's claim that CO2 is preventing further depletion of the ozone layer

Argument from randU. Science is not the IPCC. CO2 has nothing to do with ozone production or destruction.
James_ wrote:
I will accept their conclusion

What conclusion? There is no conclusion here, only assertion.
James_ wrote:
that CO2 is linked to naturally occurring stratospheric ozone.

No linkage at all.


This is amazing. In 5 years all you've managed to do is to say about 4 or 5 things ad nauseum. I guess the Spirit in the Sky didn't give you any inspiration that doesn't come from psilocybin mushrooms on your pizza.

I do have to wonder though, as a Native American or a person who sympathizes with them, can't you think of a better way to spend your time ?
I can only think that you're a loser with no life and feel sorry for you.


Parrot doesn't sympathize with anyone. And if he is Native American then I'm going to reevaluate my understanding of Native Americans.

You already said that. Aren't you done re-evaluating yet???
GreenMan wrote:
Of course, Parrot gets to say that you, or I, or anyone else that comes along keeps saying the same things ad nauseum, which forces him to respond with his favorite BS ad nauseum.

I am not forced to say anything. I choose to.
GreenMan wrote:
You can't win with a guy like that, because he doesn't possess the mental capacity to ever admit that he is wrong about anything.

It is YOU that is denying the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann law. It is YOU that is denying mathematics. It is YOU that is denying logic. Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
And he doesn't understand his own spiritual being, so there is no sense in appealing to that either. He doesn't care where this life leads him into the future.

You are not God. You don't get to say how God judges anyone. You don't speak for God.
GreenMan wrote:
He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?

You ARE cold. You don't care about future generations.


Look dickweed, I'm in here because I do care about the future of humanity.

Welcome to your new paradox. You just asked why anyone should care about future generations. Which is it, dude?
GreenMan wrote:
You are in here because you care about preserving your glutinous way of life. You are so busy stuffing your fat face with delicacies that you haven't bothered to look around and see what's happening to where they came from.

You have something against wealth I see. You are just showing your belief in the Church of Karl Marx as well.
GreenMan wrote:
You are so removed from reality

You don't know what 'reality' means. Stay away from philosophy. You can't handle science, math, or logic.
GreenMan wrote:
You can't twist the laws of Physics around to suit your selfish desires,

I have twisted nothing. The equations are what they are. The theories are what they are. I have changed nothing.
GreenMan wrote:
and then accuse people of denying science,

It is YOU that is denying both these equations AND these theories. Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
lol. I'm not a science denier.

Yes you are.
GreenMan wrote:
That would be you.

Inversion fallacy.
GreenMan wrote:
Oh, and it doesn't matter if you deny your destiny either.

I don't. You just think I do.
GreenMan wrote:
It is dependent on the choices you make, whether you like how it ends up or not. And you don't get to blame it on no one telling you, because you have been told/warned. Deny that, bitch.

You are not God. You don't get to speak for God.

I will not base my choices on your random numbers.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2017 17:16
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed:
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.

Meanwhile:
litesong wrote:
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB
could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB
existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
/////////
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB
(2), or FAB
(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB
(1), or FAB
(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Update:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Oh, yeah, again!! Present High Arctic Berserker(1) or FAB
(1) is dead..... long live FAB
(2) !!!

a big copynpaste that no one reads?

No copynpaste. U don't know, 'cause u ain't got no science. U's got made-up "sigh-ants".
14-10-2017 07:26
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.

Meanwhile:
litesong wrote:
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB
could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB
existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
/////////
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB
(2), or FAB
(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB
(1), or FAB
(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Update:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Oh, yeah, again!! Present High Arctic Berserker(1) or FAB
(1) is dead..... long live FAB
(2) !!!


Ah! Trying to change the subject with a big copynpaste that no one reads?
Again...can you calculate the Kilowatts?


Can you calculate the Kilowatts, Jizzy? Your fkbuddy Wake couldn't. He just drug 70,000kw out of his ass, and has no idea the true potential of a storm. Harnessing that energy would solve the world's energy problem [Which you guys don't even know we have].


It IS possible to calculate the energy in a typical rainstorm over a fixed area.

Assuming an area of 60sq miles, and a storm producing 1 inch of rain, and a typical terminal velocity of a raindrop at 10m/s (about the usual velocity), then you can use the kinetic energy formula E=0.5*m*v^2 to calculate the energy produced by the rain.

The result comes out to about 7MW.


What kinetic energy from a raindrop? Do you mean the energy released when each drop hits the ground, or road, or roof, or whatever? Doesn't seem useful. Perhaps catching all that water in a pan somehow, and then using it to power a water wheel or something might be useful. But that is using the weight of the water and not the speed at which it is free falling.

I think you made that part up about the result coming out to 7MW, just so you could try to confirm Wake's wild assed guess. Proves you two do sleep together, and just act like you don't know each other in person while posting.

I think it is grand that you would stand up for your fkbuddy like that, but it just means that both of you are Bull Shitters. Imagine that, two Bull Shitting Parrots in the same forum.

Oh yeah, the real energy in a storm, is the energy held in the clouds, that once in a while jumps out and kills unsuspecting golfers. It is produced by the union of Hydrogen and Oxygen in the formation of water droplets. The vapor in the clouds gets its charge from that electrical energy.

Now if you could just help me figure out how to harness that energy, I could be on my way, and out of your hair, as you continue your onslaught against humanity.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
14-10-2017 08:14
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?

Into the Night wrote:
You ARE cold. You don't care about future generations.

GreenMan wrote:
Look dickweed, I'm in here because I do care about the future of humanity.

Welcome to your new paradox. You just asked why anyone should care about future generations. Which is it, dude?

An inability to comprehend the written word on your part, does not constitute a paradox on my part. I said you don't care about the future of humanity, which is quite obvious. All you care about is you being able to continue your party. But you know what, it ain't about you.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are in here because you care about preserving your glutinous way of life. You are so busy stuffing your fat face with delicacies that you haven't bothered to look around and see what's happening to where they came from.

You have something against wealth I see. You are just showing your belief in the Church of Karl Marx as well.

I've got nothing against wealth. I do however understand why it will be easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God though. So I don't cling to material things that are of no practical benefit. I don't live in a big house with a small yard in a beautiful subdivision. I live on the border of a state WMA, in a small camper, and I am quite content there, when I can be there. And I make more money in a day than most people make all week. So no, I don't have a problem with wealthy people, unless they have a problem with changing their life style a little bit, so accommodate the future of humanity.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are so removed from reality

You don't know what 'reality' means. Stay away from philosophy. You can't handle science, math, or logic.

Reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

It is a choice that you made, when you decided that you didn't want to change your lifestyle, or give up any of your money to reduce our dependency on coal and oil.

You decided to ignore what the Alarmists were saying, and started looking for reasons that you could use to justify your emotional behavior.

Did you know that doing that will eventually drive you crazy as hell?

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You can't twist the laws of Physics around to suit your selfish desires,

I have twisted nothing. The equations are what they are. The theories are what they are. I have changed nothing.

Of course you haven't changed anything. Because you can't change physics. You can only understand physics, which you don't. You try to act like you do, as you masquerade around as some kind of physicist, but you are just repeating things you have memorized and never bothered to learn the meaning of.

So I'm starting to think that you aren't even aware that you are twisting the meaning of the Laws of Physics that you keep trying to use to prove Global Warming breaks them. You really are so confused that you don't know, do you.

No, you have totally lost touch with reality, already, because of the little games you have been trying to play.

They gonna come get you soon, and put you in one of them fancy shirts, with sleeves that go all around to the back, so they can make a knot in them. That way you can't hurt anyone else.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
and then accuse people of denying science,

It is YOU that is denying both these equations AND these theories. Inversion fallacy.

I'm not denying those equations, I use them to understand what causes Global Warming.
But I am denying your attempted use of them to disprove Global Warming. You need to go back to the drawing board, and see if you can't come up with a better plan to fool people with, because that one is doomed.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
lol. I'm not a science denier.

Yes you are.

You are silly. We could go on like this forever I suppose, since you will not accept that denying your understanding of science does not constitute someone being a science denier.
Listen:
You are not even an expert in the field of science.
You are a successful businessman, who knows nothing about the science of climate.
You sound like you have a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineer. That's all. It doesn't make you an expert in climate science. But it does give you an edge in climate science denial, since you know all the buzz words.
You are just a troll, and that isn't going to go away.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That would be you.

Inversion fallacy.

Inversion Reality.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Oh, and it doesn't matter if you deny your destiny either.

I don't. You just think I do.

So you are comfortable going to you death fighting for people's right to destroy the future? Or even worse, trying to convince them that they aren't destroying the future, when you know they are?
Buddy, your destiny on earth sux, and after that is just gets worse.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It is dependent on the choices you make, whether you like how it ends up or not. And you don't get to blame it on no one telling you, because you have been told/warned. Deny that, bitch.

You are not God. You don't get to speak for God.

I will not base my choices on your random numbers.


Just calling them as I sees them.

My numbers are not random. That's just your excuse for ignoring them, just like you ignore all other information about the climate of our planet.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
Edited on 14-10-2017 08:16
14-10-2017 17:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.

Meanwhile:
litesong wrote:
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB
could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB
existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
/////////
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB
(2), or FAB
(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB
(1), or FAB
(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Update:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Oh, yeah, again!! Present High Arctic Berserker(1) or FAB
(1) is dead..... long live FAB
(2) !!!


Ah! Trying to change the subject with a big copynpaste that no one reads?
Again...can you calculate the Kilowatts?


Can you calculate the Kilowatts, Jizzy? Your fkbuddy Wake couldn't. He just drug 70,000kw out of his ass, and has no idea the true potential of a storm. Harnessing that energy would solve the world's energy problem [Which you guys don't even know we have].


It IS possible to calculate the energy in a typical rainstorm over a fixed area.

Assuming an area of 60sq miles, and a storm producing 1 inch of rain, and a typical terminal velocity of a raindrop at 10m/s (about the usual velocity), then you can use the kinetic energy formula E=0.5*m*v^2 to calculate the energy produced by the rain.

The result comes out to about 7MW.


What kinetic energy from a raindrop? Do you mean the energy released when each drop hits the ground, or road, or roof, or whatever? Doesn't seem useful. Perhaps catching all that water in a pan somehow, and then using it to power a water wheel or something might be useful. But that is using the weight of the water and not the speed at which it is free falling.

I think you made that part up about the result coming out to 7MW, just so you could try to confirm Wake's wild assed guess. Proves you two do sleep together, and just act like you don't know each other in person while posting.

I think it is grand that you would stand up for your fkbuddy like that, but it just means that both of you are Bull Shitters. Imagine that, two Bull Shitting Parrots in the same forum.

Oh yeah, the real energy in a storm, is the energy held in the clouds, that once in a while jumps out and kills unsuspecting golfers. It is produced by the union of Hydrogen and Oxygen in the formation of water droplets. The vapor in the clouds gets its charge from that electrical energy.

Now if you could just help me figure out how to harness that energy, I could be on my way, and out of your hair, as you continue your onslaught against humanity.


Of course nightmare doesn't know what he's talking about. The energy of a falling raindrop is not the energy required to move that much water at a given speed. Remember - E = V^2 x M
14-10-2017 18:34
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]GreenMan wrote: Litesong is funny as hell sometimes.
Volume of such is 3.86 billion cubic feet
Water weight of such a volume ~ = 120 million tons.
Again, the errors of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" pile up.... this time, ~ 53,000+ times.
Again, "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" can't even get within exponents of the correct answer.
////////
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" is 53,000+ times funnier.
Edited on 14-10-2017 18:47
14-10-2017 18:43
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
From another thread:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner wake-me-up" woofed: You can watch him(Greenman) fumbling around.
///////
litesong wrote: The fumbles of "wake-me-up" continue to be 53,000+ times funnier.
Edited on 14-10-2017 18:46
14-10-2017 21:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
What kinetic energy from a raindrop?

Raindrops move relative to the Earth's surface. That's kinetic energy.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you mean the energy released when each drop hits the ground, or road, or roof, or whatever?

That's one way to put it.
GreenMan wrote:
Doesn't seem useful.

Never said it was.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps catching all that water in a pan somehow, and then using it to power a water wheel or something might be useful.

We already do. It's called hydroelectric power. The 'pan' is a river and a lake.
GreenMan wrote:
But that is using the weight of the water and not the speed at which it is free falling.

That is the same thing, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
I think you made that part up about the result coming out to 7MW, just so you could try to confirm Wake's wild assed guess. Proves you two do sleep together, and just act like you don't know each other in person while posting.

No, he used math that is sound. You show less understanding of the math as we go.
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, the real energy in a storm, is the energy held in the clouds, that once in a while jumps out and kills unsuspecting golfers.

Guess the wind blowing a hat away is not energy, eh? Guess the heat generated by a raindrop falling on the surface is not energy, eh? I'll remember that next time a rock falls on your head.
GreenMan wrote:
It is produced by the union of Hydrogen and Oxygen in the formation of water droplets.

WRONG. Storms do NOT combine hydrogen and oxygen!
GreenMan wrote:
The vapor in the clouds gets its charge from that electrical energy.

No, the electrical charge in a cloud comes from conflicting directions of winds in the storm, like rubbing a balloon on a window.
GreenMan wrote:
Now if you could just help me figure out how to harness that energy, I could be on my way, and out of your hair, as you continue your onslaught against humanity.

We already have. It's called electricity. Go look at your nearest outlet and do some naval gazing.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 22:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:

He said he supports the Church [religious Church, not Church of AGW], but didn't say which, or if he meant synagogue. If he is Christian [or Jew, or Muslim] then he has a messed up perspective of the afterlife, which doesn't include "life in Heaven," or life anywhere except on earth. He probably bought into the "eternity in Heaven with Jesus" thing, and really thinks that even though he is working to destroy humanity, that he has a "get out of jail free card," good for anything. He thinks he doesn't even need another life on earth. So why should he give a hoot about future generations?

Into the Night wrote:
You ARE cold. You don't care about future generations.

GreenMan wrote:
Look dickweed, I'm in here because I do care about the future of humanity.

Welcome to your new paradox. You just asked why anyone should care about future generations. Which is it, dude?

An inability to comprehend the written word on your part, does not constitute a paradox on my part.

I do understand the written word on your part. Your paradox constitutes the paradox on your part. I have numbered the usual mantras and chants of the Church of Global Warming, this one is also known as Mantra 2.
GreenMan wrote:
I said you don't care about the future of humanity, which is quite obvious.

So I'm the devil himself, eh?
GreenMan wrote:
All you care about is you being able to continue your party. But you know what, it ain't about you.

Quite right. It's about everyone's freedom to conduct their own lives as they see fit. It's about everyone's access to the free market. It's about the Church of Karl Marx trying to control people through the Church of Global Warming. Fortunately, more and more people are waking up to your scam.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are in here because you care about preserving your glutinous way of life. You are so busy stuffing your fat face with delicacies that you haven't bothered to look around and see what's happening to where they came from.

You have something against wealth I see. You are just showing your belief in the Church of Karl Marx as well.

I've got nothing against wealth.

Liar.
GreenMan wrote:
I do however understand why it will be easier to get a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God though.

Quoting scripture without understanding it again, eh?
GreenMan wrote:
So I don't cling to material things that are of no practical benefit.

Neither do I. Everything I own has a purpose.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't live in a big house with a small yard in a beautiful subdivision. I live on the border of a state WMA, in a small camper, and I am quite content there, when I can be there. And I make more money in a day than most people make all week. So no, I don't have a problem with wealthy people, unless they have a problem with changing their life style a little bit, so accommodate the future of humanity.

Why don't you cover yourself with dust as well? You take pride in describing how 'poor' you are.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
You are so removed from reality

You don't know what 'reality' means. Stay away from philosophy. You can't handle science, math, or logic.

Reality - the world or the state of things as they actually exist, as opposed to an idealistic or notional idea of them.

How do you know something actually exists? Void definition.
GreenMan wrote:
It is a choice that you made, when you decided that you didn't want to change your lifestyle, or give up any of your money to reduce our dependency on coal and oil.

I don't need to reduce my use of coal and oil. They are both useful fuels. Oil is even a renewable fuel. They are both efficient ways to package energy.

GreenMan wrote:
You decided to ignore what the Alarmists were saying, and started looking for reasons that you could use to justify your emotional behavior.
GreenMan wrote:
Did you know that doing that will eventually drive you crazy as hell?

It is YOU that is arguing paradox after paradox. It is YOU that is making irrational arguments because of them. It is YOU that has failed to clear even a single paradox you have built.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
You can't twist the laws of Physics around to suit your selfish desires,

I have twisted nothing. The equations are what they are. The theories are what they are. I have changed nothing.

Of course you haven't changed anything. Because you can't change physics. You can only understand physics, which you don't.

Argument by contextomy, a fallacy.

You just can't get around the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law by trying to say I don't understand physics, dumbass.

GreenMan wrote:
You try to act like you do, as you masquerade around as some kind of physicist, but you are just repeating things you have memorized and never bothered to learn the meaning of.

I know the meaning and the history of these theories.
GreenMan wrote:
So I'm starting to think that you aren't even aware that you are twisting the meaning of the Laws of Physics that you keep trying to use to prove Global Warming breaks them. You really are so confused that you don't know, do you.

I am not twisting anything. I have stated the theories and the equations behind them. Those theories conflict with your model of greenhouse gas. If you want to destroy a theory, you must first falsify it.

Define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
GreenMan wrote:
No, you have totally lost touch with reality, already, because of the little games you have been trying to play.

Science is not a game, although game theory is a science.
GreenMan wrote:
They gonna come get you soon, and put you in one of them fancy shirts, with sleeves that go all around to the back, so they can make a knot in them. That way you can't hurt anyone else.

You'd like that, wouldn't you?

Far from that happening, it is YOU that more and more people are rejecting. They are getting tired of people like you trying to take their liberties away.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
and then accuse people of denying science,

It is YOU that is denying both these equations AND these theories. Inversion fallacy.

I'm not denying those equations,

Yes, you are. You try to decrease entropy in a system. You try to decrease radiance and increase temperature at the same time.
GreenMan wrote:
I use them to understand what causes Global Warming.

You do not use them at all.
GreenMan wrote:
But I am denying your attempted use of them to disprove Global Warming.

Obviously. Such is your religious stance.
GreenMan wrote:
You need to go back to the drawing board, and see if you can't come up with a better plan to fool people with, because that one is doomed.
Science is not doomed. Neither is mathematics.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
lol. I'm not a science denier.

Yes you are.

You are silly. We could go on like this forever I suppose, since you will not accept that denying your understanding of science does not constitute someone being a science denier.

Try English next time. It works much better.
GreenMan wrote:
Listen:
You are not even an expert in the field of science.

Science is not 'experts'. Science is not any credential, degree, or license. Science is not owned by any university, government agency, scientist or group of scientists.

GreenMan wrote:
You are a successful businessman, who knows nothing about the science of climate.

There is no branch of science about climate. It is not possible to construct a theory based on a void argument. 'Climate' is an unspecifiable term. It has no units.
GreenMan wrote:
You sound like you have a Masters degree in Mechanical Engineer.

Wrong again. My degree is elsewhere. I happen to be a reasonably good mechanical engineer.
GreenMan wrote:
That's all. It doesn't make you an expert in climate science.

There is no such thing as climate 'science'. Climate 'scientists' have not used or produced any science in years.
GreenMan wrote:
But it does give you an edge in climate science denial, since you know all the buzz words.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is using buzzword fallacies, although not as much as James does.
GreenMan wrote:
You are just a troll, and that isn't going to go away.

So instead of bringing any counterargument you've decided that insulting people is going work, right?

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
That would be you.

Inversion fallacy.

Inversion Reality.

It is obvious you don't know what an inversion fallacy is. You certainly don't know what 'reality' actually means either.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Oh, and it doesn't matter if you deny your destiny either.

I don't. You just think I do.

So you are comfortable going to you death fighting for people's right to destroy the future? Or even worse, trying to convince them that they aren't destroying the future, when you know they are?
Buddy, your destiny on earth sux, and after that is just gets worse.

I am quite happy. So are my kids. I and they don't believe in your religion. We spend our time improving the world, not worrying about destroying it like you do.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It is dependent on the choices you make, whether you like how it ends up or not. And you don't get to blame it on no one telling you, because you have been told/warned. Deny that, bitch.

You are not God. You don't get to speak for God.

I will not base my choices on your random numbers.


Just calling them as I sees them.

My numbers are not random. That's just your excuse for ignoring them, just like you ignore all other information about the climate of our planet.

Your numbers are random. They are of type randU. I have already shown exactly why.

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. Earth has many climates.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2017 22:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
Wake wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
litesong wrote:
litesong wrote:
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" gushed: Why didn't you calculate the Kwatts?

Sees dat "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner gazzzed & guzzzling" cal-cu-lated nuthin'.

Meanwhile:
litesong wrote:
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
A mid-Siberian cold front that developed between two warm Siberian fronts, strengthened & sent a fairly narrow cold band directly to the North Pole. Simultaneously, the cold front that has been a long-time Canadian resident due to cold upwelling Northeastern Pacific Ocean waters that sent cold air into Canada, made stronger incursions into the High Arctic. Despite normal increasing warmth due to ever increasing direct solar radiation at this time of year, FAB
could not stay ahead of the average High Arctic temperature curve.
FAB
existed for a powerful 230+ days(almost 235 days?), an extreme presentation of the extreme AGW warming occurring in the High Arctic, which is an extreme reflection of general AGW Earth warming, due to increasing man-made non-phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHGs AND their feedbacks AND AGW controlled phase change, infra-red energy absorbing GHG water vapor AND its feedbacks.
Present High Arctic Berserker or FAB
is dead..... long live FAB
!!!
My wager: 2017 (& years to come?) global temperatures will be over the 20th century average. Real cold will have to inundate the Earth, for future years to get back under the temperature of the average of the 20th century.
& before old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' reprobate AGW denier liar whiners can say ice age temperatures are returning, at some point, 400+ straight months will have to be under the 20th century average.
/////////
We are now entering ~ a 40 day period in which High Arctic (almost 4 million square kilometers) air temperatures have been over-warm since 2013. Since High Arctic temperatures have been over warm for ~ 55 days (High Arctic Berserker(2) ), we appear to have an above average chance (maybe, a well above average chance) that the Present High Arctic Berserker(2), PHAB
(2), or FAB
(2) will continue till at least its 100th day.
As stated above, Present High Arctic Berserker(1), PHAB
(1), or FAB
(1) for the period of latter 2016 to nearly first half of 2017, lasted for ~ 230 days.
Update:
Average Arctic sea ice VOLUME for October 1, for the period 1980-89, was ~15,200 cubic kilometers. Present October 1, 2017 sea ice VOLUME is ~ 5000 cubic kilometers, ~ 10,200 cubic kilometers LESS than the 1980-89 average for October 1.... just under 33% of the average of the 1980's.
Oh, yeah!! The energy to melt that amount of ice is ~ 35 times the annual energy consumption of the U.S.
Oh, yeah, again!! Present High Arctic Berserker(1) or FAB
(1) is dead..... long live FAB
(2) !!!


Ah! Trying to change the subject with a big copynpaste that no one reads?
Again...can you calculate the Kilowatts?


Can you calculate the Kilowatts, Jizzy? Your fkbuddy Wake couldn't. He just drug 70,000kw out of his ass, and has no idea the true potential of a storm. Harnessing that energy would solve the world's energy problem [Which you guys don't even know we have].


It IS possible to calculate the energy in a typical rainstorm over a fixed area.

Assuming an area of 60sq miles, and a storm producing 1 inch of rain, and a typical terminal velocity of a raindrop at 10m/s (about the usual velocity), then you can use the kinetic energy formula E=0.5*m*v^2 to calculate the energy produced by the rain.

The result comes out to about 7MW.


What kinetic energy from a raindrop? Do you mean the energy released when each drop hits the ground, or road, or roof, or whatever? Doesn't seem useful. Perhaps catching all that water in a pan somehow, and then using it to power a water wheel or something might be useful. But that is using the weight of the water and not the speed at which it is free falling.

I think you made that part up about the result coming out to 7MW, just so you could try to confirm Wake's wild assed guess. Proves you two do sleep together, and just act like you don't know each other in person while posting.

I think it is grand that you would stand up for your fkbuddy like that, but it just means that both of you are Bull Shitters. Imagine that, two Bull Shitting Parrots in the same forum.

Oh yeah, the real energy in a storm, is the energy held in the clouds, that once in a while jumps out and kills unsuspecting golfers. It is produced by the union of Hydrogen and Oxygen in the formation of water droplets. The vapor in the clouds gets its charge from that electrical energy.

Now if you could just help me figure out how to harness that energy, I could be on my way, and out of your hair, as you continue your onslaught against humanity.


Of course nightmare doesn't know what he's talking about. The energy of a falling raindrop is not the energy required to move that much water at a given speed. Remember - E = V^2 x M


You use the same equation, then you deny it. Welcome to your new paradox.


The Parrot Killer
16-10-2017 07:13
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
Far from that happening, it is YOU that more and more people are rejecting. They are getting tired of people like you trying to take their liberties away.


That's a bit of a shocker to me, even coming from you. I wasn't aware that I threatened to take anyone's liberties away. So you must be referring to some conclusion that you must have about me, that isn't really accurate.

I'm thinking that you have my position as being the same as the IPCC or something. Yeah, they are going to remove a few of your liberties. But I'm not any part of that. I don't care what they do, really. There's nothing I can do to prevent it. So, like you, I will just go along with whatever our government says to do. If they raise the taxes, I pay more taxes. If they say I can't have no gasoline car, then I will just have to go buy me one of them new fangled Teslas, and get that auto pilot control stuff. Sleeping on the way to work in the morning just sounds so cool, doesn't it?

But, all jokes aside. You might as well get ready to have your liberties removed, because they know that our reliance on oil and gas to fuel our lifestyle has to end. Time for you to accept that, and make the appropriate adjustments to your mindset.

It helps if you look at it as an adventure. Imagine what you are going to do to make it through the rest of your life. Maybe you can hide in the woods, to avoid the tax collectors. They have big huge rain forests out there where you are at, with trees so big that you can live in the stumps of dead ones. You could just walk to town and get what you need each day. Maybe carry a hammer with you, and so a little handy man work around town each day, to earn a few dollars to buy a loaf of bread and some bologna. Maybe on a good day, you can get you a pack of tuna fish.

You haven't lived until you have experience life when a pack of tuna fish is a luxury.

Only then can you truly appreciate the life we live now. We live like kings. And, like youth being wasted on the young, our experience is wasted on us, because most of us have never had to live in the gutter.

The cool thing about having been there, is knowing that it won't kill you. But for a person who has never experienced it, I'm sure it seems like the end of the world.

Oh, you might as well get your head wrapped around that, as ridiculous as it might sound to you. Because everyone gets to go spend some time in the gutter, regardless of whether or not they understand why. So, uh, you might as well start learning how those Laws of Physics actually explain Global Warming, instead of deny it.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-10-2017 08:04
GreenMan
★★★☆☆
(661)
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
What kinetic energy from a raindrop?

Raindrops move relative to the Earth's surface. That's kinetic energy.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you mean the energy released when each drop hits the ground, or road, or roof, or whatever?

That's one way to put it.
GreenMan wrote:
Doesn't seem useful.

Never said it was.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps catching all that water in a pan somehow, and then using it to power a water wheel or something might be useful.

We already do. It's called hydroelectric power. The 'pan' is a river and a lake.
GreenMan wrote:
But that is using the weight of the water and not the speed at which it is free falling.

That is the same thing, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
I think you made that part up about the result coming out to 7MW, just so you could try to confirm Wake's wild assed guess. Proves you two do sleep together, and just act like you don't know each other in person while posting.

No, he used math that is sound. You show less understanding of the math as we go.
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, the real energy in a storm, is the energy held in the clouds, that once in a while jumps out and kills unsuspecting golfers.

Guess the wind blowing a hat away is not energy, eh? Guess the heat generated by a raindrop falling on the surface is not energy, eh? I'll remember that next time a rock falls on your head.

Yes, they are both energy. What I meant by real was something other than what you took it for. I meant the real usable energy in a storm is that which charges the clouds.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It is produced by the union of Hydrogen and Oxygen in the formation of water droplets.

WRONG. Storms do NOT combine hydrogen and oxygen!

Technically, I'm going to say you are right, because it's the formation of water droplets that produce rain, which often occurs during a storm. The formation of water droplets is for sure a result of the union of Hydrogen and Oxygen. The union of Hydrogen and Oxygen generates electricity.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
The vapor in the clouds gets its charge from that electrical energy.

No, the electrical charge in a cloud comes from conflicting directions of winds in the storm, like rubbing a balloon on a window.

Don't you mean like rubbing a balloon on your head and then sticking it to a window? Nah, that's not it, lol. But good guess. And, uh, pay attention. The charge in clouds comes from the union of hydrogen and oxygen molecules.

Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Now if you could just help me figure out how to harness that energy, I could be on my way, and out of your hair, as you continue your onslaught against humanity.

We already have. It's called electricity. Go look at your nearest outlet and do some naval gazing.


Nah, the electricity that comes out of my outlet didn't come from the charge in the clouds, or from what makes the charge in the clouds. Pay attention.


~*~ GreenMan ~*~

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
16-10-2017 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Far from that happening, it is YOU that more and more people are rejecting. They are getting tired of people like you trying to take their liberties away.


That's a bit of a shocker to me, even coming from you. I wasn't aware that I threatened to take anyone's liberties away.

DON'T try to play innocent with me!
GreenMan wrote:
So you must be referring to some conclusion that you must have about me, that isn't really accurate.

It is completely accurate.
GreenMan wrote:
I'm thinking that you have my position as being the same as the IPCC or something.

Not quite, but you are attempting to take liberties away just the same.
GreenMan wrote:
Yeah, they are going to remove a few of your liberties.

Not gonna happen.
GreenMan wrote:
But I'm not any part of that.

Bull.
GreenMan wrote:
I don't care what they do, really. There's nothing I can do to prevent it.

You don't want to prevent it. You're a useful idiot.
GreenMan wrote:
So, like you, I will just go along with whatever our government says to do.

No, people in the United States SUE the government successfully when they go too far, and people in the United States have guns and all the other resources at their disposal to remove a government that becomes too abusive.
GreenMan wrote:
If they raise the taxes, I pay more taxes. If they say I can't have no gasoline car, then I will just have to go buy me one of them new fangled Teslas, and get that auto pilot control stuff. Sleeping on the way to work in the morning just sounds so cool, doesn't it?

How does it feel to be an utter slave?
GreenMan wrote:
But, all jokes aside. You might as well get ready to have your liberties removed, because they know that our reliance on oil and gas to fuel our lifestyle has to end.

No, it doesn't.
GreenMan wrote:
Time for you to accept that, and make the appropriate adjustments to your mindset.

No need.
GreenMan wrote:
It helps if you look at it as an adventure.

Not an 'adventure' I would like to see. You are talking about overthrowing the government of the United States now in favor of your religion. Not gonna happen.
GreenMan wrote:
Imagine what you are going to do to make it through the rest of your life.

No problem.
GreenMan wrote:
Maybe you can hide in the woods, to avoid the tax collectors. They have big huge rain forests out there where you are at, with trees so big that you can live in the stumps of dead ones. You could just walk to town and get what you need each day. Maybe carry a hammer with you, and so a little handy man work around town each day, to earn a few dollars to buy a loaf of bread and some bologna. Maybe on a good day, you can get you a pack of tuna fish.

No need to.
GreenMan wrote:
You haven't lived until you have experience life when a pack of tuna fish is a luxury.

If you figure this is desirable, your life must suck.
GreenMan wrote:
Only then can you truly appreciate the life we live now. We live like kings. And, like youth being wasted on the young, our experience is wasted on us, because most of us have never had to live in the gutter.

Most of us don't get hooked on the drugs that put you there.
GreenMan wrote:
The cool thing about having been there, is knowing that it won't kill you. But for a person who has never experienced it, I'm sure it seems like the end of the world.

Ah. The truth comes out. You miss your life in the gutter!
GreenMan wrote:
Oh, you might as well get your head wrapped around that, as ridiculous as it might sound to you. Because everyone gets to go spend some time in the gutter, regardless of whether or not they understand why.

WRONG. Most people contribute to society. They don't need to live in poverty.
GreenMan wrote:
So, uh, you might as well start learning how those Laws of Physics actually explain Global Warming, instead of deny it.

They don't explain global warming. You can't even DEFINE 'global warming' without using circular definitions.


The Parrot Killer
16-10-2017 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10281)
GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
What kinetic energy from a raindrop?

Raindrops move relative to the Earth's surface. That's kinetic energy.
GreenMan wrote:
Do you mean the energy released when each drop hits the ground, or road, or roof, or whatever?

That's one way to put it.
GreenMan wrote:
Doesn't seem useful.

Never said it was.
GreenMan wrote:
Perhaps catching all that water in a pan somehow, and then using it to power a water wheel or something might be useful.

We already do. It's called hydroelectric power. The 'pan' is a river and a lake.
GreenMan wrote:
But that is using the weight of the water and not the speed at which it is free falling.

That is the same thing, dumbass.
GreenMan wrote:
I think you made that part up about the result coming out to 7MW, just so you could try to confirm Wake's wild assed guess. Proves you two do sleep together, and just act like you don't know each other in person while posting.

No, he used math that is sound. You show less understanding of the math as we go.
GreenMan wrote:
Oh yeah, the real energy in a storm, is the energy held in the clouds, that once in a while jumps out and kills unsuspecting golfers.

Guess the wind blowing a hat away is not energy, eh? Guess the heat generated by a raindrop falling on the surface is not energy, eh? I'll remember that next time a rock falls on your head.

Yes, they are both energy. What I meant by real was something other than what you took it for. I meant the real usable energy in a storm is that which charges the clouds.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
So the wind isn't usable energy, eh? What about wind power??? What about hydroelectric power???

Welcome to your new paradox.


GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
It is produced by the union of Hydrogen and Oxygen in the formation of water droplets.

WRONG. Storms do NOT combine hydrogen and oxygen!

Technically, I'm going to say you are right, because it's the formation of water droplets that produce rain, which often occurs during a storm. The formation of water droplets is for sure a result of the union of Hydrogen and Oxygen. The union of Hydrogen and Oxygen generates electricity.

It is obvious you don't understand chemistry at any level or what happens inside a storm.

The union of hydrogen and oxygen creates an rapid release of thermal energy and possibly an explosion, not electricity.

Lightning is not an explosion. Whatever it hits might explode, but lightning itself isn't one.

Storms do not create water from hydrogen and oxygen. The water is already there in the form of invisible vapor that condenses out to visible form.

Storms have conflicting currents of air in them. That's why airplanes avoid the things. There is a hell of a lot of turbulence in a strong storm.

Electrons are stripped off of molecules by the conflicting air currents moving past each other. That places static charges in localized areas of the storm. Eventually it builds to the point of discharging in the form of lightning.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The vapor in the clouds gets its charge from that electrical energy.

No, the electrical charge in a cloud comes from conflicting directions of winds in the storm, like rubbing a balloon on a window.

Don't you mean like rubbing a balloon on your head and then sticking it to a window? Nah, that's not it, lol. But good guess. And, uh, pay attention. The charge in clouds comes from the union of hydrogen and oxygen molecules.

Combining hydrogen and oxygen does not produce a charge.

GreenMan wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GreenMan wrote:
Now if you could just help me figure out how to harness that energy, I could be on my way, and out of your hair, as you continue your onslaught against humanity.

We already have. It's called electricity. Go look at your nearest outlet and do some naval gazing.


Nah, the electricity that comes out of my outlet didn't come from the charge in the clouds, or from what makes the charge in the clouds. Pay attention.

Yes it does. Do you have hydroelectric power? That comes from rainstorms! It was the study of lightning that created the electrical systems we have today!

So...you have demonstrated that you don't know chemistry, don't know how a thunderstorm works, don't know any history of physics, have no idea what potential and kinetic energy are, and managed to build yourself yet another paradox.

Not bad for one post. Usually you just repeat your same old arguments and make the same old mistakes.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate GWP (Global Warming Potential):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Potential Effects of Broadcast Induced REP on Climate Change29906-03-2019 18:50
A potential source of asymmetry - methods of heat dissipation1118-09-2016 11:34
▲ 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