Page 42 of 210 FirstFirst ... 323839404142434445465292142 ... LastLast
Results 1,026 to 1,050 of 5238
  1. #1026
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Um, your posts in this thread? Ocean lag.
    I see...

    A stored change in energy levels, released at a later time, isn't lag?

    What planet did you say you were from?

  2. #1027
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Drrrr, the data that I use from 1750 shows an estimate right in line with the IPCC chart, Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Durrrr, when I use data from further back it then goes above the chart figures, durrrrrr. WHY IS THE CHART FROM 1750 TO PRESENT NOT ACCOUNTING FOR A RAISE FROM 1610 DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. I know thermodynamics ocean lag DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRR you just don't understand!!!!

  3. #1028
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    I see...

    A stored release at a later time isn't lag?

    What planet did you say you were from?
    Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr oceans warming the planet but it doesn't matter that they are getting warmer too because I understand thermoduuurrrrrrrrnamics very well but you just don't understand durrrrrrrrrrrrrr ocean lag!

  4. #1029
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Drrrr, the data that I use from 1750 shows an estimate right in line with the IPCC chart, Durrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. Durrrr, when I use data from further back it then goes above the chart figures, durrrrrr. WHY IS THE CHART FROM 1750 TO PRESENT NOT ACCOUNTING FOR A RAISE FROM 1610 DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR. I know thermodynamics ocean lag DURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR RRRRRRRR you just don't understand!!!!

  5. #1030
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Cue the heat is stored in the oceans line from him with little to no understanding of basic thermodynamics and why that isn't the case.

  6. #1031
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You keep bringing up stuff that is meaningless to what I say. That has no bearing on the trend from 1750 to 2004. What little is speaks of past time frames, it supports what I say.

    Why are you always so far off target?
    Yeah the trends of solar activity being the opposite of what you claim is meaningless to what you say when you say:

    The sun has increased in intensity. Enough to cause more than half the increased heat covered by the IPCC AR4 between the covered time frame of 1750 to 2004, without the water feedback effect.
    This is the same as you saying to look at average ocean temperature at made up year x and made up year y rather than looking at how the flux actually changes every year as the seasons change and them looking at it by every year.

    You look at the solar activity from 1750 which who the knows how accurate that is and the activity from 2004 and try and make claims of what should happen over that entire time period and then claim that solar activity over a recent well observed 20 period is irrelevant.

    Its not irrelevant. Instead you are too simpleminded to understand how to model something as to understand how the phenomenon occurs through time.

    Whats contemptible about you is you just try and bluster through despite you full well knowing that you have a learning disability with the exact same tired cliches.

    On a final note, here is the Royal Society's direct refutation of what you are claiming:

    There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection–attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.

  7. #1032
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    My God Fuzzy. You really are a fool. The discussion at hand has not been about modern climate change. I specifically have been saying from 1750 to 2004.

    Why can't you gracefully say you were wrong?

    Don't you get it?

    I am not disagreeing with what that study says. I am laughing at your total stupidity to suggest it invalidates what I have been saying.

  8. #1033
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified.
    YOU

    ARE

    DUMB.

    Dumbass: Solar activity from 1750 accounts for the warming.
    Royal society: No matter how you look at the solar variability it does not account for the recent warming.
    Dumbass: DERP DERP DERP. You don't understand. I'm right! You're wrong. DEEEEERRRRRRPPPPP!!!!!!!

  9. #1034
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    YOU

    ARE

    DUMB.

    Dumbass: Solar activity from 1750 accounts for the warming.
    Royal society: No matter how you look at the solar variability it does not account for the recent warming.
    Dumbass: DERP DERP DERP. You don't understand. I'm right! You're wrong. DEEEEERRRRRRPPPPP!!!!!!!
    You stupid idiot. I have not been speaking of recent warming with the 1750 to 2004 range.

    Is that recent to you? Note that they are talking about the last few decades.

  10. #1035
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You stupid idiot. I have not been speaking of recent warming with the 1750 to 2004 range.

    Is that recent to you? Note that they are talking about the last few decades.
    However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.
    What part of 'not relevant' do you not understand?

    And lol at your 1750 bull . It's hilarious watching MiG make a mockery of you about it and yet you continuing to use the same .

    YOU

    ARE

    A MORON.

  11. #1036
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    LOL...

    You are calling me a moron, and not paying attention to their timeframes...

    However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change.

  12. #1037
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    What does this mean to you?
    These studies have detected a solar contribution to global temperature rise in the first half of the twentieth century: a contribution that implies some form of amplification of the solar radiative forcing variation
    All studies on solar variations show an increase in the average solar intensity from about 1900 to 1950.

  13. #1038
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    What does this mean to you?

    All studies on solar variations show an increase in the average solar intensity from about 1900 to 1950.
    That they note the point that you are trying to make and reject it using spectral analysis and consideration of the most extreme possible effects of all possible amplifications. Complex ideas limited to even to a single logical extension elude you.

    YOU

    ARE

    A MORON.

  14. #1039
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    LOL...

    You are calling me a moron, and not paying attention to their timeframes...
    Is this a debate about modern climate change or not, dolt? If its not relevant then you bringing it up is meaningless in the context of this discussion. That's the point and an 8 year old can understand it.

    YOU
    ARE
    A MORON

  15. #1040
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    How dumb can you be, WC? If the trend lines have been going in opposite directions for the past 3 decades then how are you going to argue that the IPCC is not giving it the proper weighting in ANY time frame?

    That is the point.

  16. #1041
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I can't believe you guys are so stupid, and even more so for calling me stupid. The facts are what they are. Solar energy has had two significant increases during the timeframe covered by the IPCC. One from about 1700 to 1800, and the other from about 1900 to 1950.

    Since when does the last 3 decades indicate a pattern for time before or after that measured timeframe?

    How can anyone say with any integrity, that solar changes don't matter. You are implying that since they say the last three decades of very minor solar changes have no bearing on the last three decades of temperature, that neither does the larger changes of the past. Any idea how flat out stupid that is?

    If course a nearly flat solar variable isn't going to have an effect on temperature. That's a given. How can you guys argue such a stupid point? I'm not arguing against that study at all. It has no bearing on my claims.

    It's amazing that you two, as smart as you think you are, cannot address what I am saying. You continually act as if I am saying something else. Now maybe those less knowledgeable of these sciences think you are scoring, but you two are miserably failing.

  17. #1042
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Except no one is saying that solar changes don't matter. YOUR argument was that the IPCC doesn't correctly quantify the temp change from solar which has been demonstrated to be incorrect. You want to say that solar means more than it does because you don't want to acknowledge that the heating is driven mostly by CO2. You refuse to accept the knowledge that has been explained to you.

    I've addressed everything you've ever brought up - no matter how stupid it has been. The fact that I won't do it endlessly and instead chose to mock your idiocy doesn't change that.

    Solar isn't driving the heating. Its CO2 and the numbers back that up.

  18. #1043
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Except no one is saying that solar changes don't matter. YOUR argument was that the IPCC doesn't correctly quantify the temp change from solar which has been demonstrated to be incorrect. You want to say that solar means more than it does because you don't want to acknowledge that the heating is driven mostly by CO2. You refuse to accept the knowledge that has been explained to you.

    I've addressed everything you've ever brought up - no matter how stupid it has been. The fact that I won't do it endlessly and instead chose to mock your idiocy doesn't change that.

    Solar isn't driving the heating. Its CO2 and the numbers back that up.
    Bull .

    You two have not demonstrated I was wrong. I have repeatedly shown your arguments wrong.

    There is a only about a 40 year period from when the solar activity started to increase again, to 1750. You can take away part of the increase from what page 190 says, but only part. There is still a time lag to see the full effect on climate as well.

    Like it or not, the sun has a larger effect than what you are willing to acknowledge.

    I most certainly hope you don't believe if the sun suddenly stopped outputting energy, that the earth wouldn't cool.

  19. #1044
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    God you're an idiot.

  20. #1045
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    God you're an idiot.

  21. #1046
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Dumbass: Solar activity from 1750 accounts for the warming.
    Royal society: No matter how you look at the solar variability it does not account for the recent warming.
    Dumbass: DERP DERP DERP. You don't understand. I'm right! You're wrong. DEEEEERRRRRRPPPPP!!!!!!!

  22. #1047
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Laurel and Hardy...

    You two cannot change the facts no matter how much you twist words.

    The people here who have enough scientific intelligence to follow our discussion see that I'm consistent, quoted accepted data, and you two are throwing what ever you think may stick, and using material that doesn't apply.

    Therefore, I rest my case. You two can continue your comedy act all you want.
    Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-06-2012 at 04:06 AM.

  23. #1048
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Laurel and Hardy...

    You two cannot change the facts no matter how much you twist words.

    The people here who have enough scientific intelligence to follow our discussion see that I'm consistent, and you two are throwing what ever you think may stick.

    Therefore, I rest my case. You two can continue your comedy act all you want.
    Umm, I'm a graduate engineering student. MiG is studying climate science in his own right. Agloco is a nuclear scientist. RG is a risk analyst. We all constantly try to point out how inept you are.

    What are you? A service technician that changes parts based off a troubleshooting checklist who also does not understand the makeup of the parts you change such as capacitors.

    You posture but when the British Royal Society does a study to specifically invalidate the argument that solar variability of the past few centuries and even beyond does not explain the warming of the past few decades I am going to go with them over the partschanger.

    You cannot even keep units straight to look at very simple energy systems.

  24. #1049
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Umm, I'm a graduate engineering student. MiG is studying climate science in his own right. Agloco is a nuclear scientist. RG is a risk analyst. We all constantly try to point out how inept you are.

    What are you? A service technician that changes parts based off a troubleshooting checklist who also does not understand the makeup of the parts you change such as capacitors.

    You posture but when the British Royal Society does a study to specifically invalidate the argument that solar variability of the past few centuries and even beyond does not explain the warming of the past few decades I am going to go with them over the partschanger.

    You cannot even keep units straight to look at very simple energy systems.
    Are you saying you are smarter because you are more educated?

    That only makes you a college educated idiot! Intelligence, education, and wisdom are different things. One does not make another true.

    Keep your comedy act up. It is getting funny seeing you put your misconceptions on the line.

  25. #1050
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    Are you saying you are smarter because you are more educated?

    That only makes you a college educated idiot! Intelligence, education, and wisdom are different things. One does not make another true.

    Keep your comedy act up. It is getting funny seeing you put your misconceptions on the line.
    I can look at the studies concerning climate science modeling, spectral analysis of the periodic systems involved and the like and understand what they are doing. We both comment on them but only one of us has the expertise to understand what is going on.

    You blathered about that study from the 50s for years and how they kept temperature constant in regards to solubility. I took one look at it, saw the partial derivatives and instantly knew the error. You did not understand how the mathematical operation worked.

    You gave credence to the notion that there was combustion in the upper atmosphere for 40 days to explain the biblical flood.

    You thought that capacitors were limited to small capacitance because you do not know basic fundamental properties of the damn things and you work with them every day.

    You give credence to the notion that the warming has been hidden in the deep ocean and the ocean is just like a big soda fizzing itself out.

    You think soot explains all of the polar ice melt.

    I am not the one that tries to figure out where women I barely know live and think its a good idea to tell them about it.

    I am not the one that claims that most black people are lowlife degenerates and that you would not trust a black surgeon.

    I am not the one that thinks eugenics projects that tie reproductive rights and government services are a good idea.

    It goes on and on. You can sit there and make these general claims about how I am stupid and unwise but I am not the one that makes those claims. OTOH you demonstrate your stupidity on a daily basis. You are the one that demonstrates that you are about as wise as your average klan member.

    So keep on talking in general terms and I will keep pointing to the specific stupid that you do.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •