Reply With Quote
Yes, it is in wiki. So? It is a NASA/GISS graph, used by wiki.
Not a wiki graph!
LOL...
You can't even put together your searched link properly
LOL...
The asstalking genius strikes again...
LOL...
A 1.5C Temperature Rise Would Set Off Siberia's Permafrost Carbon Bomb, Scientists Warn
Read more: A 1.5C Temperature Rise Would Set Off Siberia's Permafrost Carbon Bomb, Scientists Warn | Inhabitat - Sustainable Design Innovation, Eco Architecture, Green BuildingResearchers led by experts from Oxford University warn that a 1.5C temperature rise would melt Siberia’s permafrost, which would in turn release hundreds of gigatonnes of stored carbon dioxide and methane into the atmosphere. Covering nearly a quarter of the northern hemisphere, this ticking carbon bomb would speed up global warming and cause widespread climate change. However, The Guardian reports, it would likely take a few decades for the permafrost to melt and therefore greenhouse gas emissions would initially trickle into the atmosphere.
Yes, it is in wiki. So? It is a NASA/GISS graph, used by wiki.
Not a wiki graph!
LOL...
You can't even put together your searched link properly
LOL...
The asstalking genius strikes again...
LOL...
Yet there are other factors besides CO2.
When such alarmists start talking about the actual impact of black carbon and solar changes also, I will start taking them serious.
Wild Cobra has some serious problems.
I really hope he gets some help. The level of this craziness is insane.
Gas prices are already sky high and China nor India have yet to fully develop their oil and energy consumption.
This country has to adapt to survive, period. All this crazy ranting about straw man pseudoscience is exactly that, crazy.
The image is from wiki's source folder. That is from the first image you posted for us all to 'enjoy.'
gmfb. This is like saying "I don't like most black people" some how is not racist. You can front all you want but no one ever ever buys your bull . I don't know why you bother trying anymore. If I were you I would actually try and repair my image as being an idiot and yet you insist on digging the hole deeper.
I invite anyone to take the bolds and space out of his url and see where it takes you.
I will also note for said post:
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 2 Hours Ago at 10:18 PM. Reason: embeded NASA/GISS link
The original link is what I just posted above.
Now you are being like Poptart.
LOL...
Fuzzy trying to cover for his stupidity, by something that doesn't matter.
We have only been discussing this topic for 3 years now and you are still using wikipedia as your go to. That is completely relevant to your credibility which we all know that you have none.
You know this too as evidenced by your editing of the post so it would seem as if you went to NASA to find that data. We both know that you did not yet you tried to front like you did. IOW, it's so irrelevant that you tried to deceive us about it.
You can try and characterize me as stupid but after three years you still go to wikipedia to try and argue this topic with, amongst others, a guy that studies climate as a profession.
LOL...
Rationalizing your stupidity...
Liar.
My posts on the subject are as old as 2007, maybe older.
Why can't you get anything right?
Currently reading Nate Siver's book, The Signal and the Noise. It has a chapter on climate change that is pretty good. Apparently, this chapter has drawn the ire of some climate scientists, particularly Michael Mann.
Hissy fit here: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mobile...b_1909482.html
The village is calling!
Lots of pretty pictures, all wrong
https://www.google.com/search?q=incr...w=1680&bih=957
Do you understand the pronoun 'we?' When I use the word 'we' that includes me as well as you even if you allow for the broader interpretation of others in the forum. When I say 'we' that by definition includes me. 'We' have only been discussing it for three years. You are not we, dumbass.
Moreso, you having been doing this for longer and still going to wikipedia as your go to does not help your credibility. It means every time you are going back to step 1 while someone like Manny is probably 140 formal hours ahead of you.
I am not the only one that brings up you being Dr. Google as a commentary to your a en and we both know you realize this as well thus your: Last edited by Wild Cobra; 2 Hours Ago at 10:18 PM. Reason: embeded NASA/GISS link.
You know that google searches get you made fun of so you tried to deceive us.
Everyone sees it and once again you have someone piping in calling you the village idiot. Most I get is wine calling me an asshole. I am an asshole to you but at least I am not a moron who thinks google gives him credibility over a trained professional. Stick to changing out motors and run caps, fool.
Yes, I was using the broader definition. If you want this one as a win, you can have it. I guess you need a star every now and then like the good kids in preschool.
It reall amazes me that you still think you have to prove to everyone how much of a moron you are.
Newsflash... Everyone already know that you are a re .
Now I want to to take some time and think about something. Not too hard, because I don't want to you burst a capillary in your head, or have an aneurism. Please ponder this. Without looking up a reference via Wiki or Google, just how am I suppose to convey something to you I already know?
Am I suppose to draw a picture, take a photo in my handwriting an email it to you?
I did close to that several times. I gather information and graph it myself. One time, you accused me then of also finding it on the internet. It was a graph I made you idiot!
My God... You are to blind to see how much of a moron you are.
Seriously, if I have something to show you, just how do you expect me to do that without first looking up the reference on the internet?
Manny is an indoctrinated fool. He cannot think for himself. He only repeats and links other people's work, and I don't recall ever seeing an explanation in his words.
True. One lib starts that bandwagon, and others join the band. That doesn't make it valid at all.
And that is important... why? Must I walk you though this as if you are a three year old?
I found another NASA link when I failed to fond it before with the same pic, so I edited the earlier post. So ing what?
Ask yourself, was I trying to be deceptive because I actually added a comment to the reason edited? I use google frequently to find references. I just don't use it like you accuse me of. It's obvious that you do with your misunderstanding of so many things, but I already have a sound foundation of nearly all the things I speak of.
And you think I care? George is one of your fellow lib s. Sometimes I will banter with him, sometimes I will ignore him.
Did you man whine?
Something similar to John 8:7 comes to mind.
You are just the moron that assumes what you just said.The misspelling in the thread le just underscores the stupidity of this fail trolling.
Again Fuzzy, we already know you are a moron. You don't have to keep proving it with your constant, baseless accusations.
LOL...
You don't have a clue, to the extent of my job. Another one of your idiotic assumptions.
Line by line? Really.
That reply is so full of fail from the lack of basic understanding of words like 'we' and 'even' to your inability to discern who wine is. Your constant refrain is now revisionist history. Again no one buys it just like no one reads line by line.
And you never answer questions.
Really, just how do you expect me to show you something in the internet without first finding it myself?
You should quit before you get farther behind.
You are a total fool.
I'm done with you until you have something real to the topic.
So Halberto, you were saying?
What if the sun is the reason for most the changes we see?There was also a permanent long term average change of solar energy that slowly increased between about 1900 and about 1950.
CO2 gas is an output of industrialization. CO2 is not as strong of a greenhouse gas as claimed by the AGW alarmist crowd.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 02-24-2013 at 02:21 PM.
I would go directly to the source because after three years I don't need to go to wikipedia. I go to the WU, NASA, BEST and PSU websites becuase they have been used in these discussions many many times. With you we are just starting over and again. You didn't just 'google' you went to wikipedia ie you are starting over.
That's why Manny just laughs at you becuase youre like a guy that constantly has to repeat kindergarten. It's why guys like DMC, drachen, admiralsnack, RG, EN, lyrnn, scott and others have commented on it. Yet no one ever comes to your defense. Not Darrin, not even Poptart who distanced himself for your special brand of ignorance.
What do you do? You start a thread by which you enforce your reputation as a moron. In this very thread you have been called one a dozen times. Why do you keep doing this?
What do instantaneous mean?
I don't waste my time debating with hard-headed people over the internet.
Then why did you bother replying at all? You at least in your first post, stated facts along with your opinion.
Please notice I separate global warming into natural and man-made. Both contribute, but the $64 million dollar question, is how much is in each catagory and sub catagory?
All the Fuzzy troll does is attack me in threads, and never adds to the discussion of the OP. He is always trying to make a thread about me.
I think he's in love.
Bull I used to try and talk about the models and the various PDE's they used. I used to try and talk about multivariable calculations --which btw feeds into you 'what do instantaneous mean-- but just like MiG I no longer try and debate on the merits.
Most of it you are too stupid to understand which was obvious from you trying to figure out what linear means and being unable to. Further, you do as you are doing now: trying to start completely over and ignore all the arguments before.
While you want to try and act like they have not been rebutted you same old including but not limited to:
1) it's the soot.
2) warming drives CO2
3) NASA does not consider their own UV spectrum discoveries
4) IPCC is evil.
5) Observed climate change is natural variation
It gets very old having you ignore the topic for a month then bring it back up by extending the old ignorace that you do not even have the decency to remember your won . You have to look it up on wikipedia.
That's why I rag on you nonstop: becuase you do it over and over again. So yeah I am just going to point out you are a moron that has trouble keeping up with your own bull just like now you are going to bring up some about me and assumptions. That is why I posted your wiki link and that is why no one ever takes you seriously. You have no clue wtf you are talking about even after all these years.
There is Fuzzy, lying again. His rebuttals do not fit what i have said. He takes extreme viewpojnt. Whan I say nearly linear, he says "it's not linear."
No Sherlock.
He twists everything I say, and argues against things I don't say.
He's a ing moron, and anyone that believe post #48, is ignorant on the topic or has an agenda.
He rags on me just to rag, without really comprehending what he is saying.
Like I said you cannot keep up with your own bull .
You said it was nearly linear. I said it's not linear so you can only treat it as being linear in certain ranges if you can consider it linear at all. I then asked you what formula or formula type it was ie log, exponential or whatever and you did not know.
It's hilarious watching you try not to use the word assumption in using the same stupid argument. Are you capable of an original thought?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
