SpidermanTuba
Rookie
- Banned
- #241
The definition of "anomalous" that you are using isn't the same as the one used in meteorology.
Warmest March on record
- Thread starter Chris
- Start date
The definition of "anomalous" that you are using isn't the same as the one used in meteorology.
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
Proves nothing. May as well have said "i liKe grapEs."
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Who said I was trying to prove anything, bigfistedass? I was just laughing at the obsession you trolls have for socks.
Big Fitz
User Quit *****
- Nov 23, 2009
- 16,917
- 2,522
- 48
gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
LOL oh ok so the sun was in your eyes? You dog ate it? LOL excuses,excuses socko... Its all we ever see from you....
LOL all your big talk and long winded excuses and in all of it you didn't even address the question I asked you....
Moron, if you meant I make up definitions for words, it makes no sense... Seriously retard you questioned the use of the word and its meaning when I used it.... Ergo the challenge was yours you ignorant twit... Why in the hell would you ask such a retarded and and irrelevant question if it was meant as you describe? Are you retarded?
Now since you are incapable of being honest and it took you so long to weasel an excuse out of that one... I have to ask the question again.... I ask you once more socko..."Why do they measure anomalies rather than straight up temps?"
Answer it this time with no excuses rambling troll.....LOL or do you another lame ass excuse why you can't this time....
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
Sure it does, slack-jawed, you barely know the meaning of most words so you make up your own wacko definitions all the time. What I said was quite clear. You were just too stupid to understand it. See: "Well, slack-jawed, I was hoping we could hear the definition you made up for the word. Those are usually hilariously absurd. Oh well. Here's what it actually means. From two sources, since you're such a troll."
LOL oh ok so the sun was in your eyes? You dog ate it? LOL excuses,excuses socko... Its all we ever see from you....
LOL all your big talk and long winded excuses and in all of it you didn't even address the question I asked you....
Moron, if you meant I make up definitions for words, it makes no sense...
No, you are retarded, slack-jawed, as I've explained to you many times. You made a mistake and now you're trying to stay in denial, like always, but you're just spewing more blithering idiocy.
It is a way of organizing data to make it more useful and understandable but all that is way beyond your comprehension anyway. You mistakenly thought 'anomaly' meant something other than the meaning that meteorologists use. You fail again, fruitloops.
gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
Sure it does, slack-jawed, you barely know the meaning of most words so you make up your own wacko definitions all the time. What I said was quite clear. You were just too stupid to understand it. See: "Well, slack-jawed, I was hoping we could hear the definition you made up for the word. Those are usually hilariously absurd. Oh well. Here's what it actually means. From two sources, since you're such a troll."
LOL oh ok so the sun was in your eyes? You dog ate it? LOL excuses,excuses socko... Its all we ever see from you....
LOL all your big talk and long winded excuses and in all of it you didn't even address the question I asked you....
Moron, if you meant I make up definitions for words, it makes no sense...
No, you are retarded, slack-jawed, as I've explained to you many times. You made a mistake and now you're trying to stay in denial, like always, but you're just spewing more blithering idiocy.
It is a way of organizing data to make it more useful and understandable but all that is way beyond your comprehension anyway. You mistakenly thought 'anomaly' meant something other than the meaning that meteorologists use. You fail again, fruitloops.
So.... you deliberately wanted to sound idiotic and avoid the question? LOL ok.... You are failing horribly man.... LOl bring back oldsocks he did better than you are doing.... how many excuses you going to have? Seriously you post crap you didnt read but according to you we can't understand it... THe piece says maybe and possibly but you tell us it means its going to happen and a fact... And now you tell us what you say is not what you mean unless it supports what you say now...???? WTF?????
LOL they call that floundering douchebag... And you and oldsocks been floundering for weeks now......
So no real idea why they use anomalies then... THought not.... look dude just admit you don't know dont be an idiot and ramble some half-assed general idea....LOL
Okay tool, they use charts of anomalies to show an implication that they do not have to back up 100% or even very clearly... Got that? Yeah its like this.... They take a 140 or so year average for a region and then they show the deviations from that average, and from that they show warming fluctuations in areas as anomalies. Anomalies as in variations from the established norm...
Well first 140 years is no way to make an assumption of what is a normal average temp in regards to climate of a planet...How can we know its a norm? its a norm for 140 or so years but thats not an accurate depiction of climate even according to your scientists...
Second, they didnt have all those tracking stations for 140 years, so how did they get the average for all the regions? They extrapolated it using complex equations and nearby data. Sounds fine but how many temp stations did they have 140 years ago? Did they have any in Africa? How about China? South America? I seriously doubt it... So the extrapolation has holes in it as well...... Big holes......
Third, an anomaly can be easily manufactured. And leave very little evidence. The entire system requires complex mathematics to function and with a computer modeling program already set to negate all other influences of climate variance and attribute it to greenhouse effect alone; its easy to see how this happens.... its botched and contrived from start to finish....
I think you and olsocks are realizing this and its showing here.... you are going through the motions now. We all see it... he barely posts anyhting beyond speculation and insults anymore, and you have resorted to repeating the same already beaten material across multiple threads.....
Your side lied to you, you see it, you know it, yet you are too cowardly to do anything but continue the lie in the desperate hope you will wake up from the nightmare.... Well welcome to reality fuckhead... your so-called saints are sinners too, and your slef-professed saviors of the planet are nothing more than lying businessmen and politicians out to get a tax on life.....
Grow up delusional boy, you been had.....
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #248
Sure it does, slack-jawed, you barely know the meaning of most words so you make up your own wacko definitions all the time. What I said was quite clear. You were just too stupid to understand it. See: "Well, slack-jawed, I was hoping we could hear the definition you made up for the word. Those are usually hilariously absurd. Oh well. Here's what it actually means. From two sources, since you're such a troll."LOL oh ok so the sun was in your eyes? You dog ate it? LOL excuses,excuses socko... Its all we ever see from you....
LOL all your big talk and long winded excuses and in all of it you didn't even address the question I asked you....
Moron, if you meant I make up definitions for words, it makes no sense...
No, you are retarded, slack-jawed, as I've explained to you many times. You made a mistake and now you're trying to stay in denial, like always, but you're just spewing more blithering idiocy.
It is a way of organizing data to make it more useful and understandable but all that is way beyond your comprehension anyway. You mistakenly thought 'anomaly' meant something other than the meaning that meteorologists use. You fail again, fruitloops.
So.... you deliberately wanted to sound idiotic and avoid the question? LOL ok.... You are failing horribly man.... LOl bring back oldsocks he did better than you are doing.... how many excuses you going to have? Seriously you post crap you didnt read but according to you we can't understand it... THe piece says maybe and possibly but you tell us it means its going to happen and a fact... And now you tell us what you say is not what you mean unless it supports what you say now...???? WTF?????
LOL they call that floundering douchebag... And you and oldsocks been floundering for weeks now......
So no real idea why they use anomalies then... THought not.... look dude just admit you don't know dont be an idiot and ramble some half-assed general idea....LOL
Okay tool, they use charts of anomalies to show an implication that they do not have to back up 100% or even very clearly... Got that? Yeah its like this.... They take a 140 or so year average for a region and then they show the deviations from that average, and from that they show warming fluctuations in areas as anomalies. Anomalies as in variations from the established norm...
Well first 140 years is no way to make an assumption of what is a normal average temp in regards to climate of a planet...How can we know its a norm? its a norm for 140 or so years but thats not an accurate depiction of climate even according to your scientists...
Second, they didnt have all those tracking stations for 140 years, so how did they get the average for all the regions? They extrapolated it using complex equations and nearby data. Sounds fine but how many temp stations did they have 140 years ago? Did they have any in Africa? How about China? South America? I seriously doubt it... So the extrapolation has holes in it as well...... Big holes......
Third, an anomaly can be easily manufactured. And leave very little evidence. The entire system requires complex mathematics to function and with a computer modeling program already set to negate all other influences of climate variance and attribute it to greenhouse effect alone; its easy to see how this happens.... its botched and contrived from start to finish....
I think you and olsocks are realizing this and its showing here.... you are going through the motions now. We all see it... he barely posts anyhting beyond speculation and insults anymore, and you have resorted to repeating the same already beaten material across multiple threads.....
Your side lied to you, you see it, you know it, yet you are too cowardly to do anything but continue the lie in the desperate hope you will wake up from the nightmare.... Well welcome to reality fuckhead... your so-called saints are sinners too, and your slef-professed saviors of the planet are nothing more than lying businessmen and politicians out to get a tax on life.....
Grow up delusional boy, you been had.....
I agree strongly with you on the temperature stations. Even today a large part of the world temperature data is very close to garbage->Your going to trust some parts of Africa, while they can't even feed them selfs or plant a goddamn farm? And you think that they will pay much attention to temperature data over a area larger then North America and central America plus a large part of south America??? One station showing above normal will than show a very large area of that shit hole to be above avg; even if it is mostly below normal. Lets now look at Northern Canada or Northeastern Russia and than you have better temperature data, but and there is also a but! There are also few and far between like the African set-up. Which is not good.
The only data worth the damn is in southern Canada, USA, Europe, China, South Korea, Japan, and Aussie land. In then you have to factor in the fact that with increase in population comes more cement and buildings being built around these stations. Which WILL increase temperatures at those places. It is impossible to get a accurate surface data for 90 percent of the earth between human idiocy and there being few and far between stations taken data. Africa is HUGE. 3-4 times the size of the whole EU combine. Bigger then Russia in land. Then you have 2/3rds of our planet being water; SURE, we have some buoy and ship data, but it can't be global with out accurate data of the ocean. I wouldn't even trust data within the United states to the tenth of a degree for more than the last 20 years, how on gods green earth do we trust this over a 100 years over the whole globe? In guest what in March and April the warming that accounts for there records came from Africa, Northern Canada, Northeastern Russia...Funny that all the shitty area's where warm, but all the more relayable where colder then avg.
You global warmers slammed the satellite temperature, which only went back to 1970, but it is far better then surface temperature stations when you think about it, because for one it covers the oceans, Africa, and any other missing place, but I still wouldn't trust it for more then +-.2 to .4f. Your living in a pipe dream if you trust more than 50 years on a global scale for temperatures accuracy you are asking for over the earth. My suggestion is to switch over to satellite data as that is advancing a a pace that the accuracy is becoming respectable enough to try it, but those records are not enough.
To be truthful we don't even know all the factors that control the weather system of our planet. Over the last decade meteorology has advanced so much with our knowledge of the workings of it, but it would appear to me based on those global warming models not nearly enough yet. Who knows if it is a cycle or not. I've also read that the models don't take into account the effects of clouds within the model. No wonder you can't even start to understand or forecast the climate. Keep up the advancing of the models and understanding it and maybe some day you might have a chance. Maybe in a thousand years.
Last edited:
Si modo
Diamond Member
I disagree, but not totally.
In this subject, a scientific one, there should be no reason to use anything other than critical thought.
However, the dilettantes who think that they can play at science because Al Gore set the precedence for it, soil the science and the debate. It's like arguing faith in a deity. There is no point using logic to argue which faith is correct as faith requires no proof.
Same thing with the enemies of science. The best one can do is argue the basics of critical thought because most can't even demonstrate a foundation in that. Once (if ever) that foundation is established, then and only then can the debate on this subject even start.
I've had excellent debates on this before. One was even with an ex-member of the American Communist Party and now a member of the Socialist party. Not here, though. Rocks, Chris, Konrad, Ed, etc. don't grasp that foundation.
Last edited:
However, the dilettantes who think that they can play at science because Al Gore set the precedence for it, soil the science and the debate. It's like arguing faith in a deity. There is no point using logic to argue which faith is correct as faith requires no proof.
------------------------
The fact that you mention Gore, makes YOU the dilletant. It's the deniers that are making their arguments on pure faith, because the logic just isn't there. I guess its easier to portray the enemy as incompetent, than to actually acquire some competence yourself.
------------------------
The fact that you mention Gore, makes YOU the dilletant. It's the deniers that are making their arguments on pure faith, because the logic just isn't there. I guess its easier to portray the enemy as incompetent, than to actually acquire some competence yourself.
Si modo
Diamond Member
Soooo, mentioning a non-scientist's soiling of science makes one a dilettante in science.
Damn. Just damn.
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
The science is clear and based on massive amounts of evidence. You have a political agenda for denying the scientific conclusions of the world science community. It is the fossil fuel industry propagandists and their 'useful idiot' foot soldiers in the astro-turfed cult of denial that are "soiling" the science with pseudo-science and slander.
You, Simple-minded-odo, are just another of the brainwashed dupes of that propaganda campaign. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about and you seem to know nothing about real science. You're just parroting the denier cult talking points that you picked up from Rush or FauxNews or some oil corp sponsored blog. You'll probably never manage to jerk your head out of your ass and learn some facts about the scientific basis for AGW but in case I'm wrong there and you are actually capable of learning something, try reading this:
The Discovery of Global Warming
Si modo
Diamond Member
If respecting scientific integrity and the logic of scientific discovery makes me brainwashed, I wear that moniker with pride.
Count this person as among the brainwashed, as this sums up my position perfectly:
An Insult to All Science ? Are We Beyond Reproach? by Nancy Neale | Climate Realists
CrusaderFrank
Diamond Member
- May 20, 2009
- 153,082
- 78,300
- 2,645
The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
"The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
In the 19th century, scientists realized that gases in the atmosphere cause a "greenhouse effect" which affects the planet's temperature. These scientists were interested chiefly in the possibility that a lower level of carbon dioxide gas might explain the ice ages of the distant past. At the turn of the century, Svante Arrhenius calculated that emissions from human industry might someday bring a global warming. Other scientists dismissed his idea as faulty. In 1938, G.S. Callendar argued that the level of carbon dioxide was climbing and raising global temperature, but most scientists found his arguments implausible. It was almost by chance that a few researchers in the 1950s discovered that global warming truly was possible. In the early 1960s, C.D. Keeling measured the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: it was rising fast. Researchers began to take an interest, struggling to understand how the level of carbon dioxide had changed in the past, and how the level was influenced by chemical and biological forces. They found that the gas plays a crucial role in climate change, so that the rising level could gravely affect our future."
This is hilarious, especially in light of the "Consensus in lieu of Science" arguments put forth by the Warmers.
gslack
Senior Member
- Mar 26, 2010
- 4,527
- 356
- 48
ScienceRocks
Democrat all the way!
- Banned
- #260
It takes a long time to use up the reserves of warmth that got collected within our oceans. I would expect within 5-10 years that we will start having a negative effect on temperatures if the current low output keeps up. Like I said on another post-It was not just the 50-75 year period of the deepest grand minimum, but there was 3 grand minimums within 500-700 years helped to get us that cold. So it takes time.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
'Do I Look Like I Care?': AOC Shreds Trump's Border Czar In Blunt Free Speech Reminder- Started by C_Clayton_Jones
- Replies: 18
-
The Virginia Department of Corrections arrested one of it's own for smuggling drugs into a state prison,- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 4
-
-
-
‘A trucker who couldn’t speak English killed my husband – Trump is right to ban them- Started by tyroneweaver
- Replies: 2
Latest Discussions
-
All The News Anti-Palestinian Posters Will Not Read Or Discuss- Latest: P F Tinmore
-
-
