@Race- Most of the youth don't give a shit about this stuff. They are more concerned about getting the maximum amount of alcohol and drugs for the $20 in their bank account, making sure their parties aren't sausage fests, and using their fake ID's to get into bars.
@Race- Most of the youth don't give a shit about this stuff. They are more concerned about getting the maximum amount of alcohol and drugs for the $20 in their bank account, making sure their parties aren't sausage fests, and using their fake ID's to get into bars.
Then most of the youth are a lot smarter than collegedoog
It's not abundance. Hookers an blow, steak and lobster, football and beer. Those are examples of abundance. Climate control advocacy and partying is not abundance.
Holy shit collegedoog...this is a circle of comedy. You claim some wacked out shit (China being the model of climate change, regurgitating global warming talking points, etc.)...people point out both on the macro and micro level how full of shit you are, you tell yourself you won, people laugh even louder at you, you ignore everything previously pointed out about your stupidity and start again.
I know it won't sink in, but here is at least a response to the ignorance you spouted back at me (again noting you ignored everything I wrote previously).
1) James Hansen is a fraud at the level you could only hope to slander Lindzen. If Lindzen went and published conclusions on this theories without detailing how he came to those (calcs, statistics, etc...) idiots like you would be screaming. He doesn't, but Hansen does ("adjusted" temp profiles, unpublished statistical "readjusting" of data to get the answer he wants, etc.). You don't like Lindzen's science so you personally attach him...Hanson ignores science to preach a religion and you sing his praises. You claim Lindzen is bought by oil money, but reality shows that Hansen "forget" to report $1.6 million in outside income. Fucking morons (both you and him).
2) Even the IPCC railroad engineer in charge of climate whatever admitted temps haven't risen in 17 years...the NASA guys say there has been a "pause"...keep ignoring them...they are even on your side. Statistically the slope is zero...nada...you can pick whatever year and it doesn't change that fact.
3) You are now using an empirical fit of the temps (ignoring any correlation to CO2 levels...guess they aren't important to you anymore...) and you are still clueless. CO2 levels went up the ~40 ppm in the last 17 years...the same amount they went up in the previous 32 years. The previous 32 years the temps went up 0.6 C...the last 17 they statistically went up 0. Simple fact you keep ignoring. Any simple empirical relationship using CO2 as a main culprit falls apart...get more complex with climate models and those guys said it couldn't happen for more than 10 years with that level of CO2 increase before it actually did. It's why temps now are below what they predicted would happen if we made cuts in CO2 emissions and below the 95% threshold of predictions if we didn't. It means they are wrong in their modeling/representation of CO2 on prediction...in your case just the new made up claim that your el nino dog ate your global warming for the last 17 years...
4) Now your claiming a temperature "anomalies" graph (instead of actual temperature) proves your point? You REALLY suck at this.
5) Now you are averaging data over a random 10 year period to prove your point because the actual data doesn't? Who is being selective here? Again, you REALLY suck at this.
6) So now you are ignoring land temperatures because you've been proven an idiot on those and claiming the ocean is absorbing all the global warming? Do you know the mess of data that is the ocean data? There is lots of good, detailed data but it started when they deployed the ARGO floats...and that started sometime around 2000 and finished something like 2007. Before that its a incomplete, spotty mess...i.e. perfect to fool the limp-brained into telling them what they want to hear. On top of that it still didn't give the answer the author wanted, so he did all sorts of "adjustments" (one example of many being that he didn't have deep temps before the ARGO data so he assumed the shallow temps applied)...but keep pimping this if it is all you got. There is a lot of on-line discussion of the source of that plot...you should read it. Actually...you shouldn't...it would just go over your head.
7) Wow...EPIC fail from you on the climate models: A) Note temps on your graph stop at 2005...its 2014 now and the temps are at the same magnitude if not lower...where does that put them against the models again? Do you even have a clue what "Scenario A", "Scenario B", and "Scenario C" are? Holy fuck...scenario A was his prediction if greenhouse gases grew fast, scenario B was his prediction is greenhouse gases grew moderately, and scenario C was his prediction if greenhouse gases grew moderately until 2000 and after that stopped growing. Whoops on your part... C) Thanks for proving my point.
You can keep this up...I mean...its good in that there is a chance it might actually sink in with somebody else reading that they might learn something and realize there is a lot of religion and very little science to the current global warming crowd (why the fuck did I type this much)...but for you though reality says it won't happen. Keep being the Lemming you are on all this...it would be pretty funny if it wasn't so sad...
Yeah this argument is clearly becoming useless because you got pretty much everything wrong.
Richard Lindzen isn't an oil shill he's just a bad scientist as proven by his recent work.
The moderate increase in Scenario B is what most closely models Hansen's projection. Plenty of literature on this.
Can't believe you keep repeating the temps have gone up 0 line. That's been debunked by me and others so many times.
The graph shows temps in the 2000s much hotter than average temps in the 90s and yes it correlates to CO2 ppm. There's a natural variability though you idiot so you can't start an average temp graph WHEN IT WAS ABNORMALLY HIGH above the trendline. For fucks sake are all people from Texas this stupid?
And no I'm not averaging data from a random 10 year period, I'm comparing it to decades before that. I didn't ignore land temperatures. Land temps prove me correct anyway. The ocean temps are supplemental, and further support that warming hasn't stopped.
Sadly, your knowledge of the science behind global warming and debate skils are weak, biased, and flat out wrong.
Holy shit collegedoog...this is a circle of comedy. You claim some wacked out shit (China being the model of climate change, regurgitating global warming talking points, etc.)...people point out both on the macro and micro level how full of shit you are, you tell yourself you won, people laugh even louder at you, you ignore everything previously pointed out about your stupidity and start again.
I know it won't sink in, but here is at least a response to the ignorance you spouted back at me (again noting you ignored everything I wrote previously).
1) James Hansen is a fraud at the level you could only hope to slander Lindzen. If Lindzen went and published conclusions on this theories without detailing how he came to those (calcs, statistics, etc...) idiots like you would be screaming. He doesn't, but Hansen does ("adjusted" temp profiles, unpublished statistical "readjusting" of data to get the answer he wants, etc.). You don't like Lindzen's science so you personally attach him...Hanson ignores science to preach a religion and you sing his praises. You claim Lindzen is bought by oil money, but reality shows that Hansen "forget" to report $1.6 million in outside income. Fucking morons (both you and him).
2) Even the IPCC railroad engineer in charge of climate whatever admitted temps haven't risen in 17 years...the NASA guys say there has been a "pause"...keep ignoring them...they are even on your side. Statistically the slope is zero...nada...you can pick whatever year and it doesn't change that fact.
3) You are now using an empirical fit of the temps (ignoring any correlation to CO2 levels...guess they aren't important to you anymore...) and you are still clueless. CO2 levels went up the ~40 ppm in the last 17 years...the same amount they went up in the previous 32 years. The previous 32 years the temps went up 0.6 C...the last 17 they statistically went up 0. Simple fact you keep ignoring. Any simple empirical relationship using CO2 as a main culprit falls apart...get more complex with climate models and those guys said it couldn't happen for more than 10 years with that level of CO2 increase before it actually did. It's why temps now are below what they predicted would happen if we made cuts in CO2 emissions and below the 95% threshold of predictions if we didn't. It means they are wrong in their modeling/representation of CO2 on prediction...in your case just the new made up claim that your el nino dog ate your global warming for the last 17 years...
4) Now your claiming a temperature "anomalies" graph (instead of actual temperature) proves your point? You REALLY suck at this.
5) Now you are averaging data over a random 10 year period to prove your point because the actual data doesn't? Who is being selective here? Again, you REALLY suck at this.
6) So now you are ignoring land temperatures because you've been proven an idiot on those and claiming the ocean is absorbing all the global warming? Do you know the mess of data that is the ocean data? There is lots of good, detailed data but it started when they deployed the ARGO floats...and that started sometime around 2000 and finished something like 2007. Before that its a incomplete, spotty mess...i.e. perfect to fool the limp-brained into telling them what they want to hear. On top of that it still didn't give the answer the author wanted, so he did all sorts of "adjustments" (one example of many being that he didn't have deep temps before the ARGO data so he assumed the shallow temps applied)...but keep pimping this if it is all you got. There is a lot of on-line discussion of the source of that plot...you should read it. Actually...you shouldn't...it would just go over your head.
7) Wow...EPIC fail from you on the climate models: A) Note temps on your graph stop at 2005...its 2014 now and the temps are at the same magnitude if not lower...where does that put them against the models again? Do you even have a clue what "Scenario A", "Scenario B", and "Scenario C" are? Holy fuck...scenario A was his prediction if greenhouse gases grew fast, scenario B was his prediction is greenhouse gases grew moderately, and scenario C was his prediction if greenhouse gases grew moderately until 2000 and after that stopped growing. Whoops on your part... C) Thanks for proving my point.
You can keep this up...I mean...its good in that there is a chance it might actually sink in with somebody else reading that they might learn something and realize there is a lot of religion and very little science to the current global warming crowd (why the fuck did I type this much)...but for you though reality says it won't happen. Keep being the Lemming you are on all this...it would be pretty funny if it wasn't so sad...
God Vermont schools must be shitty.
And btw temps are not "at the same magnitude or lower" since 2005. You continue to peddle false information. It's getting ridiculous.
Collegedoog...keep it up. Its funny. Or something...where to start...
Considering the ignorance of you and others that have attacked him (Hansen for one) I'll laugh at you calling his science bad. Like I said before, at least he puts out his theory/calcs in detail so it can be analyzed, which is better that most all the frauds on the Global Warming side.
Yeah, you like to say Scenerio B fits best...brilliant....here is one plot among the many showing how stupid this statement is.
No, temps have been flat. Its hasn't been debunked by you...even the IPCC guy admits it (linked previously). Why again are you using "adjusted" temp data now? If you had half a clue you'd realize this latest plot doesn't even match the previous 3 or 4 you posted with global temps for the last 15 years...you REALLY are bad at this.
Here is yet another plot showing what an idiot you keep proving yourself to be...straight from NASA. Anyone with a Stat 101 understanding would realize the slope for the last 17 years is statistically 0...pick your starting point for whatever nominal slope you want to make yourself feel better with. During this same time period CO2 levels have gone up 40 ppm...Crickets...
I'm glad you have the 1st grade understanding that if temps were increasing until 1997 and then stayed flat the average for the 1990s would be less than the average for the 2000s. Your mommy give you a lollipop for coming up with this?
Thank you for again ignoring any link in CO2 levels for the last 17 years to temp...4 times now in this thread? The el nino dog that ate the global warming for 17 years and counting...
Keep dooging it...and keep digging yourself in your own global warming hole...
Collegedoog...keep it up. Its funny. Or something...where to start...
Considering the ignorance of you and others that have attacked him (Hansen for one) I'll laugh at you calling his science bad. Like I said before, at least he puts out his theory/calcs in detail so it can be analyze, which is better that most all the frauds on the Global Warming side.
Yeah, you like to say Scenerio B fits best...brilliant....here is one plot among the many showing how stupid this statement is.
No, temps have been flat. Its hasn't been debunked by you...even the IPCC guy admits it (linked previously). Why again are you using "adjusted" temp data now? If you had half a clue you'd realize this latest plot doesn't even match the previous 3 or 4 you posted with global temps for the last 15 years...you REALLY are bad at this.
Here is yet another plot showing what an idiot you keep proving yourself to be...straight from NASA. Anyone with a Stat 101 understanding would realize the slope for the last 17 years is statistically 0...pick your starting point for whatever nominal slope you want to make yourself feel better with. During this same time period CO2 levels have gone up 40 ppm...Crickets...
I'm glad you have the 1st grade understanding that if temps were increasing until 1997 and then stayed flat the average for the 1990s would be less than the average for the 2000s. Your mommy give you a lollipop for coming up with this?
Thank you for again ignoring any link in CO2 levels for the last 17 years to temp...4 times now in this thread? The el nino dog that ate the global warming for 17 years and counting...
Keep dooging it...and keep digging yourself in your own global warming hole...
Are you kidding me. You're a lost cause.
In red is Hansen's Scenario B.
Another:
Keep posting bullshit though like the temps have a statistical slope of 0 which is not even close to true.
I don't think you understand averages or trendlines, at all.
Lindzen is like the Koch brothers to the Tourettes left.....you just scream the name to "kick ass" in your argument. Lindzen is a scientist who was good enough to be on the council until he went against the faith. Collegedoog has done....well.....nothing.
I doubt you will ever be taken seriously. Your side got caught lying and fudging data. And yet you claim anyone who doesn't believe has bad data. Heal yourself
I doubt you will ever be taken seriously. Your side got caught lying and fudging data. And yet you claim anyone who doesn't believe has bad data. Heal yourself
Middlebury, my company is doing a fair of amount of export biz with the Chineeze (btw, total pain in the ass. they are a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act nightmare. I feel like we need legal counsel to follow the guys around over there. At every fucking turn there's an issue, and the business guys wind up spending as much time on the phone with me (for pretend) as they do with their business counterparts.
anyway, feedback I get from them is that it's a very dirty place. air quality is an oxymoron there.
Middlebury, my company is doing a fair of amount of export biz with the Chineeze (btw, total pain in the ass. they are a Foreign Corrupt Practices Act nightmare. I feel like we need legal counsel to follow the guys around over there. At every fucking turn there's an issue, and the business guys wind up spending as much time on the phone with me (for pretend) as they do with their business counterparts.
anyway, feedback I get from them is that it's a very dirty place. air quality is an oxymoron there.
I would never trust the Chineeze.
I don't trust them but they shouldn't be a deterrent or an excuse for inaction.
Comments
I know it won't sink in, but here is at least a response to the ignorance you spouted back at me (again noting you ignored everything I wrote previously).
1) James Hansen is a fraud at the level you could only hope to slander Lindzen. If Lindzen went and published conclusions on this theories without detailing how he came to those (calcs, statistics, etc...) idiots like you would be screaming. He doesn't, but Hansen does ("adjusted" temp profiles, unpublished statistical "readjusting" of data to get the answer he wants, etc.). You don't like Lindzen's science so you personally attach him...Hanson ignores science to preach a religion and you sing his praises. You claim Lindzen is bought by oil money, but reality shows that Hansen "forget" to report $1.6 million in outside income. Fucking morons (both you and him).
2) Even the IPCC railroad engineer in charge of climate whatever admitted temps haven't risen in 17 years...the NASA guys say there has been a "pause"...keep ignoring them...they are even on your side. Statistically the slope is zero...nada...you can pick whatever year and it doesn't change that fact.
3) You are now using an empirical fit of the temps (ignoring any correlation to CO2 levels...guess they aren't important to you anymore...) and you are still clueless. CO2 levels went up the ~40 ppm in the last 17 years...the same amount they went up in the previous 32 years. The previous 32 years the temps went up 0.6 C...the last 17 they statistically went up 0. Simple fact you keep ignoring. Any simple empirical relationship using CO2 as a main culprit falls apart...get more complex with climate models and those guys said it couldn't happen for more than 10 years with that level of CO2 increase before it actually did. It's why temps now are below what they predicted would happen if we made cuts in CO2 emissions and below the 95% threshold of predictions if we didn't. It means they are wrong in their modeling/representation of CO2 on prediction...in your case just the new made up claim that your el nino dog ate your global warming for the last 17 years...
4) Now your claiming a temperature "anomalies" graph (instead of actual temperature) proves your point? You REALLY suck at this.
5) Now you are averaging data over a random 10 year period to prove your point because the actual data doesn't? Who is being selective here? Again, you REALLY suck at this.
6) So now you are ignoring land temperatures because you've been proven an idiot on those and claiming the ocean is absorbing all the global warming? Do you know the mess of data that is the ocean data? There is lots of good, detailed data but it started when they deployed the ARGO floats...and that started sometime around 2000 and finished something like 2007. Before that its a incomplete, spotty mess...i.e. perfect to fool the limp-brained into telling them what they want to hear. On top of that it still didn't give the answer the author wanted, so he did all sorts of "adjustments" (one example of many being that he didn't have deep temps before the ARGO data so he assumed the shallow temps applied)...but keep pimping this if it is all you got. There is a lot of on-line discussion of the source of that plot...you should read it. Actually...you shouldn't...it would just go over your head.
7) Wow...EPIC fail from you on the climate models:
A) Note temps on your graph stop at 2005...its 2014 now and the temps are at the same magnitude if not lower...where does that put them against the models again?
C) Thanks for proving my point.
You can keep this up...I mean...its good in that there is a chance it might actually sink in with somebody else reading that they might learn something and realize there is a lot of religion and very little science to the current global warming crowd (why the fuck did I type this much)...but for you though reality says it won't happen. Keep being the Lemming you are on all this...it would be pretty funny if it wasn't so sad...
God Vermont schools must be shitty.
Richard Lindzen isn't an oil shill he's just a bad scientist as proven by his recent work.
The moderate increase in Scenario B is what most closely models Hansen's projection. Plenty of literature on this.
Can't believe you keep repeating the temps have gone up 0 line. That's been debunked by me and others so many times.
The graph shows temps in the 2000s much hotter than average temps in the 90s and yes it correlates to CO2 ppm. There's a natural variability though you idiot so you can't start an average temp graph WHEN IT WAS ABNORMALLY HIGH above the trendline. For fucks sake are all people from Texas this stupid?
And no I'm not averaging data from a random 10 year period, I'm comparing it to decades before that. I didn't ignore land temperatures. Land temps prove me correct anyway. The ocean temps are supplemental, and further support that warming hasn't stopped.
Sadly, your knowledge of the science behind global warming and debate skils are weak, biased, and flat out wrong.
Sucks to suck.
Considering the ignorance of you and others that have attacked him (Hansen for one) I'll laugh at you calling his science bad. Like I said before, at least he puts out his theory/calcs in detail so it can be analyzed, which is better that most all the frauds on the Global Warming side.
Yeah, you like to say Scenerio B fits best...brilliant....here is one plot among the many showing how stupid this statement is.
No, temps have been flat. Its hasn't been debunked by you...even the IPCC guy admits it (linked previously). Why again are you using "adjusted" temp data now? If you had half a clue you'd realize this latest plot doesn't even match the previous 3 or 4 you posted with global temps for the last 15 years...you REALLY are bad at this.
Here is yet another plot showing what an idiot you keep proving yourself to be...straight from NASA. Anyone with a Stat 101 understanding would realize the slope for the last 17 years is statistically 0...pick your starting point for whatever nominal slope you want to make yourself feel better with.
During this same time period CO2 levels have gone up 40 ppm...Crickets...
I'm glad you have the 1st grade understanding that if temps were increasing until 1997 and then stayed flat the average for the 1990s would be less than the average for the 2000s. Your mommy give you a lollipop for coming up with this?
Thank you for again ignoring any link in CO2 levels for the last 17 years to temp...4 times now in this thread? The el nino dog that ate the global warming for 17 years and counting...
Keep dooging it...and keep digging yourself in your own global warming hole...
In red is Hansen's Scenario B.
Another:
Keep posting bullshit though like the temps have a statistical slope of 0 which is not even close to true.
I don't think you understand averages or trendlines, at all.
That's all you need to know folks.
anyway, feedback I get from them is that it's a very dirty place. air quality is an oxymoron there.
I would never trust the Chineeze.