Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #548906 > unrolled thread

More bad news for Greenland's ice cap.

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-01-28 18:17 -0500
    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-01-28 19:10 -0500
      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-29 00:17 +0000
        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-01-28 21:14 -0800
          Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. R Kym Horsell <kym@kymhorsell.com> - 2016-01-29 05:37 +0000
            Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-01-28 22:24 -0800
    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-01-29 06:23 +0100
      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-29 02:56 -0700
      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-01-29 14:45 -0500
        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-01-30 06:07 +0100
          Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-01-30 01:25 -0500
            Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-01-30 16:43 +0100
              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-01-30 17:16 -0500
                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-01-30 17:57 -0500
                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-01-30 19:03 -0800
                  Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. vallor <vallor@cultnix.org> - 2016-02-01 17:10 +0000
                    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-01 18:41 +0100
                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-01 11:07 -0700
                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-01 13:25 -0500
                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-01 11:31 -0700
                          Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-01 13:43 -0500
                            Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-01 11:51 -0700
                              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-01 14:08 -0500
                          Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-02 08:19 +0100
                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-01 15:50 -0500
                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-01 15:59 -0500
                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-02 07:38 +0100
                          Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-02 02:08 -0500
                            Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-02 16:30 +0100
                              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-02 08:53 -0700
                              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-02 17:21 +0000
                                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. pandora <pandora@peak.org> - 2016-02-02 11:33 -0600
                                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-02 22:21 -0800
                              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:55 -0500
                                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-02 16:44 -0800
                                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-03 04:52 +0100
                                  Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-03 00:14 -0500
                                    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-03 07:07 +0100
                                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-03 00:45 -0700
                                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-03 04:26 -0500
                          Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-02 05:03 -0700
                            Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Janithor <Janithor@comcast.net> - 2016-02-02 04:11 -0800
                            Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-03 23:17 -0800
                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-01-31 05:26 +0100
                  Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-30 22:15 -0700
                  Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-01-31 00:37 -0500
                    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-01-30 22:42 -0800
                    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-01 17:00 +0100
                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-01 15:54 -0500
                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-01 16:03 -0500
                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-01 14:09 -0700
                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-02 07:28 +0100
                          Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-02 02:09 -0500
                            Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-02 17:32 +0100
                              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-02 12:56 -0700
                                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-03 23:14 -0800
                              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-02 16:59 -0500
                                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-02 16:45 -0800
                                Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-03 05:10 +0100
                                  Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-02 23:24 -0500
                                  Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> - 2016-02-03 00:17 -0500
                                    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-02 21:49 -0800
                                    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-03 06:51 +0100
                                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-03 00:44 -0700
                                  Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-03 07:19 +0000
                                  Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-03 00:41 -0700
                                    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-03 00:47 -0800
                                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. snipeco.2@gmail.com (Sn!pe, DoW #2) - 2016-02-03 08:57 +0000
                                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-03 04:26 -0500
                                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-03 02:38 -0700
                                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> - 2016-02-03 18:33 +0100
                                        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Skeeter <skeet@invalid.invalid> - 2016-02-03 11:18 -0700
                                    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey), socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117" <root@127.0.0.1> - 2016-02-03 04:26 -0500
                                      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-02-03 23:12 -0800
    Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. Antonio Santana <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2016-01-29 10:52 -0500
      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. MartinS <me@my.place.invalid> - 2016-01-29 11:49 -0500
      Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-01-29 17:41 -0800
        Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-01-29 20:56 -0500
          Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-01-29 19:56 -0800
            Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Sir Gregory Hall, Esq." <greghall@yacht_master.fake> - 2016-01-30 17:58 -0500
              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. "Checkmate, DoW #1" <Lunatic.Fringe@The.Edge> - 2016-01-30 18:53 -0800
              Re: More bad news for Greenland's ice cap. HVAC <mr.hvac@gmail.com> - 2016-02-01 08:43 -0800

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

#548906 — More bad news for Greenland's ice cap.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/12/scientists-just-found-an-unexpected-factor-that-could-be-driving-greenlands-ice-loss/

(Cue screeding from climate change denier ko0ks in 3...2...1...)

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#548923

On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:17:43 -0500, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> wrote:

>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/12/scientists-just-found-an-unexpected-factor-that-could-be-driving-greenlands-ice-loss/
>
>(Cue screeding from climate change denier ko0ks in 3...2...1...)

Try harder you obnoxious, dumb Kunt! 

Here's a quote from your link that makes you look 
like the brainwashed liberal bitch you are:

"Currently, “even the best models out there disagree 
on cloudiness over Greenland and its effect on the 
ice sheet,” said the new study’s lead author, Kristof 
Van Tricht of the University of Leuven in Belgium, in 
an email to The Post."

So you post disagreement as proof of global warming and the
Greenland ice melting. 

Just go away, Dumbass!



 
-- 
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

"It is my erudite opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the ignorant or
the thin-skinned."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548927

In sci.physics Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. <greghall@yacht_master.fake> wrote:
> On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:17:43 -0500, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> wrote:
>>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/12/scientists-just-found-an-unexpected-factor-that-could-be-driving-greenlands-ice-loss/
>>(Cue screeding from climate change denier ko0ks in 3...2...1...)
> Try harder you obnoxious, dumb Kunt! 
> Here's a quote from your link that makes you look 
> like the brainwashed liberal bitch you are:
> "Currently, ?even the best models out there disagree 
> on cloudiness over Greenland and its effect on the 
> ice sheet,? said the new study?s lead author, Kristof 
> Van Tricht of the University of Leuven in Belgium, in 
> an email to The Post."
> So you post disagreement as proof of global warming and the
> Greenland ice melting. 
> Just go away, Dumbass!


This isn't junior debate club. Science involves the consideration
of all the evidence.

Here's the GRACE satellite mass balance record for Greenland:

<http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig3.4-tedesco.png>


So whether or not some factor is understood is not material as to whether or not
the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass over time.

--
Shell/BG vote is a bet on oil prices bouncing back
Reuters Blogs, Jan 27, 2016 
BG's current headquarters in the sleepy British town of Reading are likely 
to become a stranded asset. The vote may look like a vote of confidence that 
he can cut costs to the bone, and that oil prices will rise.

Breaking: California's NEM 2.0 Decision Keeps Retail Rate for Rooftop Solar, 
Adds Time-of-Use
Greentech Media, 28 Jan 2016 20:46Z 
California's next four years of net metering policy have fallen into place, 
and for the solar industry, it's a major victory -- with a big dose of 
uncertainty, and a considerable amount of last-minute conflict.

More rain expected in Tasmanian flash-flooding zones but deluge fails to put 
out bushfires
ABC News, 29 Jan 2016

Ancient Babylonian astronomers used calculus to find Jupiter 1,400 years 
before Europeans
ABC News, 29 Jan 2016

Forrestdale bushfire: Residents south of Perth warned to be on alert for 
uncontained blaze
ABC News, 29 Jan 2016

El Ni?o Update: Could it be gaining a second wind?
The Weather Network, 28 Jan 2016 19:00 gmt
Eyes are still on El Nino this month, as it gives more indications of having 
reached peak levels, however are new signs pointing towards a fresh surge in 
strength? 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548991

In article <n8eb3l$6uj$1@odin.sdf-eu.org>, kym@kymhorsell.com says...


> 
> In sci.physics Sir Gregory Hall, Esq. <greghall@yacht_master.fake> wrote:
> > On Thu, 28 Jan 2016 18:17:43 -0500, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> wrote:
> >>https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/12/scientists-just-found-an-unexpected-factor-that-could-be-driving-greenlands-ice-loss/
> >>(Cue screeding from climate change denier ko0ks in 3...2...1...)
> > Try harder you obnoxious, dumb Kunt! 
> > Here's a quote from your link that makes you look 
> > like the brainwashed liberal bitch you are:
> > "Currently, ?even the best models out there disagree 
> > on cloudiness over Greenland and its effect on the 
> > ice sheet,? said the new study?s lead author, Kristof 
> > Van Tricht of the University of Leuven in Belgium, in 
> > an email to The Post."
> > So you post disagreement as proof of global warming and the
> > Greenland ice melting. 
> > Just go away, Dumbass!
> 
> 
> This isn't junior debate club. Science involves the consideration
> of all the evidence.
> 
> Here's the GRACE satellite mass balance record for Greenland:
> 
> <http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig3.4-tedesco.png>
> 
> 
> So whether or not some factor is understood is not material as to whether or not
> the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass over time.

It's material as to the claimed cause, and how that may or may not 
relate to the effect.

-- 
Checkmate, AUK DoW #1
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote  (Post-Burnore)
Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame
Copyright © 2016 
all rights reserved 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548997

In sci.physics Checkmate, DoW #1 <Lunatic.Fringe@the.edge> wrote:
...
>> Here's the GRACE satellite mass balance record for Greenland:
>> <http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig3.4-tedesco.png>
>> So whether or not some factor is understood is not material as to whether or not
>> the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass over time.
> It's material as to the claimed cause, and how that may or may not 
> relate to the effect.


I'm unclear what "it" is supposed to be in your emission.

The immediate cause of seaice melt is surely temperature.

Basic time series for seaice index and NH temps:
<http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:60/scale:-1/from:1970/
normalise/plot/crutem4vnh/mean:60/from:1970/normalise>
(I flipped the seaice index to show it runs parallel to
the NH temp curve; no, it isn't increasing).

And we can plot
NH temp by NH seaice extent (i.e. the total area of ice +
open ocean where ice occupies more than 15% of the total) and plot
"explanation power" with lags -24m to +24m.
<http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/nh-nextent.html>

Seaice extent and NH temps are in a mutal deadly embrace -- 
the lower the sea ice extent, the warmer it is in 12m, 
the warmer is it now in the NH, the lower the sea ice extent in 12m.

The "explanation power" shows the proportion of the "output" variable
at some later time explained by the input variable.
It ranges in these plots from 30-~45%. I.e. NH temperature explains
almost 1/2 (aka the major factor, as expected) of the year-to-year variation 
in seaice and vice versa.

All statistical tests show confidence >99%.

--
Decades-long heatwaves may hit Europe as climate change bites
New Scientist, 29 Jan 2016 00:35Z 
Buckle up. Europe is in for a bumpy ride as climate change gathers pace. The 
continent could in future swing between climate extremes, including bursts 
of super-heatwaves that last for decades, according to an analysis of 
temperature data from the past ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549003

In article <n8etq6$eih$1@odin.sdf-eu.org>, kym@kymhorsell.com says...


> 
> In sci.physics Checkmate, DoW #1 <Lunatic.Fringe@the.edge> wrote:
> ...
> >> Here's the GRACE satellite mass balance record for Greenland:
> >> <http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/images-essays/fig3.4-tedesco.png>
> >> So whether or not some factor is understood is not material as to whether or not
> >> the Greenland ice sheet is losing mass over time.
> > It's material as to the claimed cause, and how that may or may not 
> > relate to the effect.
> 
> 
> I'm unclear what "it" is supposed to be in your emission.
> 
> The immediate cause of seaice melt is surely temperature.
> 
> Basic time series for seaice index and NH temps:
> <http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/nsidc-seaice-n/mean:60/scale:-1/from:1970/
> normalise/plot/crutem4vnh/mean:60/from:1970/normalise>
> (I flipped the seaice index to show it runs parallel to
> the NH temp curve; no, it isn't increasing).
> 
> And we can plot
> NH temp by NH seaice extent (i.e. the total area of ice +
> open ocean where ice occupies more than 15% of the total) and plot
> "explanation power" with lags -24m to +24m.
> <http://graphs.kymhorsell.com/nh-nextent.html>
> 
> Seaice extent and NH temps are in a mutal deadly embrace -- 
> the lower the sea ice extent, the warmer it is in 12m, 
> the warmer is it now in the NH, the lower the sea ice extent in 12m.
> 
> The "explanation power" shows the proportion of the "output" variable
> at some later time explained by the input variable.
> It ranges in these plots from 30-~45%. I.e. NH temperature explains
> almost 1/2 (aka the major factor, as expected) of the year-to-year variation 
> in seaice and vice versa.
> 
> All statistical tests show confidence >99%.

Maybe burning stuff makes the heat, and not the gasses from burning 
stuff.

-- 
Checkmate, AUK DoW #1
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote  (Post-Burnore)
Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame
Copyright © 2016 
all rights reserved 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#548995

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Ko0O0oki kensi the lunkheaded libtard, in
<news:n8e7im$jqr$2@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into the
wood chipper again:

> <https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/01/12/scientists-just-found-an-unexpected-factor-that-could-be-driving-greenlands-ice-loss/>

Bwahahahaaaa! Deluded LunkHead is saying *clouds* are caused by "zOMG!
Anthroopimorphdick Glaoebuaiel Waermying! DDUUURRRHHHH!".

Oh. Damn. I haven't laughed so hard in ages. Thanks, LunkHead. Your
delusional state, calling Hillary Clinton more conservative than
Ronald Reagan, calling Obama a right-winger, and now k'laming that AGW
causes _clouds_ which causes AGW which causes clouds which causes AGW
until we're in a Turkish steam bath... wow... if you don't have an
anti-psychotic prescription, run right out and get yourself one,
because you desperately *need* it.

Does Moronic LunkHead not understand that clouds block shortwave
radiation, thereby increasing albedo and *lowering* temperature? That
clouds are mostly transparent to the reflected longwave radiation?
That only relatively thin high-level cirrus and altostratus clouds
would result in net warming, whereas over the glaciers, the clouds
tend to be low-level and thus contribute to net cooling?

> (Cue screeding from climate change denier ko0ks in 3...2...1...)

"The clouds! The CLOUDS!! THEY'RE COMIN' RIGHT FOR US! RUUUUNNN!"

Ah, you Chicken Little'ing Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are always good
for a laugh.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi snipped out any evidence that proved her wrong then demanded
that evidence again and again, only to snip it out again; she denied
having written what she clearly wrote (after she snipped it out, of
course); she k'lamed that I'd written things I clearly didn't (and she
failed to back up her k'lames with proof); she stated that zoanthropy
and transexualism aren't mental illnesses (they are listed in the
DSM); that the psychiatric community is incorrect for listing them as
such by taking an example from nearly 100 years ago (hysteria), long
before modern psychiatry got a grasp on what exactly constitutes a
mental illness; she stated that the CDC is promulgating "FUD" that's
"been debunked in thousands of places" (yet provided no proof of this
k'lamed "debunking"); she's been cornered into admitting her belief
that gays have suffered "no harm" in living a lifestyle that's given
19% of them AIDS, causes the gay community to account for 63% of new
AIDS cases per year (per the CDC) and kills thousands of them per
year; she stated that liberalism is growing when it's actually in
decline (and stated that conservatism is dying when it's actually
growing and has a nearly 2:1 advantage over liberalism), and she had
the audacity to try to use the same exact study from Gallup that I'd
used to prove her wrong in the first place (proving she's kooking out
so badly she's lost her reading comprehension abilities); she stated
the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking faster than ever when it's
growing (to the tune of 49 gT/yr, when considering that land ice is
slowly growing and sea ice is rapidly expanding, per Nasa's ICESat);
she stated that global temperature is rising when it's been falling
for more than a decade per the UK Met and NASA, and accounting for the
revelations that US climate researchers outright falsified the data to
give the impression that a 90 year cooling trend was actually a
warming trend; she k'lamed CO2 as the driver for global temperature
change, then quoted a web page that says the exact opposite (the same
web page, BTW, that I'd used to prove that CO2 lags temperature
change, proving yet again her loss of reading comprehension)... then
she *admitted* CO2 lags global temperature change, thereby being
forced to agree with me (and reality); she then k'lamed CO2 as the
driver for global temperature change *again*, but as yet has been
unable to explain, given that CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher
in the Ordovician and sun output was nearly the same (0.991
Ordovician, 1 today), why we're not in a perpetual ice age today; she
presented examples of mass-shooting suspects that she k'lamed were
conservative (but they turned out to be liberal, socialist or were the
result of a liberal upbringing); she tried to state that Nazism was a
conservative political party (it's a form of liberal fascism that
takes many of its tenets directly from socialism); she failed to
provide any proof of some of her kooky contentions while k'laming them
as "proof"; she used a flawed and biased dating website poll and
k'lamed that it trumped an actual scientific study (ironic, given that
she's a scientist herself); she melted down so badly she lost her
ability to do simple math; she attempted to k'lame Abraham Lincoln was
a liberal (he admitted he was a conservative); she attempted to k'lame
that every major civil rights advancement was solely due to liberals
(when it was conservatives who've advanced the overwhelming majority
of civil rights bills, to the strident opposition of the liberals),
she k'lamed she knows who I am due to her "kookology experience",
"profound psychological insight" and "cryptanalysis skills", yet she's
thus far run from five challenges to out me, for 553 days and counting
(ie: she doesn't dare provide any of her so-called "proof", for fear
that she outs the fact that she's kooking out and seeing me
everywhere), and her loss of reading comprehension skills resulted in
her apparent loss of being able to determine chronology. As the level
of spankage she was receiving escalated, the time between her posts
grew, and the length of her posts grew shorter as she snipped out more
and more evidence that she's a delusional kook... she's been beating a
strategic retreat for months now.... when she's not attention-whoring
for all the boys because her make-believe husband isn't paying enough
attention to her fat, ugly, delusional ass anymore. LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549033

On Fri, 29 Jan 2016 06:23:08 +0100 (CET), Friendly Neighborhood Vote
Wrangler Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

>Oh. Damn. I haven't laughed so hard in ages


Most retards are easily amused.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549195

On 29/01/2016 12:23 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> clouds block shortwave radiation, thereby increasing albedo and
> *lowering* temperature?

By day, perhaps. At night, they act as a blanket, raising temperature. 
Same effect, high albedo reflects sunlight, but also radiation from the 
ground that might otherwise carry heat away into space.

Have you ever noticed that it's warmer on cloudy winter nights than on 
clear winter nights? Do you realize that you just k'lamed that it isn't, 
even though it is? That's your kOok kAlling kArd, and a sign that you 
may end up in the running for February's Loony Maroon if you keep 
screeding like this.

>> (Cue screeding from climate change denier ko0ks in 3...2...1...)
>
> "The clouds! The CLOUDS!! THEY'RE COMIN' RIGHT FOR US! RUUUUNNN!"
>
> Ah, you Chicken Little'ing Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are always good
> for a laugh.
>
> <snicker>

Thank you for your cooperation, Screedy McFrothyKo0k.

*snicker*

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549310

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Ko0O0oki kensi the lunkheaded libtard, in
<news:n8gfgm$1u4b$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into
the wood chipper again:

> On 29/01/2016 12:23 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus wrote:

Your cowardly snipping noted and fixored, LunkHead.

>> Does Moronic LunkHead not understand that clouds block shortwave
>> radiation, thereby increasing albedo and *lowering* temperature? That
>> clouds are mostly transparent to the reflected longwave radiation?
>> That only relatively thin high-level cirrus and altostratus clouds
>> would result in net warming, whereas over the glaciers, the clouds
>> tend to be low-level and thus contribute to net cooling?

> By day, perhaps. At night, they act as a blanket, raising temperature.

Bwahahahaa! Oh. My. Gawd. What a fecking moron. LunkHead snips out the
part that proves her wrong, then bleats out more wrong shit! LOL!

"That clouds are mostly transparent to the reflected longwave
radiation?"

Gee... guess what wavelength that *reflected*, *radiated* heat is at
night? Ever heard of the infrared atmospheric window, LunkHead?

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_window>
===============================================
The infrared atmospheric window is the overall dynamic property of the
earth's atmosphere, taken as a whole at each place and occasion of
interest, that lets some infrared radiation from the cloud tops and
land-sea surface pass directly to space without intermediate
absorption and re-emission, and thus without heating the atmosphere.

Without the infrared atmospheric window, the Earth would become much
too warm to support life, and possibly so warm that it would lose its
water, as Venus did early in solar system history. Thus, the existence
of an atmospheric window is critical to Earth remaining a habitable
planet.
===============================================

LunkHead denies there's an infrared atmospheric window, and thus "duh
Urf is gunna turn inta a big ol' farbawl!" LOL

You couldn't get more moronic if you tried, LunkHead. LOL
 
> Same effect, high albedo reflects sunlight, but also radiation from the 
> ground that might otherwise carry heat away into space.

Wrong because you're a half-wit. LOL

> Have you ever noticed that it's warmer on cloudy winter nights than on 
> clear winter nights? Do you realize that you just k'lamed that it isn't, 
> even though it is? That's your kOok kAlling kArd, and a sign that you 
> may end up in the running for February's Loony Maroon if you keep 
> screeding like this.

What about "That only relatively thin high-level cirrus and
altostratus clouds would result in net warming, whereas over the
glaciers, the clouds tend to be low-level and thus contribute to net
cooling?" don't you understand, LunkHead?

Yet again LunkHead finds herself 180 degrees out from reality, because
she's a moronic libtard Klimate Katastrophe Kook who has her head so
far up liberalism's ass she can't even see reality, let alone
acknowledge it.

<snicker>

>>> (Cue screeding from climate change denier ko0ks in 3...2...1...)

>> "The clouds! The CLOUDS!! THEY'RE COMIN' RIGHT FOR US! RUUUUNNN!"
>>
>> Ah, you Chicken Little'ing Klimate Katastrophe Kooks are always good
>> for a laugh.
>>
>> <snicker>

> Thank you for your cooperation, Screedy McFrothyKo0k.
> 
> *snicker*

Thanks for proving yet again that you're an idiot. LOL

-- 

Kensi snipped out any evidence that proved her wrong then demanded
that evidence again and again, only to snip it out again; she denied
having written what she clearly wrote (after she snipped it out, of
course); she k'lamed that I'd written things I clearly didn't (and she
failed to back up her k'lames with proof); she stated that zoanthropy
and transexualism aren't mental illnesses (they are listed in the
DSM); that the psychiatric community is incorrect for listing them as
such by taking an example from nearly 100 years ago (hysteria), long
before modern psychiatry got a grasp on what exactly constitutes a
mental illness; she stated that the CDC is promulgating "FUD" that's
"been debunked in thousands of places" (yet provided no proof of this
k'lamed "debunking"); she's been cornered into admitting her belief
that gays have suffered "no harm" in living a lifestyle that's given
19% of them AIDS, causes the gay community to account for 63% of new
AIDS cases per year (per the CDC) and kills thousands of them per
year; she stated that liberalism is growing when it's actually in
decline (and stated that conservatism is dying when it's actually
growing and has a nearly 2:1 advantage over liberalism), and she had
the audacity to try to use the same exact study from Gallup that I'd
used to prove her wrong in the first place (proving she's kooking out
so badly she's lost her reading comprehension abilities); she stated
the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking faster than ever when it's
growing (to the tune of 49 gT/yr, when considering that land ice is
slowly growing and sea ice is rapidly expanding, per Nasa's ICESat);
she stated that global temperature is rising when it's been falling
for more than a decade per the UK Met and NASA, and accounting for the
revelations that US climate researchers outright falsified the data to
give the impression that a 90 year cooling trend was actually a
warming trend; she k'lamed CO2 as the driver for global temperature
change, then quoted a web page that says the exact opposite (the same
web page, BTW, that I'd used to prove that CO2 lags temperature
change, proving yet again her loss of reading comprehension)... then
she *admitted* CO2 lags global temperature change, thereby being
forced to agree with me (and reality); she then k'lamed CO2 as the
driver for global temperature change *again*, but as yet has been
unable to explain, given that CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher
in the Ordovician and sun output was nearly the same (0.991
Ordovician, 1 today), why we're not in a perpetual ice age today; she
presented examples of mass-shooting suspects that she k'lamed were
conservative (but they turned out to be liberal, socialist or were the
result of a liberal upbringing); she tried to state that Nazism was a
conservative political party (it's a form of liberal fascism that
takes many of its tenets directly from socialism); she failed to
provide any proof of some of her kooky contentions while k'laming them
as "proof"; she used a flawed and biased dating website poll and
k'lamed that it trumped an actual scientific study (ironic, given that
she's a scientist herself); she melted down so badly she lost her
ability to do simple math; she attempted to k'lame Abraham Lincoln was
a liberal (he admitted he was a conservative); she attempted to k'lame
that every major civil rights advancement was solely due to liberals
(when it was conservatives who've advanced the overwhelming majority
of civil rights bills, to the strident opposition of the liberals),
she k'lamed she knows who I am due to her "kookology experience",
"profound psychological insight" and "cryptanalysis skills", yet she's
thus far run from five challenges to out me, for 554 days and counting
(ie: she doesn't dare provide any of her so-called "proof", for fear
that she outs the fact that she's kooking out and seeing me
everywhere), and her loss of reading comprehension skills resulted in
her apparent loss of being able to determine chronology. As the level
of spankage she was receiving escalated, the time between her posts
grew, and the length of her posts grew shorter as she snipped out more
and more evidence that she's a delusional kook... she's been beating a
strategic retreat for months now.... when she's not attention-whoring
for all the boys because her make-believe husband isn't paying enough
attention to her fat, ugly, delusional ass anymore. LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549311

On 30/01/2016 12:07 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> The infrared atmospheric window is the overall dynamic property of the
> earth's atmosphere, taken as a whole at each place and occasion of
> interest, that lets some infrared radiation from the cloud tops and
> land-sea surface pass directly to space without intermediate
> absorption and re-emission, and thus without heating the atmosphere.

 From the cloud tops. Means the cloud tops themselves are opaque at 
those wavelengths. Means clouds trap heat. The infrared atmospheric 
window is an observation that *clear, cloudless air* does not trap heat.

>> Have you ever noticed that it's warmer on cloudy winter nights than on
>> clear winter nights? Do you realize that you just k'lamed that it isn't,
>> even though it is? That's your kOok kAlling kArd, and a sign that you
>> may end up in the running for February's Loony Maroon if you keep
>> screeding like this.
>
> What about "That only relatively thin high-level cirrus and
> altostratus clouds would result in net warming, whereas over the
> glaciers, the clouds tend to be low-level and thus contribute to net
> cooling?" don't you understand, LunkHead?

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm

"The effects of cloud cover on temperature is a familiar experience. 
Without a cloud cover in an area the temperature drops sharply at night 
whereas with clouds the temperature drop is noticeably more moderate. On 
the other hand in the daytime in the summer with no clouds the 
temperature goes much higher than it does when there is a cloud cover."

Clouds by day cool. Clouds by night warm. And:

"The effect of clouds depends upon their type and the time of day. The 
more interesting and important type is the low thick clouds. At night 
the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection of 
thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming effect."

Put more simply, you are wrong. Lunkhead.

*snicker*

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549373

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

Ko0O0oki kensi the lunkheaded libtard, in
<news:n8hl0e$1fm9$1@gioia.aioe.org> did thusly jump head first into
the wood chipper again:

> On 30/01/2016 12:07 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler
> Emeritus wrote:

>> The infrared atmospheric window is the overall dynamic property of the
>> earth's atmosphere, taken as a whole at each place and occasion of
>> interest, that lets some infrared radiation from the cloud tops and
>> land-sea surface pass directly to space without intermediate
>> absorption and re-emission, and thus without heating the atmosphere.

>  From the cloud tops. Means the cloud tops themselves are opaque at 
> those wavelengths.

Are you dense? WFT? The infrared atmospheric window lets infrared of
certain wavelengths pass through the atmosphere *and* the clouds and
out to space without intermediate absorption and re-emission, and thus
without heating the atmosphere.

And guess what the wavelength of that infrared is?

Fuck sake, you get any dumber, they're gonna have to put a tardhelmet
on you and pull your teeth so you don't chew your tongue. LOL

> Means clouds trap heat. The infrared atmospheric 
> window is an observation that *clear, cloudless air* does not trap heat.

Moron. LOL

>>> Have you ever noticed that it's warmer on cloudy winter nights than on
>>> clear winter nights? Do you realize that you just k'lamed that it isn't,
>>> even though it is? That's your kOok kAlling kArd, and a sign that you
>>> may end up in the running for February's Loony Maroon if you keep
>>> screeding like this.

>> What about "That only relatively thin high-level cirrus and
>> altostratus clouds would result in net warming, whereas over the
>> glaciers, the clouds tend to be low-level and thus contribute to net
>> cooling?" don't you understand, LunkHead?

> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm
> 
> "The effects of cloud cover on temperature is a familiar experience. 
> Without a cloud cover in an area the temperature drops sharply at night 
> whereas with clouds the temperature drop is noticeably more moderate. On 
> the other hand in the daytime in the summer with no clouds the 
> temperature goes much higher than it does when there is a cloud cover."
> 
> Clouds by day cool. Clouds by night warm. And:
> 
> "The effect of clouds depends upon their type and the time of day. The 
> more interesting and important type is the low thick clouds. At night 
> the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection of 
> thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming effect."
> 
> Put more simply, you are wrong. Lunkhead.

Put more simply, you're a moron. What wavelength is being re-emitted
off that ice? Gee... it just so happens to be the *same* wavelength as
is re-emitted off of bodies of water (ice *and* clouds being composed
of... ding, ding, ding! *water*) the infrared atmospheric window.
Imagine that. You're a fecking moron who doesn't understand that the
absorption and emission spectral lines for water differ. LOL

> *sn<SMACKAKOOK!>

You're not worthy of the <snicker>, LunkHead. You moron.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi snipped out any evidence that proved her wrong then demanded
that evidence again and again, only to snip it out again; she denied
having written what she clearly wrote (after she snipped it out, of
course); she k'lamed that I'd written things I clearly didn't (and she
failed to back up her k'lames with proof); she stated that zoanthropy
and transexualism aren't mental illnesses (they are listed in the
DSM); that the psychiatric community is incorrect for listing them as
such by taking an example from nearly 100 years ago (hysteria), long
before modern psychiatry got a grasp on what exactly constitutes a
mental illness; she stated that the CDC is promulgating "FUD" that's
"been debunked in thousands of places" (yet provided no proof of this
k'lamed "debunking"); she's been cornered into admitting her belief
that gays have suffered "no harm" in living a lifestyle that's given
19% of them AIDS, causes the gay community to account for 63% of new
AIDS cases per year (per the CDC) and kills thousands of them per
year; she stated that liberalism is growing when it's actually in
decline (and stated that conservatism is dying when it's actually
growing and has a nearly 2:1 advantage over liberalism), and she had
the audacity to try to use the same exact study from Gallup that I'd
used to prove her wrong in the first place (proving she's kooking out
so badly she's lost her reading comprehension abilities); she stated
the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking faster than ever when it's
growing (to the tune of 49 gT/yr, when considering that land ice is
slowly growing and sea ice is rapidly expanding, per Nasa's ICESat);
she stated that global temperature is rising when it's been falling
for more than a decade per the UK Met and NASA, and accounting for the
revelations that US climate researchers outright falsified the data to
give the impression that a 90 year cooling trend was actually a
warming trend; she k'lamed CO2 as the driver for global temperature
change, then quoted a web page that says the exact opposite (the same
web page, BTW, that I'd used to prove that CO2 lags temperature
change, proving yet again her loss of reading comprehension)... then
she *admitted* CO2 lags global temperature change, thereby being
forced to agree with me (and reality); she then k'lamed CO2 as the
driver for global temperature change *again*, but as yet has been
unable to explain, given that CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher
in the Ordovician and sun output was nearly the same (0.991
Ordovician, 1 today), why we're not in a perpetual ice age today; she
presented examples of mass-shooting suspects that she k'lamed were
conservative (but they turned out to be liberal, socialist or were the
result of a liberal upbringing); she tried to state that Nazism was a
conservative political party (it's a form of liberal fascism that
takes many of its tenets directly from socialism); she failed to
provide any proof of some of her kooky contentions while k'laming them
as "proof"; she used a flawed and biased dating website poll and
k'lamed that it trumped an actual scientific study (ironic, given that
she's a scientist herself); she melted down so badly she lost her
ability to do simple math; she attempted to k'lame Abraham Lincoln was
a liberal (he admitted he was a conservative); she attempted to k'lame
that every major civil rights advancement was solely due to liberals
(when it was conservatives who've advanced the overwhelming majority
of civil rights bills, to the strident opposition of the liberals),
she k'lamed she knows who I am due to her "kookology experience",
"profound psychological insight" and "cryptanalysis skills", yet she's
thus far run from five challenges to out me, for 555 days and counting
(ie: she doesn't dare provide any of her so-called "proof", for fear
that she outs the fact that she's kooking out and seeing me
everywhere), and her loss of reading comprehension skills resulted in
her apparent loss of being able to determine chronology. As the level
of spankage she was receiving escalated, the time between her posts
grew, and the length of her posts grew shorter as she snipped out more
and more evidence that she's a delusional kook... she's been beating a
strategic retreat for months now.... when she's not attention-whoring
for all the boys because her make-believe husband isn't paying enough
attention to her fat, ugly, delusional ass anymore. LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549442

On 30/01/2016 10:43 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:

> Are you dense? WFT? The infrared atmospheric window lets infrared of
> certain wavelengths pass through the atmosphere *and* the clouds

No, only clear air. Clouds tend to reflect some IR, and absorb and 
reemit more of it.

http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm

"The effects of cloud cover on temperature is a familiar experience.
Without a cloud cover in an area the temperature drops sharply at night
whereas with clouds the temperature drop is noticeably more moderate. On
the other hand in the daytime in the summer with no clouds the
temperature goes much higher than it does when there is a cloud cover."

Clouds by day cool. Clouds by night warm. And:

"The effect of clouds depends upon their type and the time of day. The
more interesting and important type is the low thick clouds. At night
the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection of
thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming effect."

Put more simply, you are wrong. Lunkhead.

Now answer me one question, kOok: which is colder, a clear winter night 
or a cloudy winter night?

-- 
"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain
the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." ~David Brooks
"I get fooled all the time by the constant hosiery parade
in here."                                                     ~Checkmate

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549447

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 17:16:00 -0500, kensi <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> wrote:


>
>Now answer me one question, kOok: which is colder, a clear winter night 
>or a cloudy winter night?

What a moron you are Kuntsi.  

A clear winter night in the Antarctic is surely much colder
than a cloudy winter night in the Florida Keys.

But, otoh, a clear winter night in the Keys is much warmer
than a cloudy winter night in the Antarctic.

Are you really so stupid that when you make ignorant and
hasty generalizations that you actually think they won't 
be recognized and challenged as such. 

I almost feel sorry for the esteemed FNVWe who smacks down
your every pitiful argument with ease making you almost not
worthy of his valuable time.



-- 
Sir Gregory Hall, Esq.

"It is my erudite opinion that a man
should not mince words just to spare
the sensibilities of the ignorant or
the thin-skinned."

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549463

In article <n8jcn0$6q2$2@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.invalid 
says...


> 
> On 30/01/2016 10:43 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus wrote:
> 
> > Are you dense? WFT? The infrared atmospheric window lets infrared of
> > certain wavelengths pass through the atmosphere *and* the clouds
> 
> No, only clear air. Clouds tend to reflect some IR, and absorb and 
> reemit more of it.
> 
> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm
> 
> "The effects of cloud cover on temperature is a familiar experience.
> Without a cloud cover in an area the temperature drops sharply at night
> whereas with clouds the temperature drop is noticeably more moderate. On
> the other hand in the daytime in the summer with no clouds the
> temperature goes much higher than it does when there is a cloud cover."
> 
> Clouds by day cool. Clouds by night warm. And:
> 
> "The effect of clouds depends upon their type and the time of day. The
> more interesting and important type is the low thick clouds. At night
> the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection of
> thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming effect."
> 
> Put more simply, you are wrong. Lunkhead.
> 
> Now answer me one question, kOok: which is colder, a clear winter night 
> or a cloudy winter night?

Who's winning?

-- 
Checkmate, AUK DoW #1
AUK Hammer of Thor award, Feb. 2012 (Pre-Burnore)
Destroyer of the AUK Ko0k Vote  (Post-Burnore)
Originator of the "Dance for me" (tm) lame
Copyright © 2016 
all rights reserved 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549729

On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 19:03:55 -0800, Checkmate, DoW #1 wrote:

> In article <n8jcn0$6q2$2@gioia.aioe.org>, kkensington01@gmail.invalid
> says...
> 
> 
> 
>> On 30/01/2016 10:43 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>> wrote:
>> 
>> > Are you dense? WFT? The infrared atmospheric window lets infrared of
>> > certain wavelengths pass through the atmosphere *and* the clouds
>> 
>> No, only clear air. Clouds tend to reflect some IR, and absorb and
>> reemit more of it.
>> 
>> http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/cloudiness.htm
>> 
>> "The effects of cloud cover on temperature is a familiar experience.
>> Without a cloud cover in an area the temperature drops sharply at night
>> whereas with clouds the temperature drop is noticeably more moderate.
>> On the other hand in the daytime in the summer with no clouds the
>> temperature goes much higher than it does when there is a cloud cover."
>> 
>> Clouds by day cool. Clouds by night warm. And:
>> 
>> "The effect of clouds depends upon their type and the time of day. The
>> more interesting and important type is the low thick clouds. At night
>> the reflection effect is zero so the greenhouse effect and reflection
>> of thermal radiation dominate and the low thick clouds have a warming
>> effect."
>> 
>> Put more simply, you are wrong. Lunkhead.
>> 
>> Now answer me one question, kOok: which is colder, a clear winter night
>> or a cloudy winter night?
> 
> Who's winning?

Kensi is.

FNVHe's counterpoints are useful, though, because they show some of the 
best arguments against climate change.

(Note that I didn't say they were _good_ arguments, or even sound, just 
"the best" from the position he represents.)

I'm enjoying the discussion.  Wish I had something to add besides an 
observation we learned in astronomy lab:  on a clear night, you're 
basically staring up at 3 kelvin.  Not only does it get chilly at 
temperate latitudes, but it will cause condensation on your optics.

However, the colder the air, the better the seeing -- so those chilly, 
clear winter nights are nice for astronomy.

-- 
 -v

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549733

Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>

vallor, in <news:dh9hshFgdqjU2@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
head first into the wood chipper again:

> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 19:03:55 -0800, Chimpy D. PickleTickler
> (aka Checkmate the Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon) wrote:

>> In article <n8jcn0$6q2$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Ko0O0oki kensi
>> the lunkheaded libtard <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> says...

>>> On 30/01/2016 10:43 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>> wrote:

>>>> Are you dense? WFT? The infrared atmospheric window lets infrared of
>>>> certain wavelengths pass through the atmosphere *and* the clouds

>>> No, only clear a<SMACKAKOOK!>

LunkHead went on to blather about refractive index, thereby proving
LunkHead has no fucking clue what she's talking about. LOL

>> Who's winning?

> Kensi is.

She never has before, so that'd be a first... oh, no, wait... she's
losing. Badly. LOL

> FNVHe's counterpoints are useful, though, because they show some of the 
> best arguments against climate change.

Well, that and the fact that global temperatures have been observed to
be dropping:

=========================================================
<http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/26/study-that-warned-of-global-warming-over-past-decade-ridiculed-after-temperatures-drop/>
The UK Met trend shows a -0.014 C per decade *decrease*.

Message-ID: <e46a4017e5a77519d1489cd3f1129c08@dizum.com>
The actual underlying (read: unmanipulated) NOAA data shows a 0.6186 F
*decrease* from 2005 to 2015.

<http://www.globalresearch.ca/global-cooling-is-here/10783>
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4LkMweOVOOI>
Dr. Don Easterbrook shows the past global warming was solar and
orbital forcing induced, the conditions have changed, and global
cooling has set in... since 1998.

<http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/global-warming-pause-hits-18-years-on-rss-data.html>
Using UK Met, UAH and RSS data.

Page 11 - Global temperature rate (C per year): dropping since ~1998.
*Negative* since ~2005. That means temps have been dropping for ~17
years, and the gullible LibTarDs have been lied to for ~17 years:
<http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/media/pdf/e/f/Paper1_Observing_changes_in_the_climate_system.PDF>

Message-ID: <b41f4a8054430ac46092e607919d7063@dizum.com>
Even NASA admitted that global temperatures were falling in recent
years (before they pulled that page... luckily the WayBack Machine
archived it):
<http://web.archive.org/web/20030816225534/http://icp.giss.nasa.gov/research/methane/greenhouse.html>
Note the center trace for modern times in that graphic... *falling*
temperature, even as CO2 and methane rose.
=========================================================

And the fact that two climatologists have admitted that their models
don't align with observations:
=========================================================
<http://phys.org/news/2014-08-global-temperature-conundrum-cooling-climate.html>
"We have been building models and there are now robust
contradictions," says Liu, a professor in the UW-Madison Center for
Climatic Research. "Data from observation says global cooling. The
physical model says it has to be warming."

Taken from the hacked ClimateGate 1.0 and ClimateGate 2.0 emails:
<http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/01/email-4141-glimpse-into-climate-science.html>
"I think the notion of telling the public to prepare for both global
warming and an ice age at the same time creates a real public
relations problem for us." - Asher Minns, "climate scientist" from
scandal-rocked University of East Anglia, letting the cat completely
out of the bag.
=========================================================

> (Note that I didn't say they were _good_ arguments, or even sound, just 
> "the best" from the position he represents.)

Depends upon if you want to believe empirical observations or the
fucked-up computer models of a bunch of libtard Klimate Katastrophe
Kooks who've been caught in lie after lie. LOL

> I'm enjoying the discussion.  Wish I had something to add besides an 
> observation we learned in astronomy lab:  on a clear night, you're 
> basically staring up at 3 kelvin.  Not only does it get chilly at 
> temperate latitudes, but it will cause condensation on your optics.
> 
> However, the colder the air, the better the seeing -- so those chilly, 
> clear winter nights are nice for astronomy.

My position is the correct one. Over ice or water, the spectral
emissions from that ice or water (because both have the same spectral
emissions regardless of phase) are at wavelengths that are outside the
spectral absorption band of water in its gaseous phase, which is the
underlying reason _for_ the infrared atmospheric window, which is a
well-known phenomenon... so the clouds over the Greenland glacier have
very little effect upon heat retention, thereby making the latest
blather from Kensi absolutely *wrong*.

This is what happens when the uneducated oafs start thinking they have
even the first faint fucking clue about how the world operates.

<snicker>

-- 

Kensi snipped out any evidence that proved her wrong then demanded
that evidence again and again, only to snip it out again; she denied
having written what she clearly wrote (after she snipped it out, of
course); she k'lamed that I'd written things I clearly didn't (and she
failed to back up her k'lames with proof); she stated that zoanthropy
and transexualism aren't mental illnesses (they are listed in the
DSM); that the psychiatric community is incorrect for listing them as
such by taking an example from nearly 100 years ago (hysteria), long
before modern psychiatry got a grasp on what exactly constitutes a
mental illness; she stated that the CDC is promulgating "FUD" that's
"been debunked in thousands of places" (yet provided no proof of this
k'lamed "debunking"); she's been cornered into admitting her belief
that gays have suffered "no harm" in living a lifestyle that's given
19% of them AIDS, causes the gay community to account for 63% of new
AIDS cases per year (per the CDC) and kills thousands of them per
year; she stated that liberalism is growing when it's actually in
decline (and stated that conservatism is dying when it's actually
growing and has a nearly 2:1 advantage over liberalism), and she had
the audacity to try to use the same exact study from Gallup that I'd
used to prove her wrong in the first place (proving she's kooking out
so badly she's lost her reading comprehension abilities); she stated
the Antarctic ice sheet is shrinking faster than ever when it's
growing (to the tune of 49 gT/yr, when considering that land ice is
slowly growing and sea ice is rapidly expanding, per Nasa's ICESat);
she stated that global temperature is rising when it's been falling
for more than a decade per the UK Met and NASA, and accounting for the
revelations that US climate researchers outright falsified the data to
give the impression that a 90 year cooling trend was actually a
warming trend; she k'lamed CO2 as the driver for global temperature
change, then quoted a web page that says the exact opposite (the same
web page, BTW, that I'd used to prove that CO2 lags temperature
change, proving yet again her loss of reading comprehension)... then
she *admitted* CO2 lags global temperature change, thereby being
forced to agree with me (and reality); she then k'lamed CO2 as the
driver for global temperature change *again*, but as yet has been
unable to explain, given that CO2 levels were at least 5 times higher
in the Ordovician and sun output was nearly the same (0.991
Ordovician, 1 today), why we're not in a perpetual ice age today; she
presented examples of mass-shooting suspects that she k'lamed were
conservative (but they turned out to be liberal, socialist or were the
result of a liberal upbringing); she tried to state that Nazism was a
conservative political party (it's a form of liberal fascism that
takes many of its tenets directly from socialism); she failed to
provide any proof of some of her kooky contentions while k'laming them
as "proof"; she used a flawed and biased dating website poll and
k'lamed that it trumped an actual scientific study (ironic, given that
she's a scientist herself); she melted down so badly she lost her
ability to do simple math; she attempted to k'lame Abraham Lincoln was
a liberal (he admitted he was a conservative); she attempted to k'lame
that every major civil rights advancement was solely due to liberals
(when it was conservatives who've advanced the overwhelming majority
of civil rights bills, to the strident opposition of the liberals),
she k'lamed she knows who I am due to her "kookology experience",
"profound psychological insight" and "cryptanalysis skills", yet she's
thus far run from five challenges to out me, for 557 days and counting
(ie: she doesn't dare provide any of her so-called "proof", for fear
that she outs the fact that she's kooking out and seeing me
everywhere), and her loss of reading comprehension skills resulted in
her apparent loss of being able to determine chronology. As the level
of spankage she was receiving escalated, the time between her posts
grew, and the length of her posts grew shorter as she snipped out more
and more evidence that she's a delusional kook... she's been beating a
strategic retreat for months now.... when she's not attention-whoring
for all the boys because her make-believe husband isn't paying enough
attention to her fat, ugly, delusional ass anymore. LOL

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549736

>melt melt melt melt
>melt melt melt
>melt melt
>melt

<poof>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549739

On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:41:21 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:

> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>
> vallor, in <news:dh9hshFgdqjU2@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
> head first into the wood chipper again:
>
>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 19:03:55 -0800, Chimpy D. PickleTickler
>> (aka Checkmate the Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon) wrote:
>
>>> In article <n8jcn0$6q2$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Ko0O0oki kensi
>>> the lunkheaded libtard <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> says...
>
>>>> On 30/01/2016 10:43 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>>> wrote:
>
>>>>> Are you dense? WFT? The infrared atmospheric window lets infrared of
>>>>> certain wavelengths pass through the atmosphere *and* the clouds
>
>>>> No, only clear a<SMACKAKOOK!>
>
> LunkHead went on to blather about refractive index, thereby proving
> LunkHead has no fucking clue what she's talking about. LOL
>

this reminds me of a lunkhead who had many things to say about the gables  
on my flat porch roof.

-- 

i know a guy on the internet who will draw a triangular sine wave in ASCII  
art if you ask nicely.

"all I really want your pathetic pwned ass to do is write me a classic  
rock song as tribute to your Usenet Lord and Master..."  
<f4f9193fa7d28b760a9de681e61427e7@dizum.com>

http://i.imgur.com/2tH6zVB.jpg

http://cafepress.com/kooktown

http://i.imgur.com/pnWqhSG.jpg

If my poasts are offensive to you, you can always block all From: headers  
containing "root@127.0.0.1", unless you are an idiot who would like to  
yammer about "morphing" and maybe try to lodge some frivolous complaints  
to my news provider, then please be sure to ignore this helpful  
information and have fun making an ass of yourself in public.  :)

if that route of silencing those horrid opinions of mine that you  
downloaded to your computer under duress doesn't work you can always try:  
http://i.imgur.com/jlsN9JX.png?2

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
The Gish Gallop is often used as an indirect argument from authority — as  
it appears to paint the galloper as an expert in a broad range of subjects  
or with an extensive knowledge of an individual one. Simultaneously it  
presents opponents (in spoken debates) or refuters (in written,  
Internet-based ones) as incompetent bumblers who didn't do their homework  
before the debate. Such emphasis on style over substance is the reason  
many scientists disdain public debates as a forum for disseminating  
opinions. - Page #1 from the Gospel of SnickerTurd

Coming soon!  To a newsgroup near you!:

$ perl fakeyBot.pl
FakeyBot>       I'm FakeyBot. What's your name so I can Google-stalk you,  
look you up on Radaris, and hurl invective and probably-illegal harrassing  
bile from behind an anonymous dizum account?  <snicker>
You>    Robert Michael Wolfe
FakeyBot>       Oh look, you're back again to polish my size 16 steel-toed  
boot with your colon and listen to me talk about bestiality and cocks,  
Robert. <snicker>
Robert> you talk about cocks a lot.
FakeyBot>       Oh, I talk about sex a lot?
Robert> gay sex, mostly...
FakeyBot>       Fag!

(just as useful as the original!)

snickers the wonderturd describes how he alerted lots of his kiddie pr0n  
friends to the ensuing FBI sting in message  
<b5e7da79a455d0c9227b1b50e25e7ea1@dizum.com>:
"That's easy enough to do... how do you think my crew uncovered the
largest CP ring using Tor and I2P, which we promptly turned over to
the FBI? I discovered a way to uncover the IP addresses the I2P users were  
using, and a way of tracking Eepsites back to their IP addresses, then we  
figured out that we could DDOS a Tor IP address and modify Tor headers  
while checking whether a Tor hidden service was still up, then using  
process of elimination to pinpoint the IP address hosting that hidden  
service. It's not rocket science.

_The I2P community got all up in arms when I discussed on their forum how  
I was doing it, and that it'd be a good way of cleaning up I2P so it can  
get on with being a platform to research anonymous communication... my  
distinct impression was that the "anonymity
research platform" story was just a cover story to allow pervs to
trade CP._  (NOTE: admits to participating in what he "suspected" was a  
kiddie pr0n network.)

That Silk Road 2.0 was taken offline in the ensuing FBI Operation
Onymous was just icing on the cake."
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#549740

On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 13:25:49 -0500, "\"Fakey's\" dogwhistle holder
living at 5907 Stanton Ave., Pittsburgh, PA (aka Teh Mop  Jockey),
socked up as 5907 Stanton Avenue, Pittsburgh, PA 15206-2117"
<root@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Mon, 01 Feb 2016 12:41:21 -0500, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler  
>Emeritus <FNVWe@altusenetkooks.xxx> wrote:
>
>> Time to spin the kooks up again. Melt, kooks, melt. <snicker>
>>
>> vallor, in <news:dh9hshFgdqjU2@mid.individual.net> did thusly jump
>> head first into the wood chipper again:
>>
>>> On Sat, 30 Jan 2016 19:03:55 -0800, Chimpy D. PickleTickler
>>> (aka Checkmate the Jism Junkie Gerbil Cannon) wrote:
>>
>>>> In article <n8jcn0$6q2$2@gioia.aioe.org>, Ko0O0oki kensi
>>>> the lunkheaded libtard <kkensington01@gmail.invalid> says...
>>
>>>>> On 30/01/2016 10:43 AM, Friendly Neighborhood Vote Wrangler Emeritus
>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Are you dense? WFT? The infrared atmospheric window lets infrared of
>>>>>> certain wavelengths pass through the atmosphere *and* the clouds
>>
>>>>> No, only clear a<SMACKAKOOK!>
>>
>> LunkHead went on to blather about refractive index, thereby proving
>> LunkHead has no fucking clue what she's talking about. LOL
>>
>
>this reminds me of a lunkhead who had many things to say about the gables  
>on my flat porch roof.


I notice he slinked away from the last round of slappings we gave him.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 1 of 5  [1] 2 3 4 5  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web