I thought you guys were "winning"...?

UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
sheskunk said:
Did you do nothing for nobody all day again? How's your desperate attempts to get people to answer your questions going? Fucking doper.
Click to expand...
i returned a shitty carbon filter for a good carbon filter. then i drove back up to our old house and got it rented out to a nice old couple. then i took the dogs to the dog park and my car wouldn't start on the way home. so i ordered chinese to the dog park and they actually delivered. then my car started and i went home.

it was OK overall.

how's your trolling going?
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Well.. because she's actually a stupid bitch..

That is.. if it's actually really a 'her' in the first place.. which I doubt..
Click to expand...
UncleBuck said:
are you too stupid to realize that the sea ice is smaller than its 30 year median?

:lol:

so fucking dumb.
Click to expand...
Again, Google the difference between area and volume, you seriously dumb fuck.

Also, your data is always out of date.

Just stick to watering plants and calling people racist cos it's all your brain is capable of.

You do what the rest of us do as a hobby and call it work, it's pathetic.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
abandonconflict said:
Maybe you should.

Multiyear ice is retreating.
Click to expand...
Until around 2010.

Get more up to date data, then we can talk.

But even if NASA released incontrovertible evidence that you retards are wrong, you'd still believe in your little green religion.

Ok so let's play the "living in the real world game"... I wanna give up using carbon based fuels altogether, I genuinely do.

What are my options, right now?
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
The only way you'd be in my head is if I got drunk and blacked out and in the following weeks the Dr.'s office told me I had chlamydia

Of course I'd question it at first, knowing I could never stoop that low.. But reality would set in eventually, and knowing myself, I'd probably regret that last "why not.." of the night, which is you.. (if you're lucky)..

You're the worst of the worst out of the drunken goggles girls, an esteem nobody wants or wishes upon themselves. I take solace in knowing you take solace in knowing at least somebody, might want you, someday... for a night at least..

At least your pussy hole provides something of value..
Click to expand...

Thought you had me on ignore.

I'm married with children. My family loves me. Unlike yours.
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
i returned a shitty carbon filter for a good carbon filter. then i drove back up to our old house and got it rented out to a nice old couple. then i took the dogs to the dog park and my car wouldn't start on the way home. so i ordered chinese to the dog park and they actually delivered. then my car started and i went home.

it was OK overall.

how's your trolling going?
Click to expand...

So you drive a bucket? Figures.
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
Harrekin said:
Until around 2010.

Get more up to date data, then we can talk.

But even if NASA released incontrovertible evidence that you retards are wrong, you'd still believe in your little green religion.

Ok so let's play the "living in the real world game"... I wanna give up using carbon based fuels altogether, I genuinely do.

What are my options, right now?
Click to expand...
Post #623 is where I linked a study by a NASA scientist. It was published and peer reviewed in 2012.

next...
 
abandonconflict

abandonconflict

Well-Known Member
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-11-00113.1
Cosimo 2012
ABSTRACT
The perennial ice area was drastically reduced to 38% of its climatological average in 2007 but recovered slightly in 2008, 2009, and 2010 with the areas being 10%, 24%, and 11% higher than in 2007, respectively. However, trends in extent and area remained strongly negative at −12.2% and −13.5% decade−1, respectively. The thick component of the perennial ice, called multiyear ice, as detected by satellite data during the winters of 1979–2011 was studied, and results reveal that the multiyear ice extent and area are declining at an even more rapid rate of −15.1% and −17.2% decade−1, respectively, with a record low value in 2008 followed by higher values in 2009, 2010, and 2011. Such a high rate in the decline of the thick component of the Arctic ice cover means a reduction in the average ice thickness and an even more vulnerable perennial ice cover. The decline of the multiyear ice area from 2007 to 2008 was not as strong as that of the perennial ice area from 2006 to 2007, suggesting a strong role of second-year ice melt in the latter. The sea ice cover is shown to be strongly correlated with surface temperature, which is increasing at about 3 times the global average in the Arctic but appears weakly correlated with the Arctic Oscillation (AO), which controls the atmospheric circulation in the region. An 8–9-yr cycle is apparent in the multiyear ice record, which could explain, in part, the slight recovery in the last 3 yr.
Click to expand...
Here it is again. I doubt you will look at it, since it highlights your stupidity.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
sheskunk said:
Nobody looks because nobody cares what you think. How dumb are you?
Click to expand...
I looked at it.
There is some interesting discussion at the end re: SLP (Sea Level Pressure) and its near-zero correlation with sea-ice extent. The method of differentiating between "new ice" and multi-year ice using microwave scattering effects is also a neat trick. The baby ice has a fair amount of salts in it, so it is more opaque, whereas multi-year (>2yrs old) ice is more pure, therefore allowing the rays through to a greater depth.

But my question is, "what are they trying to show"?
Not much, except the trend (as of 2011) was down.

Problems? 31 annual data points...even a T-test needs an adjustment at that number. Linear regressions are not appropriate to give a proper treatment of a dynamic process. But again, what are they trying to show? To which these problems are minor, I suppose.
In retrospect of what has come to light over the last 5 years re:cosmic-ray influence, I'm questioning if the SLP is actually a reflection of the weakening--and shifting--magnetic field of the Earth (and Sun), which further implies by Maxwell's equations a funk in the electric field, twisting the cosmic currents...:joint:o_O

 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
IPPC 1-5 is consistent, 1 took place in 1990, so of course new data is going to be added over the more than 2 decades since then and models would change accordingly, this however doesn't mean 1 varies vastly from 5. They all basically paint the same picture, 5 holds the strongest case.

That's how science works, mr. research scientist..

You don't believe IPCC 5, which means you do believe there is a global conspiracy by tens of thousands of scientists working together to subvert the truth.

Whether you believe that to be a conspiracy or not is irrelevant, that's what you actually believe and the definition of a conspiracy is 2 or more people working together to conspire, ergo, you are a conspiracy theorist, aka. a climate-truther
Click to expand...
The 1st version says "AGW", the 5th says "climate disruption" . THAT is how "scientists" obfuscate.
"there is a global conspiracy by tens of thousands of scientists" Uh.....not "tens of thousands", so a lie. Also, I never mentioned a "conspiracy", but you have, several times.
How does "conspiracy theorist" equal a "climate-truther"?
"climate-truther" is a term made up by some terrorist-wanna-be who hasn't been able to respond to a single point I made, ever. with anything but name calling.
Since you are unable to counter my position with anything but a researcher's work done in the seventies that explicitly states increased co2 in the atmospere will NOT cause increased heat retention, and your idiot blogger's deceptively quoted OPINION POLL, it can be assumed you have successfully disproven your position.
 
Harrekin

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
are you even aware that NASA has released incontrovertible evidence that you retards are wrong?

keep living in that inverted reality, tardloaf.
Click to expand...
What I saw when I read it: "penis penis gobble gobble penis walrus".

B=D tiny Bucky dick
 
sheskunk

sheskunk

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
I looked at it.
There is some interesting discussion at the end re: SLP (Sea Level Pressure) and its near-zero correlation with sea-ice extent. The method of differentiating between "new ice" and multi-year ice using microwave scattering effects is also a neat trick. The baby ice has a fair amount of salts in it, so it is more opaque, whereas multi-year (>2yrs old) ice is more pure, therefore allowing the rays through to a greater depth.

But my question is, "what are they trying to show"?
Not much, except the trend (as of 2011) was down.

Problems? 31 annual data points...even a T-test needs an adjustment at that number. Linear regressions are not appropriate to give a proper treatment of a dynamic process. But again, what are they trying to show? To which these problems are minor, I suppose.
In retrospect of what has come to light over the last 5 years re:cosmic-ray influence, I'm questioning if the SLP is actually a reflection of the weakening--and shifting--magnetic field of the Earth (and Sun), which further implies by Maxwell's equations a funk in the electric field, twisting the cosmic currents...:joint:o_O

Click to expand...
I don't necessarily mean to offend, it just amazing me that people can get so worked up about being right, yet they can't lift a finger to help fix any of it. Just like Uncle Buck and racism. It's all just a bunch of hot air. See what I did there? ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top