Our cooling world

[waldo]

member petros... that's a most inappropriate and uncalled for response! If only you could channel your energy, your hostility, toward answering the challenge put to you; again, in this most immediate example regard, is there anything you'd like to offer as a comparative causal tie reference between the last/any interglacial and today's relatively recent warming period? Of course, this is the same question theme you keep dodging in your perpetual want to flog the warming of the Holocene Optimum period... and in that regard, as repeatedly asked/challenged of you, just what is the comparative "relationship/association" you presume to make between the warming associated with the Holocene Optimum period and today's relatively recent warming?

 

[Zipperfish]

no - you're taking a result and equating it to "total warming"... your own words! The point being, again, climate sensitivity is not "total warming". Yes, there are certainly uncertainties related to feedbacks; however, your statement reads as if you're presuming negative feedback influences will rise to a level of that of positive influences. I've certainly not read anything remotely suggestive of that…

yadda yadda yadda

And more repetition of your earlier points. I don't really know where to go from here, since you just keep saying the same thing over and over again regardless of what I post.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

 

[waldo]

And more repetition of your earlier points. I don't really know where to go from here, since you just keep saying the same thing over and over again regardless of what I post.

We'll have to agree to disagree I guess.

any 'positive' attachment that might genuinely associate with a "agree to disagree" summation is lost entirely with your use of "yadda, yadda, yadda" and your, yet again, repetition angle. As I said in my last post, apparently, to you, your ongoing repeat of the same thing (ad nauseum) presumes to give your words/statements validity. In any case, and in that vein, I certainly won't offer a "agree to disagree" summation, as you've improperly used/mixed sensitivity terminology and estimate aspects, you've come up with an estimate that has no real legitimacy in relation to how you're using the base formula, you presume to use that estimate as some measuring bar against an actual IPCC estimate range, you refuse to extend beyond the numeric estimate number and speak to what transient sensitivity is really about... you like a number, but you don't like to discuss what the number may actually mean/imply, you openly stated the reason why you're targeting a low(er) sensitivity number, you openly acknowledge uncertainty/unknowns yet favour the lowest of the low end of that uncertainty/unknown, etc., etc., etc.

 

[petros]

member petros... that's a most inappropriate and uncalled for response! If only you could channel your energy, your hostility, toward answering the challenge put to you; again, in this most immediate example regard, is there anything you'd like to offer as a comparative causal tie reference between the last/any interglacial and today's relatively recent warming period? Of course, this is the same question theme you keep dodging in your perpetual want to flog the warming of the Holocene Optimum period... and in that regard, as repeatedly asked/challenged of you, just what is the comparative "relationship/association" you presume to make between the warming associated with the Holocene Optimum period and today's relatively recent warming?

Why isn't it called for? You're a lunch bucket who doesn't read or reads things that aren't there. Hallucinations and rage are all part in parcel for meth heads.

You hallucinate and rage and nobody is supposed to notice and make note of it? Does it hurt your feelings? If so, lay off the meth then the hallucinations will stop and so will the rage and hurt feelings.

 

[DaSleeper]

Ask him about Machu Picchu since he can't read my posts :lol:

 

[petros]

Ask him about Machu Picchu since he can't read my posts :lol:

Are buses full of streakers blocking the screen?

 

[waldo]

Why isn't it called for? You're a lunch bucket who doesn't read or reads things that aren't there. Hallucinations and rage are all part in parcel for meth heads.

You hallucinate and rage and nobody is supposed to notice and make note of it? Does it hurt your feelings? If so, lay off the meth then the hallucinations will stop and so will the rage and hurt feelings.

please sir, your comments are wholly inappropriate and uncalled for? Certainly you can't expect your unsubstantiated statements/claims to go unchallenged... surely not? If this is the kind of reaction you have to direct challenge on your statements/claims... your unsubstantiated and repeated statements/claims, perhaps a discussion forum is not a suitable venue for you.

Are buses full of streakers blocking the screen?

please sir, this is unnecessary and uncalled for blatant trolling; again, please respect the work/time effort of CC Forum moderator, 'Ron in Regina', who acted to purge most of this type of trolling from these related threads. Please respect the CC Forum, its rules and its membership.

 

[DaSleeper]

Waldo just likes to argue, but won't tell us about Machu Picchu

 

[Locutus]

when I was there it rained.

 

[waldo]

when I was there it rained.

thanks for moderating the discussion

 

[Locutus]

me and a local machu picchian during my trip back in '81. it snowed a little after our rain storm.

 

[petros]

I bet you miss that truck.

 

[Locutus]

a group of indigenous high altitude mountain folk pulled it outta the ditch and we continued on to the drywall convention. they had some local bitches there and we had some beer.

*cans of bud unfortunatley

 

[petros]

Were you going ice fishing at the Lost Temple of Bwanainkadinkadoo? Why didn't you pull out the truck with the boat?

 

[Zipperfish]

any 'positive' attachment that might genuinely associate with a "agree to disagree" summation is lost entirely with your use of "yadda, yadda, yadda" and your, yet again, repetition angle. As I said in my last post, apparently, to you, your ongoing repeat of the same thing (ad nauseum) presumes to give your words/statements validity. In any case, and in that vein, I certainly won't offer a "agree to disagree" summation, as you've improperly used/mixed sensitivity terminology and estimate aspects, you've come up with an estimate that has no real legitimacy in relation to how you're using the base formula, you presume to use that estimate as some measuring bar against an actual IPCC estimate range, you refuse to extend beyond the numeric estimate number and speak to what transient sensitivity is really about... you like a number, but you don't like to discuss what the number may actually mean/imply, you openly stated the reason why you're targeting a low(er) sensitivity number, you openly acknowledge uncertainty/unknowns yet favour the lowest of the low end of that uncertainty/unknown, etc., etc., etc.

I've throuoghly considered your viewpoint and have determined that you are wrong. PLease adjust your opinion accordingly. Now apologize, then f**k off. :lol:

 

[petros]

Denier!

 

[taxslave]

any 'positive' attachment that might genuinely associate with a "agree to disagree" summation is lost entirely with your use of "yadda, yadda, yadda" and your, yet again, repetition angle. As I said in my last post, apparently, to you, your ongoing repeat of the same thing (ad nauseum) presumes to give your words/statements validity. In any case, and in that vein, I certainly won't offer a "agree to disagree" summation, as you've improperly used/mixed sensitivity terminology and estimate aspects, you've come up with an estimate that has no real legitimacy in relation to how you're using the base formula, you presume to use that estimate as some measuring bar against an actual IPCC estimate range, you refuse to extend beyond the numeric estimate number and speak to what transient sensitivity is really about... you like a number, but you don't like to discuss what the number may actually mean/imply, you openly stated the reason why you're targeting a low(er) sensitivity number, you openly acknowledge uncertainty/unknowns yet favour the lowest of the low end of that uncertainty/unknown, etc., etc., etc.

Speaking of yadda yadda yada.......Do you have a graph of all your yadda yadda posts?

 

[Locutus]

Study: Volcanoes ARE cooling Earth and have reduced temperatures and tropical rainfall

Read the Full Article

 

[DaSleeper]

Sounds like the excuses kids give for failing at something.....It will be interesting if waldo decides to carry that ball....

 

[MHz]

thanks for moderating the discussion

You can either take the fight to the trolls of not reply to them at all, which also beats them no matter how they whine about it not doing anythin as they are all liars to some degree also.
Check out some vids on the Siberian traps and what it did to the global weather model. The oceanic ridges would also add heat to the planet on a global scale. This is interesting because it is a local event that caused a variety of condition to change all over the world. If they got the consequences right that should tell you what global warming does no matter where the heat comes from. The area is know so the amount of heat released can be estimated and it is a hell of a lot more than the sun changes her output.

The Siberian Traps and the Volcanic Mass Extinction Theory (Full Documentary) - YouTube

www.youtube.com/watch?v=00ILddHJlKw

Sounds like the excuses kids give for failing at something.....It will be interesting if waldo decides to carry that ball....

Meaning you have a library full of said excuses.

Study: Volcanoes ARE cooling Earth and have reduced temperatures and tropical rainfall

Read the Full Article

That new hat isn't doing anything for your posts.