Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Another Crick wanabe....1. The laws of thermodynamics say it can not happen.Can you provide us the scientific explanation for both the amount of additional heat generated by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM and explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean???Warming = Global Warming
Cooler = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat
another lemming that gets their science from FoxNews and Infowars
Let's say he could....it's not as if you would understand it.
2. Ocean thermoclines say it can not happen..
Yet some how you "believe".... Priceless....
like you know a damn fucking thing about the laws of thermodynamics, except Sean Hannity has told you to say
Okay. So you believe man is responsible, correct?Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.Do you support the left's agenda of Climate Change?Here is a good start for you. Enjoy!
Disrupting the deep: Ocean warming reaches the abyss
Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov
The Ocean’s Carbon Balance
Ocean Warming
No, I do not support the left's agenda on climate change. I do not think it is a thing that can be "fixed" at the current level of technology. What I support is preparing for the coming changes. I work in the Ag industry and I use them as an example. Farmers in the mid-west have been adding irrigation and better drainage as fast as they can afford to due to the changing rain patterns. Many of these areas are not getting less rain (or nto much less) but they are getting it all in 1/2 the amount of days, with much more coming at once and longer between rains. So, they have adjusted as well as they can. that is one example.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
Another Crick wanabe....1. The laws of thermodynamics say it can not happen.Can you provide us the scientific explanation for both the amount of additional heat generated by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM and explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean???another lemming that gets their science from FoxNews and Infowars
Let's say he could....it's not as if you would understand it.
2. Ocean thermoclines say it can not happen..
Yet some how you "believe".... Priceless....
like you know a damn fucking thing about the laws of thermodynamics, except Sean Hannity has told you to say
Please post up your empirical evidence. You say you have a masters and I am working on my Doctorate. Until you can post up empirical evidence to support your position its bull shit..
The same modeling program the IPCC uses... and it failed empirical review over 297 times as GCR's were evaluated.Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.Do you support the left's agenda of Climate Change?Here is a good start for you. Enjoy!
Disrupting the deep: Ocean warming reaches the abyss
Climate Change: Ocean Heat Content | NOAA Climate.gov
The Ocean’s Carbon Balance
Ocean Warming
No, I do not support the left's agenda on climate change. I do not think it is a thing that can be "fixed" at the current level of technology. What I support is preparing for the coming changes. I work in the Ag industry and I use them as an example. Farmers in the mid-west have been adding irrigation and better drainage as fast as they can afford to due to the changing rain patterns. Many of these areas are not getting less rain (or nto much less) but they are getting it all in 1/2 the amount of days, with much more coming at once and longer between rains. So, they have adjusted as well as they can. that is one example.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
How many predictive failures do you need before your hypothesis is shown failed?
How about you post up the science that proves you can push heat down through a thermocline..1. The laws of thermodynamics say it can not happen.Can you provide us the scientific explanation for both the amount of additional heat generated by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM and explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean???Warming = Global Warming
Cooler = Climate Change
Consensus = Moonbat
another lemming that gets their science from FoxNews and Infowars
Let's say he could....it's not as if you would understand it.
2. Ocean thermoclines say it can not happen..
Yet some how you "believe".... Priceless....
Where did you get your degree in thermodynamics?
I don't see the population having a big enough impact to change the climate. Climate changed before man was even here.Okay. So you believe man is responsible, correct?Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.Do you support the left's agenda of Climate Change?
No, I do not support the left's agenda on climate change. I do not think it is a thing that can be "fixed" at the current level of technology. What I support is preparing for the coming changes. I work in the Ag industry and I use them as an example. Farmers in the mid-west have been adding irrigation and better drainage as fast as they can afford to due to the changing rain patterns. Many of these areas are not getting less rain (or nto much less) but they are getting it all in 1/2 the amount of days, with much more coming at once and longer between rains. So, they have adjusted as well as they can. that is one example.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
I do believe man is partially responsible for the changes we are seeing, yet. The climate is always changing, but it has done so in predictable patterns, those are not being followed now for one reason or another.
Let me ask you this, human population took from the dawn of time till the start of the 1800s to reach 1 billion people. We then added another billion in another 130 year or so, and then the next billion in 60 years, and the next billion in less than 20 years. Is it really all that crazy to think that might have some sort of impact on our planet?
And what exactly did you use for your sensitivity fudge factors? Without these NONE of your assessments are valid. To date, none of the current fudge factors used result in reality and have zero predictive value. IE: They fail empirical review.The same modeling program the IPCC uses... and it failed empirical review over 297 times as GCR's were evaluated.Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.Do you support the left's agenda of Climate Change?
No, I do not support the left's agenda on climate change. I do not think it is a thing that can be "fixed" at the current level of technology. What I support is preparing for the coming changes. I work in the Ag industry and I use them as an example. Farmers in the mid-west have been adding irrigation and better drainage as fast as they can afford to due to the changing rain patterns. Many of these areas are not getting less rain (or nto much less) but they are getting it all in 1/2 the amount of days, with much more coming at once and longer between rains. So, they have adjusted as well as they can. that is one example.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
How many predictive failures do you need before your hypothesis is shown failed?
It is one of the top analytics programs out there. But I also did some of the same calculations in R to see if the results were different, there was no statistical difference.
I don't see the population having a big enough impact to change the climate. Climate changed before man was even here.Okay. So you believe man is responsible, correct?Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.No, I do not support the left's agenda on climate change. I do not think it is a thing that can be "fixed" at the current level of technology. What I support is preparing for the coming changes. I work in the Ag industry and I use them as an example. Farmers in the mid-west have been adding irrigation and better drainage as fast as they can afford to due to the changing rain patterns. Many of these areas are not getting less rain (or nto much less) but they are getting it all in 1/2 the amount of days, with much more coming at once and longer between rains. So, they have adjusted as well as they can. that is one example.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
I do believe man is partially responsible for the changes we are seeing, yet. The climate is always changing, but it has done so in predictable patterns, those are not being followed now for one reason or another.
Let me ask you this, human population took from the dawn of time till the start of the 1800s to reach 1 billion people. We then added another billion in another 130 year or so, and then the next billion in 60 years, and the next billion in less than 20 years. Is it really all that crazy to think that might have some sort of impact on our planet?
And what exactly did you use for your sensitivity fudge factors?The same modeling program the IPCC uses... and it failed empirical review over 297 times as GCR's were evaluated.Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.No, I do not support the left's agenda on climate change. I do not think it is a thing that can be "fixed" at the current level of technology. What I support is preparing for the coming changes. I work in the Ag industry and I use them as an example. Farmers in the mid-west have been adding irrigation and better drainage as fast as they can afford to due to the changing rain patterns. Many of these areas are not getting less rain (or nto much less) but they are getting it all in 1/2 the amount of days, with much more coming at once and longer between rains. So, they have adjusted as well as they can. that is one example.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
How many predictive failures do you need before your hypothesis is shown failed?
It is one of the top analytics programs out there. But I also did some of the same calculations in R to see if the results were different, there was no statistical difference.
How about you post up the science that proves you can push heat down through a thermocline..1. The laws of thermodynamics say it can not happen.Can you provide us the scientific explanation for both the amount of additional heat generated by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM and explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean???another lemming that gets their science from FoxNews and Infowars
Let's say he could....it's not as if you would understand it.
2. Ocean thermoclines say it can not happen..
Yet some how you "believe".... Priceless....
Where did you get your degree in thermodynamics?
If the population explosion is causing it, then do we reduce the population?I don't see the population having a big enough impact to change the climate. Climate changed before man was even here.Okay. So you believe man is responsible, correct?Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
I do believe man is partially responsible for the changes we are seeing, yet. The climate is always changing, but it has done so in predictable patterns, those are not being followed now for one reason or another.
Let me ask you this, human population took from the dawn of time till the start of the 1800s to reach 1 billion people. We then added another billion in another 130 year or so, and then the next billion in 60 years, and the next billion in less than 20 years. Is it really all that crazy to think that might have some sort of impact on our planet?
Yes, I have stated that the climate is always changing, doing so in fairly predictable patterns. Those patterns shifted about the time there was a population explosion of humans on the planet. But I am sure it was just coincidence...
I don't see the population having a big enough impact to change the climate. Climate changed before man was even here.Okay. So you believe man is responsible, correct?Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.No, I do not support the left's agenda on climate change. I do not think it is a thing that can be "fixed" at the current level of technology. What I support is preparing for the coming changes. I work in the Ag industry and I use them as an example. Farmers in the mid-west have been adding irrigation and better drainage as fast as they can afford to due to the changing rain patterns. Many of these areas are not getting less rain (or nto much less) but they are getting it all in 1/2 the amount of days, with much more coming at once and longer between rains. So, they have adjusted as well as they can. that is one example.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
I do believe man is partially responsible for the changes we are seeing, yet. The climate is always changing, but it has done so in predictable patterns, those are not being followed now for one reason or another.
Let me ask you this, human population took from the dawn of time till the start of the 1800s to reach 1 billion people. We then added another billion in another 130 year or so, and then the next billion in 60 years, and the next billion in less than 20 years. Is it really all that crazy to think that might have some sort of impact on our planet?
If the population explosion is causing it, then do we reduce the population?I don't see the population having a big enough impact to change the climate. Climate changed before man was even here.Okay. So you believe man is responsible, correct?Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
I do believe man is partially responsible for the changes we are seeing, yet. The climate is always changing, but it has done so in predictable patterns, those are not being followed now for one reason or another.
Let me ask you this, human population took from the dawn of time till the start of the 1800s to reach 1 billion people. We then added another billion in another 130 year or so, and then the next billion in 60 years, and the next billion in less than 20 years. Is it really all that crazy to think that might have some sort of impact on our planet?
Yes, I have stated that the climate is always changing, doing so in fairly predictable patterns. Those patterns shifted about the time there was a population explosion of humans on the planet. But I am sure it was just coincidence...
Atmospheric Physics. I am a practicing Meteorologist so I do this for a living.And what exactly did you use for your sensitivity fudge factors?The same modeling program the IPCC uses... and it failed empirical review over 297 times as GCR's were evaluated.Okay. So you do believe the climate is changing, though.
Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
How many predictive failures do you need before your hypothesis is shown failed?
It is one of the top analytics programs out there. But I also did some of the same calculations in R to see if the results were different, there was no statistical difference.
So, what is our doctorate in?
I don't believe there is a problem. I see things from a biblical perspective. Nothing we can do about the coming judgement.If the population explosion is causing it, then do we reduce the population?I don't see the population having a big enough impact to change the climate. Climate changed before man was even here.Okay. So you believe man is responsible, correct?
I do believe man is partially responsible for the changes we are seeing, yet. The climate is always changing, but it has done so in predictable patterns, those are not being followed now for one reason or another.
Let me ask you this, human population took from the dawn of time till the start of the 1800s to reach 1 billion people. We then added another billion in another 130 year or so, and then the next billion in 60 years, and the next billion in less than 20 years. Is it really all that crazy to think that might have some sort of impact on our planet?
Yes, I have stated that the climate is always changing, doing so in fairly predictable patterns. Those patterns shifted about the time there was a population explosion of humans on the planet. But I am sure it was just coincidence...
no, as I said we prepare for the changes instead of sticking our heads up some politicians ass and pretending nothing is happening.
but that would involve people like you divorcing your science from your politics...so i doubt it will ever happen.
I don't believe there is a problem. I see things from a biblical perspective. Nothing we can do about the coming judgement.If the population explosion is causing it, then do we reduce the population?I don't see the population having a big enough impact to change the climate. Climate changed before man was even here.I do believe man is partially responsible for the changes we are seeing, yet. The climate is always changing, but it has done so in predictable patterns, those are not being followed now for one reason or another.
Let me ask you this, human population took from the dawn of time till the start of the 1800s to reach 1 billion people. We then added another billion in another 130 year or so, and then the next billion in 60 years, and the next billion in less than 20 years. Is it really all that crazy to think that might have some sort of impact on our planet?
Yes, I have stated that the climate is always changing, doing so in fairly predictable patterns. Those patterns shifted about the time there was a population explosion of humans on the planet. But I am sure it was just coincidence...
no, as I said we prepare for the changes instead of sticking our heads up some politicians ass and pretending nothing is happening.
but that would involve people like you divorcing your science from your politics...so i doubt it will ever happen.
https://www.washingtonpost.com
2018 had a record low tornado count and predictions released this week say we will have even FEWER in 2019
Bout the time the left moves 9nto gloBULL cooling the cycle will change yet again. Just as it always has since the earths formation
https://www.washingtonpost.com
2018 had a record low tornado count and predictions released this week say we will have even FEWER in 2019
Bout the time the left moves 9nto gloBULL cooling the cycle will change yet again. Just as it always has since the earths formation
You are in over your head and you do not know it yet...How about you post up the science that proves you can push heat down through a thermocline..1. The laws of thermodynamics say it can not happen.Can you provide us the scientific explanation for both the amount of additional heat generated by increasing CO2 from 280 to 400 PPM and explain how atmospheric CO2 heats the deep ocean???
Let's say he could....it's not as if you would understand it.
2. Ocean thermoclines say it can not happen..
Yet some how you "believe".... Priceless....
Where did you get your degree in thermodynamics?
So you don't have a degree in thermodynamics? What do you have a degree in then?
If the population explosion is causing it, then do we reduce the population?I don't see the population having a big enough impact to change the climate. Climate changed before man was even here.Okay. So you believe man is responsible, correct?Well, yes I do because it is. That is not even up for debate. The only debate is the cause.
I believe it because I have read a lot of the subject from scientific journals and industry publications.
Even more than that I do so because while working on my Masters, for a class project I downloaded the data set for climate change; temps, solar activity, volcanic activity, CO2 levels. Then I ran the data through SPSS to see which variable had the most impact on the temperatures. CO2 was the clear winner of the analysis.
I do believe man is partially responsible for the changes we are seeing, yet. The climate is always changing, but it has done so in predictable patterns, those are not being followed now for one reason or another.
Let me ask you this, human population took from the dawn of time till the start of the 1800s to reach 1 billion people. We then added another billion in another 130 year or so, and then the next billion in 60 years, and the next billion in less than 20 years. Is it really all that crazy to think that might have some sort of impact on our planet?
Yes, I have stated that the climate is always changing, doing so in fairly predictable patterns. Those patterns shifted about the time there was a population explosion of humans on the planet. But I am sure it was just coincidence...
