This Will Be The Test For Man Made Climate Change

[alpine]

Can you deal with over 1 terabites in data?

its not terabites... its terabytes...
i deal with 1tb of data for breakfast...

Wouldn't 1tb be 1 terabits? I thought Bytes was represented by an upper case B.

By that measure then, 1tb = 125GB, right?

As a true scientist, I'm sure you are right atop these finer details.

he didnt type terabits... i guess you cant read either... he typed terabites... and i just realized even chrome throws and error and marks it red when you type terabites... i mean its that apparent he is bullshitting, even to a dumb chrome browser... and yet you give this troll any credibility and assume he knows something about anything...

and as a true data person, i dont care about bits...
no true data person does...

trying to do bits calculations just shows you are clueless and yet full of opinions...
dont ask me how thats possible...
i am merely watching it folding here...

 

[Billy_Bob]

If an increase in CO2 has lead to an increase in global warming and climate change then removing so large an amount as 3 billion tons a year will have to effect a DECREASE in global warming and climate change as well! How is that hard to understand?

Because it's just shows how innumerate you are.

Say I add $100 to my bank account each week.

Then my pay is cut by 7%, so I only add $93 to my bank account each week.

According to you, that means my bank balance will _decrease_.

And that accounts for everyone laughing at you.

Too funny;

The earth has a "use of money" rate you fail to understand.... CO2 is not like a bank account where it just piles up. There is a half life of just 3 years meaning that half of the co2 we create is absorbed within 3 years of its creation, whether it be from natural or man made sources.

The only person being laughed at is you... A 7% decrease in money in, coupled with the flow out, causes massive changes rapidly in our atmosphere.

Give it up. You do not have a clue...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can you deal with over 1 terabites in data?

its not terabites... its terabytes...
i deal with 1tb of data for breakfast...

Wouldn't 1tb be 1 terabits? I thought Bytes was represented by an upper case B.

By that measure then, 1tb = 125GB, right?

As a true scientist, I'm sure you are right atop these finer details.

he didnt type terabits... i guess you cant read either... he typed terabites... and i just realized even chrome throws and error and marks it red when you type terabites... i mean its that apparent he is bullshitting, even to a dumb chrome browser... and yet you give this troll any credibility and assume he knows something about anything...

and as a true data person, i dont care about bits...
no true data person does...

trying to do bits calculations just shows you are clueless and yet full of opinions...
dont ask me how thats possible...
i am merely watching it folding here...

As I predicted, no ability for rational discussion.

You have no want of rational discussion as your focused on minor errors and not the root of the issue so you can claim superiority. Your a troll.

 

[alpine]

Can you deal with over 1 terabites in data?

its not terabites... its terabytes...
i deal with 1tb of data for breakfast...

Wouldn't 1tb be 1 terabits? I thought Bytes was represented by an upper case B.

By that measure then, 1tb = 125GB, right?

As a true scientist, I'm sure you are right atop these finer details.

he didnt type terabits... i guess you cant read either... he typed terabites... and i just realized even chrome throws and error and marks it red when you type terabites... i mean its that apparent he is bullshitting, even to a dumb chrome browser... and yet you give this troll any credibility and assume he knows something about anything...

and as a true data person, i dont care about bits...
no true data person does...

trying to do bits calculations just shows you are clueless and yet full of opinions...
dont ask me how thats possible...
i am merely watching it folding here...

As I predicted, no ability for rational discussion.

You have no want of rational discussion as your focused on minor errors and not the root of the issue so you can claim superiority. Your a troll.

i didnt focus on your error to begin with...
look at my reply to you...
i just fixed the error and moved on and asked the link...

up until this other guy arrived and tried to defend that blatant mistake no true data guy would do with a page long calculations, trying to mock me in the process....

if you had that mistake in your resume applying for any data position, you should know you wouldnt get hired unless it is the clueless hr chicks doing the hiring and checking your resume but nobody else...
i am fixing an obvious error which should impact anyones credibility,
not making any case out of it but just fix it,
and being mocked as a result...

you tell me about rational discussion now...

 

[ReinyDays]

Can you deal with over 1 terabites in data?

No problem ... what's the algorithm you're using to get your results? ... sounds like total bullshit to me, so go ahead and lay out your Terabyte of data and show us what you're doing with it to get your results ...

Calling your bluff ...

 

[ReinyDays]

Let me simplify this for our resident alarmists. There are 36 primary drivers of our atmosphere and another 147 secondary drivers in five thermal layers. The interactions of each of these on the others must be known if one is to understand the relationships and how our atmosphere works.

To add insult to injury there are some 120 surface drivers and those relationships with the atmospheric ones must also be derived.

No file less than 1Tb can contain enough data to get even a basic deviation file. Our current GCM's (Global Circulation Model) calculate just 26 of these variables (using just 1tb of data). Each variable has an equation to all others. This is a very long and complex series of problems.

What are these 36 primary drivers and 147 secondary drivers? ... 120 surface drivers? ...

Each variable has an equation to all others. This is a very long and complex series of problems.

Part and parcel of meteorology ... please post these relationships and how you're using them to get your results ...

 

[toobfreak]

he didnt type terabits... i guess you cant read either... he typed terabites...

Well maybe it was just autocorrect. Maybe the intended word was trilobites. That was a little sea creature from long ago. Or maybe the word was Alphabits, that is an old children's breakfast cereal.

I'm just trying to be as helpful as is possible for a deplorable Trump supporter.

BTW, did you know that despite all of Trump's terrible policies bringing back coal and becoming an energy exporter that in 2019, his USA still lead the world in having the greatest reduction in CO2 as well? You probably didn't know that as the climate whackjobs don't want to credit that it's possible to grow business, lower regulations, improve the job market AND reduce carbon emissions all at the same time . . . .

 

[alpine]

he didnt type terabits... i guess you cant read either... he typed terabites...

Well maybe it was just autocorrect. Maybe the intended word was trilobites. That was a little sea creature from long ago. Or maybe the word was Alphabits, that is an old children's breakfast cereal.

I'm just trying to be as helpful as is possible for a deplorable Trump supporter.

BTW, did you know that despite all of Trump's terrible policies bringing back coal and becoming an energy exporter that in 2019, his USA still lead the world in having the greatest reduction in CO2 as well? You probably didn't know that as the climate whackjobs don't want to credit that it's possible to grow business, lower regulations, improve the job market AND reduce carbon emissions all at the same time . . . .

it was not auto correct...
auto-correct doesnt correct corrects to mistakes...
i didnt make a big deal out of it but you did...
and tried to mock me doing it...
you can support any lunatic you like, i dont care, just be honest like i am...
stop trying to defend the ignorance here and try to move on like i did...

"BTW, did you know that despite all of Trump's terrible policies bringing back coal and becoming an energy exporter that in 2019, his USA still lead the world in having the greatest reduction in CO2 as well?"

but not before bumping it up the year before more that what it was dropped in 2019...
and for fracking, thank obama admin, not trump...
if it was up to trump, he would probably replace renewables with coal as well...
thank god it didnt make any economic sense for the market...
otherwise with trump in office they probably would have dig till the end of the world for profits...

 

[toobfreak]

And that accounts for everyone laughing at you.

Too funny;
The earth has a "use of money" rate you fail to understand.... CO2 is not like a bank account where it just piles up. There is a half life of just 3 years meaning that half of the co2 we create is absorbed within 3 years of its creation, whether it be from natural or man made sources.
The only person being laughed at is you... A 7% decrease in money in, coupled with the flow out, causes massive changes rapidly in our atmosphere.
Give it up. You do not have a clue...

I gotta tell you, Bob, I never said I was a climate expert, my forte is more in the electrical field but I worked in an electronic R&D lab years ago developing stuff for communications and I have to say that in my life's experience, I've just never seen an engine where you can cut back on the fuel you are feeding into it yet it still keeps building more energy out of it picking up speed as the climate alarmers keep telling me!

That would seem to violate the basic laws of the universe.

It means we are getting energy from nothing. I guess CO2 is the gift that just keeps giving and giving and giving.

Speaking of ICE motors, I've built a hot rod or two in my youth and did you know that even just a little roughness along the surface of the insides of the intake manifold can affect the horsepower produced? That's why pro race drivers polish surfaces such as these.

But Earth's atmosphere shares no such sensitivity-- -- you can chop the greatest reduction in CO2 since WWII and still it just keeps growing and growing, getting worse all the time!

I actually just did a little research in the matter and according to one study, this year's Covid cutback has put us back to where we were 30 years ago as far what we are dumping into the air.

20 years before that, they were telling us we were heading for another ice age.

Another article said that the last time CO2 was at 410ppm, was 3-5 million years ago! That was back before the Stone Age when the Woolly Mammoth and Mastodon were first appearing.

Now why would the Earth create such cold-weather creatures when it was hell on earth and not even any air conditioning?

BTW, we are at 7% reduction right now. Another study said that the 2015 Paris Climate Treaty called for a reduction of 2C, but the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) subsequently determined that 1.5C is a far safer temperature guardrail.

They determined that if we just go a little higher (to 7.6% reduction) and stay there a few years, we can hit that recommended ideal 1.5C mark that will save the world.

Yet we are being told to forget about seeing any benefit from 2020's 7% drop.

Color me cornfused.

Meantime, another report put methane in the same category as CO2 as far as GHGs are concerned! Well, THAT'S JUST NOT TRUE. The two cannot even be compared.

The one thing I concluded in this reading is that if the climate alarmists have their way, ALL HUMAN ACTIVITY is harmful to the Earth! Just our being here is bad. Everything we do produces carbon. I'm a logical man and there is just no way that man can live and have a ZERO CARBON footprint! Can't be done. Nothing on this planet has a zero carbon footprint.

The Earth is made of carbon and created us with carbon intending us to need, want and use carbon because we ARE carbon and you can't do anything, not even fart or scratch your balls, without affecting carbon. Apparently the Earth created man with carbon as the first result of biological growth whose inevitability is to destroy the Earth just for being. That makes humanity Earth's single bad mistake.

Global CO2 emissions to drop 4-7% in 2020, but will it matter?

Global CO2 emissions from fossil fuels are set to drop by up to seven percent in 2020 because of the coronavirus pandemic, but even this dramatic decline—the sharpest since WWII—would barely dent longterm global warming, researchers reported Tuesday.

phys.org

Good news? Earth's carbon dioxide emissions had record drop this year during the pandemic

Carbon dioxide emissions, which are the leading cause of global warming, fell by 7% in 2020, according to the report from the Global Carbon Project.

www.usatoday.com

Record CO2 emissions drop in 2020 won't do much to halt climate change

A record 7 per cent drop in global carbon emissions this year will make no difference to long-term climate change, say researchers

www.newscientist.com

 

[toobfreak]

it was not auto correct...
auto-correct doesnt correct corrects to mistakes...

Ahh c'mon, Piney! I was just ribbing you a bit.

Can't you take a joke? It's Christmas. Lighten up.

 

[ReinyDays]

I gotta tell you, Bob, I never said I was a climate expert, my forte is more in the electrical field

No, you're on the right track ... turning down the POT will drop less voltage ... and you're spot on correct about rate of change ...

But let's see the equation in 300 variables that Bob will be posting soon ...

 

[mamooth]

The earth has a "use of money" rate you fail to understand....

And that use rate is still way below emission levels, so CO2 is still increasing.

This is basic stuff, and you fail completely at it. You shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

This isn't an argument. CO2 levels are still increasing. We freakin' measure it directly. You're just wrong and stupid.

 

[mamooth]

you can chop the greatest reduction in CO2 since WWII and still it just keeps growing and growing, getting worse all the time!

Since rate and level are different things, everyone expects that.

I actually just did a little research in the matter and according to one study, this year's Covid cutback has put us back to where we were 30 years ago as far what we are dumping into the air.

Where do you get this stuff?

1990: 22.4 billion tons
2020: 37 billion tons

20 years before that, they were telling us we were heading for another ice age.

Your side was saying that, yes, but ours was correclty predicting warming. Another reason to ignore your side. You've been getting it all wrong for 40+ years now, and we've been getting it all right over that span.

Another article said that the last time CO2 was at 410ppm, was 3-5 million years ago! That was back before the Stone Age when the Woolly Mammoth and Mastodon were first appearing.

And the temperature was 2C-3C higher, and sea levels were 50-75 feet highter. How about that.

Now why would the Earth create such cold-weather creatures when it was hell on earth and not even any air conditioning?

Because ... get this .... there was still an arctic. Did you really think the entire planet was hot?

They determined that if we just go a little higher (to 7.6% reduction) and stay there a few years, we can hit that recommended ideal 1.5C mark that will save the world.

Again, that's level, not emissions.

Yet we are being told to forget about seeing any benefit from 2020's 7% drop.

Color me cornfused.

Yes, you can't distinguish between emission amounts and atmospheric levels. That's just your problem.

 

[toobfreak]

The earth has a "use of money" rate you fail to understand....

And that use rate is still way below emission levels, so CO2 is still increasing.

BUT IT ISN'T INCREASING AT THE SAME RATE AS IT WAS A YEAR AGO.

You can't expect to feed a different amount of energy into a system and still see the same energy at the output.

That would be like letting off the gas going up a hill and still picking up speed.

Any two year old could get that.

 

[toobfreak]

Your side was saying that, yes, but ours was correclty predicting warming.

I had no side in 1970 and no one was predicting global warming then.

Yes, you can't distinguish between emission amounts and atmospheric levels

Any fool can see that levels are the result of emissions, if emissions change, so then must levels.

 

[mamooth]

BUT IT ISN'T INCREASING AT THE SAME RATE AS IT WAS A YEAR AGO.

Yes, but it's still increasing.

You can't expect to feed a different amount of energy into a system and still see the same energy at the output.

Since CO2 isn't energy, that analogy is senseless.

Let's start with the basics. Do you understand that CO2 isn't energy?

 

[mamooth]

Any fool can see that levels are the result of emissions, if emissions change, so then must levels.

And that change is that the levels keep going up at a slightly slower rate.

Well, any non-fool. The innumerate fools will think it means levels go down. There's little point in trying to reason with people that devoid of common sense.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, but it's still increasing.

Less. A change of input = a change of output. They even have a law for that called Norton's Theorem.

Since CO2 isn't energy, that analogy is senseless.

Of course it's energy. It is a stimulus going into a system that accomplishes work. You admit that every time you say that our putting CO2 into the climate system causes it to trap and store more heat. It takes energy to accomplish work. The work done was modifying Earth to be a better retainer of solar energy. You better go back to grade school because apparently you slept through 9th grade science.

 

[toobfreak]

Yes, but it's still increasing.

Less. A change of input = a change of output. They even have a law for that called Norton's Theorem.

Since CO2 isn't energy, that analogy is senseless.

Of course it's energy. It is a stimulus going into a system that accomplishes work. You admit that every time you say that our putting CO2 into the climate system causes it to trap and store more heat. It takes energy to accomplish work. The work done was modifying Earth to be a better retainer of solar energy. You better go back to grade school because apparently you slept through 9th grade science.

 

[mamooth]

Less. A change of input = a change of output. They even have a law for that called Norton's Theorem.

Which in no way addresses the point that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, just at a slightly slower rate.

Of course it's energy.

Sweet Jeebus, no. CO2 is matter, not energy.

It is a stimulus going into a system that accomplishes work.

Fuzzy meaningless gobbldeegook.

You admit that every time you say that our putting CO2 into the climate system causes it to trap and store more heat.

So by your definitions, a wool blanket is energy, because it traps heat.

Your definitions are clearly insane.