• Here is a link to the full explanation: https://rollitup.org/t/welcome-back-did-you-try-turning-it-off-and-on-again.1104810/

Liberal censorship - We know you can burn a book, but can you light a kindle?

Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
17555_306799619424_42798_n.jpg

I've read all 12 pages of this nonsense. All I can really contribute in good faith is to unveil that Uncle Ben must be involved in some kind of massive ugly social face fuck, that everyone has bought into... How quickly retarded bullshit responses are forgotten in the shadow of fame. I think the clout from his "unquantifiably rad"" topping techniques" thread has clouded his judgment/and clarity. What an old and boring piece of bulshippy technology....Someone should cleave him from the herd and leave him to die in the wilderness...Just my opinion, of course. However, I will not lose my resolve as a Soldier, and I will march forward even if I have to do so alone....


Uncle Ben said:
Liberals don't like being told the truth
Click to expand...
Neither, do useless righty-wannabe-bigots w/out any capability to form original thoughts......
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
where? .
Click to expand...
He is correct. That was why I wanted to check the data for myself, to see if that claim was accurate.
Based on my annual averages compilation of the HADCRUT4--which is essentially identical to LOTI--it appears the rate of warming has paused for the past 17 years, BUT if I am using the annual avgs, the 1997-2000 period is a little wobbly.
That's why I need to sit down and go through the monthly data (12x the points) to see if it really extends back to '97.
But the format of the LOTI data was driving me nuts (I should have just processed it in Excel, then imported it into IGOR).
Maybe next weekend I'll tackle that project if this debate is still carrying on.

Oh, and for the record Buck, I am not a fan of the consensus (that is not science any more than American Idol), but otherwise I do believe humans have an effect.
It's all about the magnitude and unknowns where my skivvies get bunched up my crack.
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
He is correct. That was why I wanted to check the data for myself, to see if that claim was accurate.
Based on my annual averages compilation of the HADCRUT4--which is essentially identical to LOTI--it appears the rate of warming has paused for the past 17 years, BUT if I am using the annual avgs, the 1997-2000 period is a little wobbly.
That's why I need to sit down and go through the monthly data (12x the points) to see if it really extends back to '97.
But the format of the LOTI data was driving me nuts (I should have just processed it in Excel, then imported it into IGOR).
Maybe next weekend I'll tackle that project if this debate is still carrying on.

Oh, and for the record Buck, I am not a fan of the consensus (that is not science any more than American Idol), but otherwise I do believe humans have an effect.
It's all about the magnitude and unknowns where my skivvies get bunched up my crack.
Click to expand...
you said that the line still had an upward trend, and restricted your data set to a more recent one to make your point more poignant.

just saying.
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
UncleBuck said:
you said that the line still had an upward trend, and restricted your data set to a more recent one to make your point more poignant.

just saying.
Click to expand...
That is correct, too. However, the magnitude of the upward trend was small relative to the temp scale.
Even that "flat-line" if you look ever so carefully has an upward slope. But in comparison to the OVERALL rate prior to that period, it is practically flat, relative to prediction.
I believe that is the proposed "pausing" argument.

Here's a couple more graphs to show what I'm talking about:

Graph0_1a.png

So here is the 1997-2014 linear regression. Indeed, it is upward sloping, at ~0.005(K/yr)

Graph0_1b.png
While this prior period from 1976-1997 (which jibes with the IPCC prediction) is going up 0.016(K/yr)

What we are seeing is a three-fold reduction using the (less accurate) annual avgs.
However, GHGs have only gone UP, not down.
This is a dilemma!
But I don't like this kind of broad averaging, I need to get the monthly numbers in there, which will make the annual oscillations more noticeable, and may verify the pausing argument more forcefully.
We'll see... ;)
 
UncleBuck

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
heckler73 said:
That is correct, too. However, the magnitude of the upward trend was small relative to the temp scale.
Even that "flat-line" if you look ever so carefully has an upward slope. But in comparison to the OVERALL rate prior to that period, it is practically flat, relative to prediction.
I believe that is the proposed "pausing" argument.

Here's a couple more graphs to show what I'm talking about:

View attachment 3011552

So here is the 1997-2014 linear regression. Indeed, it is upward sloping, at ~0.005(K/yr)

View attachment 3011553
While this prior period from 1976-1997 (which jibes with the IPCC prediction) is going up 0.016(K/yr)

What we are seeing is a three-fold reduction using the (less accurate) annual avgs.
However, GHGs have only gone UP, not down.
This is a dilemma!
But I don't like this kind of broad averaging, I need to get the monthly numbers in there, which will make the annual oscillations more noticeable, and may verify the pausing argument more forcefully.
We'll see... ;)
Click to expand...
fair enough, i suppose i just don't see the dilemma like you do.

as i noted last night, there are many reasons why we may be seeing a bit of a slowdown in the rise of temps.

to say there is no warming going on in the last 17 years while the ross ice shelf melts (coincidentally, from the bottom up, where it meets the ocean) and oceans rise and greenland thaws is alarmist in the other direction, not to mention false.
 
MuyLocoNC

MuyLocoNC

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
There's no good reason not to transition to alternative energy sources. It's inevitable either way you cut it, there's nothing you can do about it
Click to expand...
Boy, you sure got me there. Except I'm on record dozens of times in favor of alternative energy. Can't wait for my all electric solar powered Humvee. I can't wait to throw up a few solar panels and never pay an electric bill again. It might even happen at the end of my lifetime.

What I won't support is technology that isn't anywhere near ready being forced into mass use by artificially raising the cost of current sources. If someone creates a solution that is cost effective and attractive to the public, it will replace fossil fuels without any government or Eco-Loon intervention.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
Pinworm said:
I've read all 12 pages of this nonsense.
Click to expand...
Really? This after attaining the self-ascribed status for being the RIU Poster Child of Nothingness starting with that stupid avatar of yours?

If the shoe fits wear it....just hum a few bars here and you'll be fine.

[video=youtube;LcKOIR84-SM]http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LcKOIR84-SM[/video]
 
Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
Really? This after attaining the self-ascribed status for being the RIU Poster Child of Nothingness starting with that stupid avatar of yours?

If the shoe fits wear it....just hum a few bars here and you'll be fine.
Click to expand...
[video=youtube;Twz_2Buh3GI]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twz_2Buh3GI[/video]


Awe. Does my avatar upset the smelly hippy? I'm genuinely upset. *sadpanda* Can you even afford a haircut? Me and my "useless" friends will cut it off for free....
 
Pinworm

Pinworm

Well-Known Member
[video=youtube;yPR81mJ0VWA]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yPR81mJ0VWA[/video]

sUPER CEREAL GUYS!!!!!!! MMMKAY!!! urncle ben omfg!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!
 
Red1966

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
Yeah, sorry, work, you know how it is.. I stand by the universal scientific consensus. If you think one study or one paper that hasn't been peer reviewed will sway anyone, you're a fool Meanwhile you still can't come up with anything that would change your mind - proof positive that you're a political hack. You even admitted you believe this issue is political, not scientific. You're an idiot. You can't stand that the science is settled and the only thing you have to rely on is the people who are just as dumb as you are in congress who vote according to their campaign contributors, not the American peoples interests. Politics isn't science, that's the only reason this controversy exists, and it's the only reason it doesn't exist within the scientific community. You've been owned, scientifically, factually, economically, politically...
Click to expand...
You seem to think you've somehow bested him. You haven't. Your argument seems to consist of "Evey single scientist in the world agrees with me. Those that don't (never mind I said everyone) are liars. I smart, you dumb. I win! I win! I win!" You haven't "owned" anyone. That you think you have speaks volumes.
 
S

schuylaar

Well-Known Member
Pinworm said:
View attachment 3011524

I've read all 12 pages of this nonsense. All I can really contribute in good faith is to unveil that Uncle Ben must be involved in some kind of massive ugly social face fuck, that everyone has bought into... How quickly retarded bullshit responses are forgotten in the shadow of fame. I think the clout from his "unquantifiably rad"" topping techniques" thread has clouded his judgment/and clarity. What an old and boring piece of bulshippy technology....Someone should cleave him from the herd and leave him to die in the wilderness...Just my opinion, of course. However, I will not lose my resolve as a Soldier, and I will march forward even if I have to do so alone....



Neither, do useless righty-wannabe-bigots w/out any capability to form original thoughts......
Click to expand...
is uncle ben famous?

cleve away..
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
Red1966 said:
You seem to think you've somehow bested him. You haven't. Your argument seems to consist of "Evey single scientist in the world agrees with me. Those that don't (never mind I said everyone) are liars. I smart, you dumb. I win! I win! I win!" You haven't "owned" anyone. That you think you have speaks volumes.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately for you that is how science works!

Less than 3% isn't shit, the science continues while you dummies kick and scream

Owned!
 
heckler73

heckler73

Well-Known Member
Why can't gay people buy cakes?
CARBON TAX !

[video=youtube;Ol-cVMz9wLE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ol-cVMz9wLE[/video]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top