Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds up, leaving litt...

[yes]

yes

[litesong]

SpaceBlues wrote:

..... you don't really really know that the sun is NOT a nuclear reaction.

SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).

[Teddy R]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text> Come on. Can't you tell the sun is not a nuclear reaction but it has such.
Reaction is a technical term, e.g. chemical reaction.

Yeh - as I thought - you're just trolling some piece of BS semantic sophistry.

(spits out bait)

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>By the way, you actually showed your true colors when you dropped the A in AGW in your reply to Fair Game. Here's the latest from PNAS, just acquired after another search:
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/01/03/...
.. "to avoid significantly elevated sea level in the long term, atmospheric CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
It's the A, it's the A,...

My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.

I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.

Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.

The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."

By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?

In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Jealous, you are because you can NOT cut and paste.
You posted 2H, 3H, 4He, etc. Furthermore, you don't really really know that the sun is NOT a nuclear reaction.
Clearly, you never took any science classes.

So after all days and days you finally admit you really really don't know. You only have cut and paste. Here is your cahnce to show your own work and prove the sun is not a nuclear reaction.

[SpaceBlues]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).

Nah.

thermonuclear reaction
n
(Physics / Nuclear Physics) a nuclear fusion reaction occurring at a very high temperature: responsible for the energy produced in the sun, nuclear weapons, and fusion reactors See nuclear fusion, hydrogen bomb
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/thermonuclea...

Do you read "occurring at?"

A reaction occurs or takes place. Our sun is a star in its nuclear fusion phase.

It's wrong to call it a nuclear reaction. But you may call it a nuclear (or a fusion) reactor.

[PHD]

litesong wrote:

<quoted text>
SpaceBlues......... The sun IS a nuclear reaction. Specifically, it is in thermonuclear reaction, the equivalent, and the very same energy produced, as 10,000,000,000(billion) one megaton theromonuclear bombs detonating every second(10 trillion bombs every 15 minutes).

Sorry you had a falling out with space blues. Remember if space blues says it isn't than it isn’t.

[SpaceBlues]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Yeh - as I thought - you're just trolling some piece of BS semantic sophistry.
(spits out bait)
<quoted text>
My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.
I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.
Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.
The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?
In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.

It just happens that scientists rely on definitions to communicate. It is absolutely wrong to call a reactor instead a reaction.

Why don't you look up the words, reactor and reaction!

It was a big hook that caught you.

As to your dropping A of AGW, you have no basis at all.

That hook is still hurting you, so it shows. You just wanted to be a denier on the sly.

[SpaceBlues]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>Sorry you had a falling out with space blues. Remember if space blues says it isn't than it isn’t.

Go find a hobby away from here.

[SpaceBlues]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>

My true colors? Horsecrap. You have no basis for thinking you know _anything_ about my views on the anthro part of AGW theory.
I merely observed the Alaska paper FG was having such a hissy-fit over didn't address the anthropogenic origins of global climatic warming, one way or the other.

Read from Wendler's paper:

In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska
of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing
CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily
modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations.

See "increasing CO2 and other trace gases?" That's where anthro part comes in.

[SpaceBlues]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Now - as for the paper you've linked - thanks; I shall give it a read at my leisure.
The quote you cite is intriguiing - " ... CO2 should be reduced to levels similar to those of preindustrial times."
By what means? On the geological timescales this paper is examining?
In the long run, we'll all be dead, of course - but as I say I shall give it a read. Thanks for the link.

You are welcome.

[Teddy R]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text> It is absolutely wrong to call a reactor instead a reaction.

Yep - a bullsh!t troll (yawn). Sophist. Serious scientists don't indulge in it. You do ... ergo ...

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>As to your dropping A of AGW, you have no basis at all.

More sophomoric horsesh!t from you. Real scientists rely on precision in terms. The specific paper under discussion made reference to the global climatic warming trend, but did not address the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, at all. Use of GW rather than AGW in this specific context is precisely correct.

Simple and accurate statement of fact - tells you nothing whatsoever of my personal views regarding the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise. I may be an AGW "denier" or an unquestioning AGW true believer like yourself, or I may hold some more nuanced view in between these extremes.

I choose not to share my views on this aspect with you - as you have yet to demontrate you're worthy of my taking the time to do so. I have to say your unscientific and unprofessional attitude and behavior thus far makes it very unlikely you will ever know my views on the subject.

If you were truly and honestly "all about the science," my personal views on the causal mechanisms behind GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, and the scientific evidence for them wouldn't be such an obsessive fixation for you. Real scientists don't give a fig for the kind of unscientific partisan cheerleading appeal to numbers you wallow in so obsessively. As Einstein commented in response to a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, "If I were wrong, one would be enough."

You don't evidence that kind of integrity, courage and quiet faith in the correctness of your science. It hardly inspires such confidence in others ...

[Teddy R]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Read from Wendler's paper:
In summary, the long term observed warming of Alaska
of about twice the global value, as expected by the increasing
CO2 and other trace gases, is sometimes temporarily
modified or even reversed by natural decadal variations.
See "increasing CO2 and other trace gases?" That's where anthro part comes in.

I understand that's your view, yes.

[SpaceBlues]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
I understand that's your view, yes.

No, you don't.

You are a biased bystander here.

[SpaceBlues]

Teddy R wrote:

<quoted text>
Yep - a bullsh!t troll (yawn). Sophist. Serious scientists don't indulge in it. You do ... ergo ...
<quoted text>
More sophomoric horsesh!t from you. Real scientists rely on precision in terms. The specific paper under discussion made reference to the global climatic warming trend, but did not address the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, at all. Use of GW rather than AGW in this specific context is precisely correct.
Simple and accurate statement of fact - tells you nothing whatsoever of my personal views regarding the causal factors behind this GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise. I may be an AGW "denier" or an unquestioning AGW true believer like yourself, or I may hold some more nuanced view in between these extremes.
I choose not to share my views on this aspect with you - as you have yet to demontrate you're worthy of my taking the time to do so. I have to say your unscientific and unprofessional attitude and behavior thus far makes it very unlikely you will ever know my views on the subject.
If you were truly and honestly "all about the science," my personal views on the causal mechanisms behind GW, anthropomorphic or otherwise, and the scientific evidence for them wouldn't be such an obsessive fixation for you. Real scientists don't give a fig for the kind of unscientific partisan cheerleading appeal to numbers you wallow in so obsessively. As Einstein commented in response to a pamphlet was published entitled 100 Authors Against Einstein, "If I were wrong, one would be enough."
You don't evidence that kind of integrity, courage and quiet faith in the correctness of your science. It hardly inspires such confidence in others ...

I reverse all the name calling back at you.

You have no idea about me. I don't care about your personal views.

You can't handle the science.

[SpaceBlues]

Teddy R is caught not knowing this type of definition:

A nuclear reactor is a device to initiate and control a sustained nuclear chain reaction.[From Wikipedia]

Oh well, he has all the characteristics of a denier, including name calling.

[Teddy R]

SpaceBlues wrote:

Teddy R is caught not knowing this type of definition:
A nuclear reactor is a device to initiate and control a sustained nuclear chain reaction.[From Wikipedia]
Oh well, he has all the characteristics of a denier, including name calling.

Woh. Wiki?(shiver) No arguing with that - I must bow to the authority of Wiki. Nice shootin,' Tex - ya got me.

But - "name calling?" What "names" have I "called" you? Or anyone?

Oooooh. And I have "all the characteristics of a "DENIER!!!"

Just what are those characteristics, exactly? Did I not genuflect promptly enough when you tinkled your little jingle-bell? Did I not proclaim "AGW Akbar!!!" with sufficient vigor or something?

PLEEZE let me know - I SO want to be one of the Cool Kids in the AGW Club, Mr. Wizard!!!

/sarc

[tina anne]

Fair Game wrote:

<quoted text>
A spnaking by tina seems to be a common theme in your posts. A phudd phantasy.

Like how your post lack any facts to back your claims. Or how you refer to those who prove you wrong as liars.

It seems like you are the one who has naughty fantasies about being over my knee with me applying a paddle to your rear.

[tina anne]

gcaveman1 wrote:

<quoted text>
If it's any consolation, Teener, I don't think you're lying.
I think you're too stupid to know how to lie.

I think you need to think that. Otherwise you might have to consider that I am right and your mind is incapable of handling something like that.

Or as Jack Nickolas said in a Few Good Men,'You can't handle the truth'.

[tina anne]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>No, you don't.
You are a biased bystander here.

And your not biased, sure right.

[litesong]

tina anne wrote:

..... as Jack Nickolas said in a Few Good Men,'You can't handle the truth'.

Jack Nickolas? There was Jack Nickolaus, the golfer? Was he in a Few Good Men?

There was this guy.......
http://www.google.com/imgres...

But he wasn't that good a golfer, was he?