Jump to content

Wanna-B-Fanboy

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    9,013

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Wanna-B-Fanboy

  5. The Environment Thread

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    2 hours ago, pigseye said:

    It's not that it might be wrong, it's that it can debunked by any first year physics student:

    The STUPIDITY of AGW.
     ----
     Trenberth's Energy Budget
     
     Incoming Solar Radiation = 342 w/m^2
    Solar Radiation Absorbed by atmosphere = 67 w/m^2
     -------------------
     (342 - 67) Leaves 275 w/m^2 available.
     
     Reflected by Clouds etc. = 77 w/m^2
     Reflected by Surface = 30 w/m^2
     Total due to reflection = 107 w/m^2
     
     The percentage of reflected energy is 107/275 = 0.389 or 38.9%.
     
     Leaves 168 w/m^2 absorbed by the Surface of the Earth.
     
     168 w/m^2 and an emissivity of 1, gives a temperature of 233.31K or -39.69 deg C.
     --------------------
     Now what happens if the reflected energy was decreased by 1% to 37.9%?
     
     0.379 X 275 = 104.23 w/m^2 so an additional (107 - 104.23 = 2.77 w/m^2) is available to heat the Earth.
     
     168 + 2.77 = 170.77 w/m^2 is now absorbed by the Surface of the Earth.
     
     170.77 w/m^2 and an emissivity of 1, gives a temperature of 234.26K or -38.74 deg C.
     --------------
     
     The Earth just warmed by (39.69 - 38.74) 0.95 deg C !!
     
     That's just due to a ONE PERCENT change in reflected energy!!
     
     -----------------
     Why the Hell is anybody talking about CO2, positive feed-back loops, carbon taxes etc. to explain something so easily explained?
     
     Especially since the AGW'ers admit that their "computer models" can't and don't handle CLOUDS well and the SUN is the ONLY ENERGY SOURCE!
     -----------------
     AGW is UTTER STUPIDITY no matter how you look at it!
     
     
     

    I don't understand why you are posting a specific reply (re: cherry pick) from a notorious troll on www.skepticalscience.com. You are being silly.

     

    Seriously, it's all here: https://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php?p=10&t=1168&&a=18#3421

    I mean Gord even gets schooled by another poster, Patrick 027- why would you even post the above when it was pretty much dismissed/disproven on the next page?

    Anyways, not sure why you are so anti-science.

  6. The Environment Thread

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, pigseye said:

    Neither is science a foolproof method for producing absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision. The entire history of science is littered with discarded theories once thought to be incontrovertible truths.

    Yup- that is the beauty of science... if new material comes to light that dispels a theory- it's trashed and you start again. Science states what holds to be true at that moment. What you are suggesting is basing truth on the fact science "might" be wrong in the future, despite what the evidence shows us at this moment- that is insane. 

     

     

     

  7. The Environment Thread

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    58 minutes ago, pigseye said:

    Caught cooking the data again

    http://www.cfact.org/2016/02/02/stats-tampering-puts-noaa-in-hot-water/

    http://www.cfact.org/2016/01/26/measuring-global-temperatures-satellites-or-thermometers/

     

     

     

    Yeeeeeeaah... I am going to go with the consensus of the scientific community on this one (Before you scream "NOT 100%!!!"), not some special interest undermine outfit like climate depot, as and extension of  CFACT, funded by donors trust with notable money men like Koch family and so on... 

    Cherry picking data at it's best. 

     

    Seriously- what is with the anti-science crowd? How can you be against evidence based decision making?

  18. Upcoming Movies

    in General Discussion

    Posted

    On 2/26/2016 at 8:39 AM, The Unknown Poster said:

    The indications are the "R" would come from violence.

    This reminds me of a terrible joke I like to bust out every so often.  "Did you hear about the new pirate move?  It's rated Arrrrrrrrrr".

     

  22. Free Agency 2016...

    in Blue Bomber Discussion

    Posted · Edited by wanna-b-fanboy

    1 hour ago, rebusrankin said:

    3 games with BC in 2014, 1 with thid Riders last year. The fact that two clubs have gotten rid of him is a concern.

    Training camp fodder.

    I think we will be seeing a few less than IDeal OLmen signed IN the next little While to fill I

  24. Assuming were done with FA, whats left on the shopping list?

    in Blue Bomber Discussion

    Posted · Edited by wanna-b-fanboy

    14 minutes ago, wbbfan said:

    Need depth at NI rb, some one who can carry the ball and back up. To start a ratio breaking nuck you gotta have another ready to start in case of injury.

     Aside from that, Depth at OL and a guy or two to push for a starters job, high up side QB to groom, Couple tall Wrs who can push or grow under the guys we have. Think we could still use more competition and depth at returner. Guys who can cover and guys who can pass rush to push guys we have. Pretty happy with our roster so far, not done but certainly shaping up very nicely. 

    Yup, need another serviceable back up in case our NI-RB goes down- but it does not need to be at the same position. 

×
×
  • Create New...