Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Washington Post)   April was the 326th consecutive month with above average global temperatures, but this of course in no way proves that global warming may be occuring   (washingtonpost.com ) divider line
    More: Obvious, climate, El Nino, sea surface temperature, Arctic Oscillation, Arctic sea ice, global warming  
•       •       •

4285 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 May 2012 at 5:28 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



541 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-05-16 01:22:14 PM  

Jon Snow: nicksteel: This is another one of your dishonest statements. What I said is that there is no such thing as an optimum temperature and you agreed. So why do you keep this up? It is extremely childish of you because you are well aware of what I said.

I guess I just imagined you claiming the global average temperature doesn't exist? And claiming that no one knows what the global average temperature is? Oh, no wait, that's exactly what you did:

nicksteel: there is no such thing as an average global temperature

nicksteel: 1, Can't, [Global temperature] does not exit [sic]

nicksteel: Nobody knows what the average global temperature is


Don't forget though that this is fark - words mean whatever he thinks they mean at the time, and may change meaning in any way that's convenient for him and inconvenient for anyone else.

This may explain it
 
2012-05-16 01:41:01 PM  
I'm going to need to see at least a hundred more graphs before I can determine if it's safe for me to start burning Styrofoam in my front yard again.
 
2012-05-16 02:29:30 PM  

T.rex: I guess i will have to express my ignorance then... i always thought global warming was supposedly happening in response to the ozone layer hole, not our carbon footprint... I thought the sun was supposedly hitting us unimpeded, which was the problem...


This is incorrect. We've actually made significant progress in restoring ozone levels, courtesy of the Montreal Protocols. NASA has a high-level overview here. Ozone absorbs certain ultraviolet wavelengths that are medically important (skin cancer), but not so much total energy that it factors detectably into the temperature.

T.rex: So really, by global warming theory, the sun isn't really doing anything different to us, at all. Its just that the planet is heating up... interesting... interesting... Not sure how this changes my view of the theory.


We know from direct measurements that the sun's activity, if anything, has pointed slightly towards cooling for the past several decades. The temperature continues to climb because the changes to the earth's atmosphere cause it to trap a greater fraction of the energy deposited by the sun. Specifically, carbon dioxide and methane do a very good job of keeping in infrared energy, given off by the ground in response to being struck by the incoming (visible) light.

This was understood as far back as 1824 (Joseph Fourier), and as early as 1896 you can find papers discussing the predicted impact of changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Over the next century and change, we've accumulated a lot more data regarding how much warming, but the basic principle (the 'greenhouse effect') remains intact.
 
2012-05-16 03:22:10 PM  

chimp_ninja: T.rex: I guess i will have to express my ignorance then... i always thought global warming was supposedly happening in response to the ozone layer hole, not our carbon footprint... I thought the sun was supposedly hitting us unimpeded, which was the problem...

This is incorrect. We've actually made significant progress in restoring ozone levels, courtesy of the Montreal Protocols. NASA has a high-level overview here. Ozone absorbs certain ultraviolet wavelengths that are medically important (skin cancer), but not so much total energy that it factors detectably into the temperature.

T.rex: So really, by global warming theory, the sun isn't really doing anything different to us, at all. Its just that the planet is heating up... interesting... interesting... Not sure how this changes my view of the theory.

We know from direct measurements that the sun's activity, if anything, has pointed slightly towards cooling for the past several decades. The temperature continues to climb because the changes to the earth's atmosphere cause it to trap a greater fraction of the energy deposited by the sun. Specifically, carbon dioxide and methane do a very good job of keeping in infrared energy, given off by the ground in response to being struck by the incoming (visible) light.

This was understood as far back as 1824 (Joseph Fourier), and as early as 1896 you can find papers discussing the predicted impact of changing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Over the next century and change, we've accumulated a lot more data regarding how much warming, but the basic principle (the 'greenhouse effect') remains intact.


The greenhouse effect is a very simplistic explanation of a very complex system. There are many other things that impact the climate besides greenhouse gases.

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

www.geocraft.com


www.geocraft.com

www.geocraft.com
 
2012-05-16 03:34:03 PM  

chuckufarlie: The greenhouse effect is a very simplistic explanation of a very complex system. There are many other things that impact the climate besides greenhouse gases.

Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.



So is that why human efforts to stop the depletion of the Ozone were so successful?
Junk science, it's what's for dinner.
 
2012-05-16 03:48:58 PM  

chuckufarlie: Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.


I'm not sure why random graphs off of "geocraft.com" seem credible to you, but those numbers don't agree with reasonable measurements. As a simple example, consider their claim that only 3.2% (ignoring the ridiculous precision claimed) is man-made.

sofia.usgs.gov

(Data courtesy of the USGS.) Note that preindustrial carbon dioxide was at ~280 ppmv, but concurrent with the Industrial Revolution there is a sharp increase. Present levels are 396 ppmv. We know from isotope data, as well as known inventories of combusted fossil fuels, that the additional ~120 ppmv is from anthropogenic sources. This demonstrates that ~30% of present carbon dioxide is anthropogenic, tenfold higher than your uncited graph claims.

I'd further note that the first and second graph conflict-- they're both labeled "Contribution to the Greenhouse Effect", but in the first graph, carbon dioxide is twice as important as methane, which is more important than N2O. In the second graph, carbon dioxide is ten times as important as methane, and N2O is more than twice as important than methane.

No labels, error bars, estimates of of uncertainties, etc. are provided, and the authors clearly overstate their precision.

Finally, the graphs show no information regarding the change in greenhouse effect, which is what drives a temperature difference. The overall greenhouse effect's magnitude is quite large (~33K), and changing it by a small fraction will have profound effects on water availability, agriculture, etc.
 
2012-05-16 03:54:52 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Human activites contribute slightly to greenhouse gas concentrations through farming, manufacturing, power generation, and transportation. However, these emissions are so dwarfed in comparison to emissions from natural sources we can do nothing about, that even the most costly efforts to limit human emissions would have a very small-- perhaps undetectable-- effect on global climate.

I'm not sure why random graphs off of "geocraft.com" seem credible to you, but those numbers don't agree with reasonable measurements. As a simple example, consider their claim that only 3.2% (ignoring the ridiculous precision claimed) is man-made.

[sofia.usgs.gov image 508x288]

(Data courtesy of the USGS.) Note that preindustrial carbon dioxide was at ~280 ppmv, but concurrent with the Industrial Revolution there is a sharp increase. Present levels are 396 ppmv. We know from isotope data, as well as known inventories of combusted fossil fuels, that the additional ~120 ppmv is from anthropogenic sources. This demonstrates that ~30% of present carbon dioxide is anthropogenic, tenfold higher than your uncited graph claims.

I'd further note that the first and second graph conflict-- they're both labeled "Contribution to the Greenhouse Effect", but in the first graph, carbon dioxide is twice as important as methane, which is more important than N2O. In the second graph, carbon dioxide is ten times as important as methane, and N2O is more than twice as important than methane.

No labels, error bars, estimates of of uncertainties, etc. are provided, and the authors clearly overstate their precision.

Finally, the graphs show no information regarding the change in greenhouse effect, which is what drives a temperature difference. The overall greenhouse effect's magnitude is quite large (~33K), and changing it by a small fraction will have profound effects on water availability, agriculture, etc.


yes, your sources are outstanding and sources that disagree with you are worthless, How mature of you. What you seem to ignore is that your sources have a vested interest in promoting this scam.
 
2012-05-16 03:54:55 PM  

chuckufarlie: The greenhouse effect is a very simplistic explanation of a very complex system. There are many other things that impact the climate besides greenhouse gases.


Certainly. All models use a variety of inputs, and experimental evidence is available for each factor. Climate forcings are readily calculated:

data.giss.nasa.gov

Data courtesy of NASA.
 
2012-05-16 03:56:43 PM  

chuckufarlie: yes, your sources are outstanding and sources that disagree with you are worthless, How mature of you. What you seem to ignore is that your sources have a vested interest in promoting this scam.


I provided links directly to the people doing the measurements, and explained why your sources fail to document or justify their claims. I'm not sure what else you can ask for.

You provided... paste off a website run by a retired geologist. It's just not the same. Especially when I can easily point out several inconsistencies in the graphs.
 
2012-05-16 04:09:53 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: The greenhouse effect is a very simplistic explanation of a very complex system. There are many other things that impact the climate besides greenhouse gases.

Certainly. All models use a variety of inputs, and experimental evidence is available for each factor. Climate forcings are readily calculated:

[data.giss.nasa.gov image 640x437]

Data courtesy of NASA.


experimental evidence based on models is no evidence at all. It is corrupted by the prejudices of the person setting up the parameters.
 
2012-05-16 04:11:54 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: yes, your sources are outstanding and sources that disagree with you are worthless, How mature of you. What you seem to ignore is that your sources have a vested interest in promoting this scam.

I provided links directly to the people doing the measurements, and explained why your sources fail to document or justify their claims. I'm not sure what else you can ask for.

You provided... paste off a website run by a retired geologist. It's just not the same. Especially when I can easily point out several inconsistencies in the graphs.


The problem with you pointing out inconsistencies is that you have proven yourself to be an idiot. Your opinion is worthless.

You cannot discount a source simply because you do not agree with it. Your sources have been caught manipulating their data, mine has not.
 
2012-05-16 04:12:56 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: The greenhouse effect is a very simplistic explanation of a very complex system. There are many other things that impact the climate besides greenhouse gases.

Certainly. All models use a variety of inputs, and experimental evidence is available for each factor. Climate forcings are readily calculated:

[data.giss.nasa.gov image 640x437]

Data courtesy of NASA.


ESTIMATES?? Do you know what SWAG is?
 
2012-05-16 04:20:01 PM  

chimp_ninja: I'm not sure why random graphs off of "geocraft.com" seem credible to you, but those numbers don't agree with reasonable measurements. As a simple example, consider their claim that only 3.2% [of CO2] (ignoring the ridiculous precision claimed) is man-made.


It's probably the usual bait-and-switch between source and net source. Human CO2 emissions are small compared to the CO2 emissions from land and ocean. But the latter emissions are nearly exactly balanced by the land and ocean sinks of carbon. If you ask what is responsible for the net accumulation of CO2 in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times, then it's by far the human emissions (which have no counterbalancing sink).
 
2012-05-16 04:29:35 PM  

chuckufarlie: ESTIMATES?? Do you know what SWAG is?


I do. The difference is, if you go to the NASA source you will find that they quantify their uncertainties. All measurements have an associated uncertainty.

"geocraft.com" claims they know their numbers to 4-5 significant digits, and disclose nothing about their source data. Why do you implicitly trust those numbers from a random hobbyist's website, but won't consider the NASA data?

www.giss.nasa.gov
 
2012-05-16 04:30:40 PM  

chuckufarlie: The problem with you pointing out inconsistencies is that you have proven yourself to be an idiot. Your opinion is worthless.


Please explain my error then. Should be easy enough.
 
2012-05-16 04:32:13 PM  

chuckufarlie: experimental evidence based on models is no evidence at all. It is corrupted by the prejudices of the person setting up the parameters


You seem confused. The models are based on experimental evidence, not vice versa. You're looking at inputs, not outputs.
 
2012-05-16 04:48:08 PM  
Although I want to believe in this it's hard to really commit after finding out the evidence for it was falsified.
 
2012-05-16 04:58:17 PM  

JDAT: Although I want to believe in this it's hard to really commit after finding out the evidence for it was falsified.


LOLWUT?

Scientific data isn't something to believe or disbelieve, if the preponderance of evidence indicates a theory is the most correct, then that theory is accepted as the current explanation for observed phenomena.

Also, if you're referring to the climategate crap, then have I got some good news for you! After several investigations from various bodies, there was no wrongdoing on the part of the scientists. The fact that you still bring it up indicates you haven't done any research into the subject at all. Or you're trolling.
 
2012-05-16 05:09:05 PM  
After a google search and a bit of thread perusing, verdict is trolling. You have a nice day.

Thought I recognized the name, it's been awhile since he's been active in these threads.
 
2012-05-16 05:17:12 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: The problem with you pointing out inconsistencies is that you have proven yourself to be an idiot. Your opinion is worthless.

Please explain my error then. Should be easy enough.


Your error is that you are wrong. Everything that you cut and paste (and strangely you biatch when I do that) is wrong. You are an idiot who has bought into a scam because it fits your view of what the world should be. You have displayed that you have no knowledge of the subject and that you are easily confused.

You can post all of the graphs you want but I simply ignore them because they are loaded with lies and inaccuracies. Your graphs do nothing to help prove your point. Not that you actually have a point, you just want to make sure that everybody gets rainbows and unicorns.
 
2012-05-16 05:21:24 PM  

chuckufarlie: Your error is that you are wrong. Everything that you cut and paste (and strangely you biatch when I do that) is wrong.


Then it should be especially easy for you to point out the error I made. The fact that you typed a couple paragraphs without ever addressing that says more about you than me.
 
2012-05-16 05:22:05 PM  

Zafler: JDAT: Although I want to believe in this it's hard to really commit after finding out the evidence for it was falsified.

LOLWUT?

Scientific data isn't something to believe or disbelieve, if the preponderance of evidence indicates a theory is the most correct, then that theory is accepted as the current explanation for observed phenomena.

Also, if you're referring to the climategate crap, then have I got some good news for you! After several investigations from various bodies, there was no wrongdoing on the part of the scientists. The fact that you still bring it up indicates you haven't done any research into the subject at all. Or you're trolling.


yea, there is nothing wrong with destroying your raw data even though it can not be recreated and that means that it cannot be verified. There was nothing wrong with doing that.

There was nothing wrong with strong arming publishers to eliminate any opposing opinions being printed.

And I think the most important thing is that you are WRONG when you same that the scientists and their actions were investigated. SOME of the scientists were investigated for specific reasons. There was never a complete investigation of all of the scientists and all of their actions. You lie when you say otherwise and your need to lie reveals the hopelessness of your position. If you had a sound and solid argument, you would not need to lie.

Unless, of course, lying is just second nature to you.
 
2012-05-16 05:23:47 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Your error is that you are wrong. Everything that you cut and paste (and strangely you biatch when I do that) is wrong.

Then it should be especially easy for you to point out the error I made. The fact that you typed a couple paragraphs without ever addressing that says more about you than me.


I am sorry if you missed it but I most certainly did point out your error. You are an idiot and you have proven that over and over. That is all that I need to point out. Sorry if you do not understand that.
 
2012-05-16 05:25:17 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: ESTIMATES?? Do you know what SWAG is?

I do. The difference is, if you go to the NASA source you will find that they quantify their uncertainties. All measurements have an associated uncertainty.

"geocraft.com" claims they know their numbers to 4-5 significant digits, and disclose nothing about their source data. Why do you implicitly trust those numbers from a random hobbyist's website, but won't consider the NASA data?

[www.giss.nasa.gov image 640x251]


It is not that I trust any website, it is more that I do not trust any site that you would reference.
 
2012-05-16 05:31:16 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: experimental evidence based on models is no evidence at all. It is corrupted by the prejudices of the person setting up the parameters

You seem confused. The models are based on experimental evidence, not vice versa. You're looking at inputs, not outputs.


experimental evidence, as the name implies, is evidence that is gathered by conducting an experiment. Since nobody has conducted any experiments concerning global warming, there is no experimental evidence. Models are constructed in order to see if the hypothesis merits further study and experiments. The input for the models is not experimental evidence, it is the opinions of the people constructing the model. The model then proves the opinion wrong or worthy of further research.

In the case of the CRU models, the models were put forth as proof that the hypothesis was correct. That is a misuse of modelling procedures and a lie.

But then, the people who shoved this scam down your throat never explained that to you, did they?
 
2012-05-16 05:33:29 PM  

chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Your error is that you are wrong. Everything that you cut and paste (and strangely you biatch when I do that) is wrong.

Then it should be especially easy for you to point out the error I made. The fact that you typed a couple paragraphs without ever addressing that says more about you than me.

I am sorry if you missed it but I most certainly did point out your error. You are an idiot and you have proven that over and over. That is all that I need to point out. Sorry if you do not understand that.


It seems you are avoiding the topic. Don't think of me as your audience-- explain to the other readers where I went wrong in the post we are referencing. Based on your assertions, one would think it would be easy enough. Why not do it?
 
2012-05-16 05:48:44 PM  

chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: chimp_ninja: chuckufarlie: Your error is that you are wrong. Everything that you cut and paste (and strangely you biatch when I do that) is wrong.

Then it should be especially easy for you to point out the error I made. The fact that you typed a couple paragraphs without ever addressing that says more about you than me.

I am sorry if you missed it but I most certainly did point out your error. You are an idiot and you have proven that over and over. That is all that I need to point out. Sorry if you do not understand that.

It seems you are avoiding the topic. Don't think of me as your audience-- explain to the other readers where I went wrong in the post we are referencing. Based on your assertions, one would think it would be easy enough. Why not do it?


Because you are not worth the time. Any thinking person who reads your posts already knows that you are a moron. I do not need to reinforce that and you should stop reinforcing it.
 
2012-05-16 07:16:23 PM  

chuckufarlie: Your sources have been caught manipulating their data, mine has not.


LOL oh man, it was all worth it. Just to read this. I bet when you typed it you had to look at yourself in the mirror and repeat how right you really are.
 
2012-05-16 08:01:02 PM  

chuckufarlie: tell me, Einstein, how did you come to the conclusion that I did not know that he is deceased?


You said, "Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology..."
Had you know he was dead you would have used was, wouldn't you?
 
2012-05-16 08:05:15 PM  

Jon Snow: Out of curiosity, what would be sufficient evidence to convince you?


Irrefutable proof.
 
2012-05-16 08:40:41 PM  

Ender's: Irrefutable proof.


And what would be "irrefutable proof" to you in this context? Surely if you're not creating impossible expectations there exists hypothetical information that would convince you.

What would that be?
 
2012-05-16 08:50:01 PM  

Jon Snow: What would that be?


I dunno, you tell me. I know I have read everything presented to me so far and I still don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so maybe it's not going to happen. Not trying to setup an impossible circumstance, however.
 
2012-05-16 09:12:30 PM  

Ender's: I dunno, you tell me.


How am I supposed to know what meets your definition of "irrefutable"? That's not a snarky response, I am just genuinely curious.

I know I have read everything presented to me so far

And what does that consist of? In other words, what do you believe the evidence is? I can go from there.

I still don't have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, so maybe it's not going to happen. Not trying to setup an impossible circumstance, however.

That's fine. As I said to another person earlier in the thread, no one expects people to take science on faith. That's the entire point of science. But expressing the position that you think a mainstream scientific conclusion is unconvincing kind of shifts the burden of evidence a little. Does that make sense?
 
2012-05-16 09:27:42 PM  

whatshisname: chuckufarlie: tell me, Einstein, how did you come to the conclusion that I did not know that he is deceased?

You said, "Reid Bryson is Emeritus Professor of Meteorology..."
Had you know he was dead you would have used was, wouldn't you?


I just did not change the text that I got off of a website.

Why do you feel that it is so important to pursue this? You seem incredibly stupid to me.
 
2012-05-16 10:31:11 PM  

chuckufarlie: I just did not change the text that I got off of a website.

Why do you feel that it is so important to pursue this? You seem incredibly stupid to me.


I'm pursuing you? I pointed out your error and you've been backpedaling and asking me inane follow-up questions for 24 hours now. I'll take the fact that I seem stupid to you as a compliment.
 
2012-05-17 02:16:08 AM  
chimp_ninja:
No one is making up the crazy-ass shiat about spaceships. I cited several passages above (chapter-and-verse) about how the universe is administrated by a bunch of aliens from various super-planets with a hierarchical system.

Are you really that stupid? You sound like a UFOlogist. "There is a hierarchy, therefore there MUST be flying saucers." Really? Okay, dimwit, show me ONE reference to flying saucers or spacecraft, or any variant on that. Just ONE.

The ancient Chinese had an empire, which proves they flew on dragons, right? Dumbass. The simple fact is that you don't know what you are talking about, and are making incredibly stupid assumptions, well, I guess just because it is in your bonehead nature to do so. Your attempts to think are always pathetic; I would be more sympathetic towards you if you were not also always incredibly mean-spirited. But, since you are, you can stew in your own juices.
 
2012-05-17 02:23:01 AM  
chimp_ninja:
The Book of Urantia is loaded with sci-fi scenarios about how many aliens control the universe, how many planets they live on, who outranks who, etc. The fact that you reference it as a source of scientific knowledge says a lot about your skepticism.

I have used the Urantia Book as a scientific reference in an argument? Really? I'd have to have that shown to me.

And, by the way, commenting that the UB describes a situation for the Shroud of Turin EXACTLY like the odd conditions of the Shroud is NOT using it as an argument. As always, the science is sufficient unto itself.

You are the only jackass using the UB as any kind of argument here, and the name of that argument is "ad hominem." You are a nasty, evil little adolescent poser, and a continual threadjacker. Cut it out, dumbass.
 
2012-05-17 03:16:19 AM  
Jon Snow:
GeneralJim: Ice core data show that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and, thus, are NOT controlling temperature.

Back in reality, the ice core data do not "show that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and, thus, are NOT controlling temperature".

I know I can count on you for a couple of things, Snowjob -- a metric arseload of citations of irrelevant studies, a quick and unequivocal denial of any study which doesn't support the falsified hypothesis of AGW, and a smarmy, condescending tone.

And, you braying jackass, ice core data DO show that temperature increases (and decreases) do indeed precede carbon dioxide level changes, by about 800 years. Man up, you putz, and accept reality.
 
2012-05-17 03:22:51 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: GeneralJim: Ice core data show that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and, thus, are NOT controlling temperature.

Back in reality, the ice core data do not "show that carbon dioxide levels FOLLOW temperature, and, thus, are NOT controlling temperature".
I know I can count on you for a couple of things, Snowjob -- a metric arseload of citations of irrelevant studies, a quick and unequivocal denial of any study which doesn't support the falsified hypothesis of AGW, and a smarmy, condescending tone.

And, you braying jackass, ice core data DO show that temperature increases (and decreases) do indeed precede carbon dioxide level changes, by about 800 years. Man up, you putz, and accept reality.



I'm not sure the explanation he gave, with accompanying citations, can be outright dismissed and ignored just like that without any attempt at reasoning or counterargument whatsoever. As always, if you can't find one of the papers on your own, I would be happy to post it for you somewhere.
 
2012-05-17 03:25:54 AM  
Jon Snow:
Carbon dioxide levels are a positive component of a total feedback system which is highly negative. This is obvious by inspection of carbon dioxide levels and temperature.

Back in reality, the positive sign of overall feedbacks to a perturbation of planetary energy balance has been a feature of the climate system going back hundreds of millions of years[5].

"Back in reality..." You keep saying that phrase...

But, clearly, you have a mistaken idea of what that means. I suppose you're just another jerkoff pretending to be a scientist. A real scientist would know how feedback systems work. Hell, *I* know how they work, and I'm an engineer, not a scientist. It's not all that hard.

Here's a clue, though.... A feedback system whose control is positive does NOT stay stable for a half billion years, adjusting to outside influences (CRF) by moving between two stable states. It simply does NOT work that way. The fact that you are ignorant of the workings of feedback systems does NOTHING to prove your argument. And your simple denial of anything not supporting your position is rather lame, as well.
 
2012-05-17 03:45:31 AM  

GeneralJim: chimp_ninja: No one is making up the crazy-ass shiat about spaceships. I cited several passages above (chapter-and-verse) about how the universe is administrated by a bunch of aliens from various super-planets with a hierarchical system.
Are you really that stupid? You sound like a UFOlogist. "There is a hierarchy, therefore there MUST be flying saucers." Really? Okay, dimwit, show me ONE reference to flying saucers or spacecraft, or any variant on that. Just ONE.

The ancient Chinese had an empire, which proves they flew on dragons, right? Dumbass. The simple fact is that you don't know what you are talking about, and are making incredibly stupid assumptions, well, I guess just because it is in your bonehead nature to do so. Your attempts to think are always pathetic; I would be more sympathetic towards you if you were not also always incredibly mean-spirited. But, since you are, you can stew in your own juices.



Considering that the bits he quoted describes what appears to be some sort of system of governance over thousands of worlds, I think he assumed some sort of spaceship would be involved.

If you believe they're using some of transportation that is more... exotic than spacecraft, I'm not sure it's a good idea to attempt to call someone else a "UFOlogist" as a sort of insult. Just saying.
 
2012-05-17 03:56:23 AM  
guyinjeep16:
So you agree that the temperature of the planet is warming?

In the strict literal sense, with no intention to obfuscate, it depends upon the time scale you are using.

For the last 15 years, no, the trend is slightly downward. Over the last 40 years, yes, the trend has been upwards. Over the whole time since the little ice age, the temperature has been rising -- since before the industrial revolution.

Over the last 8000 years, however, the trend has been downward.

And for the last several million years, we have been in an ice age, geologically speaking, buried in massive glaciation for 100KY at a time. We are nearing the end of one of the approximately 12KY inter-glacial periods.

Since the advent of diverse land and sea life, we are in a rare cold period, approximately halfway through this geologic ice age, after which the planet should warm by about 10 K.

So, "are we warming or cooling" is a bit more complex of a question than it seems at first glance, and the "correct" answer depends upon one's time scale.
 
2012-05-17 04:07:27 AM  
Ender's:
April was the 326th consecutive month with above average global temperatures, but this of course in no way proves that anthropomorphic global warming may be occuring

FTFY

i50.tinypic.com
What anthropomorphic global
warming might look like.

 
2012-05-17 04:13:53 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow: Carbon dioxide levels are a positive component of a total feedback system which is highly negative. This is obvious by inspection of carbon dioxide levels and temperature.

Back in reality, the positive sign of overall feedbacks to a perturbation of planetary energy balance has been a feature of the climate system going back hundreds of millions of years[5].
"Back in reality..." You keep saying that phrase...

But, clearly, you have a mistaken idea of what that means. I suppose you're just another jerkoff pretending to be a scientist. A real scientist would know how feedback systems work. Hell, *I* know how they work, and I'm an engineer, not a scientist. It's not all that hard.

Here's a clue, though.... A feedback system whose control is positive does NOT stay stable for a half billion years, adjusting to outside influences (CRF) by moving between two stable states. It simply does NOT work that way. The fact that you are ignorant of the workings of feedback systems does NOTHING to prove your argument. And your simple denial of anything not supporting your position is rather lame, as well.



Might I suggest that the central pillar of your argument here may not be as strong as you think as you may be mischaracterizing the climate over "a half billion years" as being "stable"? The existence of large changes such as those associated with ice ages would seem to argue against what you're claiming.

I mean, you yourself attempt to argue for a climate that has been "moving between two stable states", which would seem to suggest that your earlier contention about a "total feedback system which is highly negative" isn't quite the whole picture.
 
2012-05-17 05:01:17 AM  
Jon Snow:
Back in reality, water vapor acts as a positive (not negative) feedback, amplifying the warming due to anthropogenic GHGs[1][2][3][4]. Preliminary data suggest that the net effect of cloud feedbacks is positive, although a small negative feedback (much too small to overwhelm the positive water vapor feedback) cannot be ruled out[5][6][7][8].

If you'd back off shilling for the eco-groups, you just MIGHT see how dumb what you are saying is.

First, most people have experienced being in the strong sun, and having a cloud pass across the face of the sun, for them. Does it get warmer, or cooler, Einstein? Of course, it gets cooler. Clouds reflect energy back into space which would have otherwise reached the ground. Only an idiot like you would need to scour peer-reviewed papers to know if clouds warm or cool the planet. While you're quote mining, see if you can find a peer-reviewed paper that says putting your hand into an open flame will injure it.

And, water vapor being a positive feedback is simply an assumption built into the CGMs. That is, they assume that relative humidity will stay the same, no matter what. But, that's NOT what happens. The upper troposphere, where all the best warming takes place, has been drying out as carbon dioxide levels increase. And, while there is some trouble with the absolute humidity readings with radiosondes, it is the trend that counts, not the absolute values -- and the radiosonde data consistently shows upper troposphere drying, and also shows the lower troposphere "retaining water". In terms of global warming, the upper troposphere is what is important. Additionally, excess humidity in the lower troposphere generally leads to more clouds, and, hence, cooling.

Interestingly, a new radiosonde data set was generated in 2010, but is being held back from publication until 2013. Why would that be? My guess would be that the new data set shows the same thing as the old data set -- that the upper troposphere is drying out as carbon dioxide levels rise, thus being a NEGATIVE feedback. And, that data is to be held back to allow time for alarmist legislation to be passed. But, I'm sure that clever plan won't work out, either.

So, let's here some denier derp about how putting instruments into the upper troposphere and measuring humidity is not the proper way to determine humidity. We're waiting...

Once again, your ideas work in the world of the models, but not in the real world. The models simply suck, and suck hard. Fix the humidity issue, and they wouldn't be bad.


www.friendsofscience.org

 
2012-05-17 05:05:23 AM  
chimp_ninja:
What anthropomorphic climate change might look like.

Bugger all...
 
2012-05-17 05:23:34 AM  
Zafler:
Also, if you're referring to the climategate crap, then have I got some good news for you! After several investigations from various bodies, there was no wrongdoing on the part of the scientists. The fact that you still bring it up indicates you haven't done any research into the subject at all. Or you're trolling.

Wat?

"No wrongdoing?" WTF? The investigations found CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS. How does that become "no wrongdoing?" Are you really deficient, or are you lying your arse off?
 
2012-05-17 05:29:30 AM  

GeneralJim: Jon Snow:

Back in reality, water vapor acts as a positive (not negative) feedback, amplifying the warming due to anthropogenic GHGs[1][2][3][4]. Preliminary data suggest that the net effect of cloud feedbacks is positive, although a small negative feedback (much too small to overwhelm the positive water vapor feedback) cannot be ruled out[5][6][7][8].


If you'd back off shilling for the eco-groups, you just MIGHT see how dumb what you are saying is.

First, most people have experienced being in the strong sun, and having a cloud pass across the face of the sun, for them. Does it get warmer, or cooler, Einstein? Of course, it gets cooler. Clouds reflect energy back into space which would have otherwise reached the ground. Only an idiot like you would need to scour peer-reviewed papers to know if clouds warm or cool the planet. While you're quote mining, see if you can find a peer-reviewed paper that says putting your hand into an open flame will injure it.



This is one of those occasions where simple common sense can be misleading - and it certainly pales in comparison to the actual scientific research done in the citation Jon Snow uses to back up what he claims.

There's at least two misconceptions in what you've said here. First in your observation that the presence of clouds by necessity has an observable cooling effect - you're right, but it's not provable by simple personal observation of the kind you're talking about. What you directly feel coming from the sun is shorter-wave radiation, while what the greenhouse effect relates to is longer-wave radiation. That shorter-wave radiation is being reflected back out into space is not mutually exclusive with longer-wave radiation being re-emitted back towards the earth. In fact, it is common during night-time (when there is little or no incoming shorter-wave radiation) for it to be warmer when more clouds are present, contrary to what you've claimed. Your common-sense personal observation here, while intuitive, may be misleading in this case.

The second misconception, that could have been easily dispelled if you had bothered to even glance at the citations given, is that they don't disagree with the idea that clouds have an overall cooling effect, but that increasing temperatures will tend to lead to less cloud cover - a positive feedback.
 
2012-05-17 05:40:20 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
Considering that the bits he quoted describes what appears to be some sort of system of governance over thousands of worlds, I think he assumed some sort of spaceship would be involved.

Yeah, and in making the assumptions, he screwed the pooch. And, he is basing his entire attack against my religious beliefs upon something not true, which he just assumed. Doesn't that seem a bit -- for lack of a better word -- careless to you?

In climate threads, people have come forth to say that the ultimate solution is to reduce the outrageous growth of the population, in order to reduce ecological strain. That is an idea not without merit.

If I were to take that, and assume from that that the most logical thing to do would be to soylent green the excess population, and start attacking warmer alarmists as cannibals, would you be okay with that?

Well, Monkey Boy, along with a couple others, and assorted alts, are doing just that kind of approach here. The science is not behind AGW, and every month brings more evidence of that. So, they are attempting to paint me as an idiot for believing in UFO beings -- which has nothing to do with the truth. And, your response to that is to criticize me? You are at least as big an ass as he is. Your dishonesty clings to you like the faint smell of vomit clings to a freshman after a night of binge drinking -- and it is just as pleasant.
 
2012-05-17 05:49:03 AM  
Damnhippyfreak:
I mean, you yourself attempt to argue for a climate that has been "moving between two stable states", which would seem to suggest that your earlier contention about a "total feedback system which is highly negative" isn't quite the whole picture.

Yeah, and I pointed out the major factor involved in that two-state situation. Somehow, you neglect to mention that. How could that be? Why, it's almost like you are lying.

We are in the cold state when in a galactic arm -- and in the warm state when we are in more open space. There's about 10 K between the states, and temperatures tend to stay around the base level, affected by quite a few factors of less signficance than the CRF, such as orbital geometry, precession, ocean openness due to tectonic plate shifting, etc.
 
Displayed 50 of 541 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report