Donnchadha: brimed03: Sweeps Week: boobie-shaped clouds.[media.kickstatic.com image 425x318]They're called "mammatus clouds", although some examples look more scrotal in nature
Arsten: However, activists (such as 'lolgore' which sounds like someone slaughtering while laughing.....and so i like it) for curbing as much human activity as possible in the name of global warming, especially when some of those activists are also climate scientists, make the climate science community look bad. (As do lazy journalists who print the words "global warming" in anything even remotely related to climate, weather, or temperatures.)
Jon Snow: By and large, this really has nothing to do with the huge discrepancy between public opinion on this issue, and the scientific consensus. Rather, there is a clear ideological/cultural cognition effect, as well as an information deficit/misinformation surplus. In other words, people filter the news they consume according to worldview, and also tend to just be generally un-/ill-informed on the topic. The perception of climate scientists as "activists" has no real impact on public opinion that is not already accounted for by these factors.So this might hold true for you personally, or some blogger that you read, but for the general public your explanation is bullshiat.
Arsten: Science is not advanced by consensus.
Arsten: Wow. So exactly what I said. A fudge factor.
Jon Snow: Until then, you're simply not worth the time. And I mean that completely dispassionately and impersonally.Best of luck.
Jon Snow: Arsten: Wow. So exactly what I said. A fudge factor.Look, buddy. I'm sure you're a nice guy and all. Good to your pets, call your mom on her birthday and what not.But somewhere along the line, there's been a disconnect. You've dramatically overestimated your ability to have a discussion about this subject. You are simply too ignorant to recognize your ignorance. Don't feel too bad, as this happens to a lot of people. But it's important for you to understand that this is happening, and STOP. Just stop.Take a step back, clear your head, set aside your ego, and listen:A feedback mechanism is not a "fudge factor". Someone who believes this to be true simply cannot have a remotely informed discussion about planetary energy balance.This is not a terribly difficult concept to understand- undergraduates across a number of disciplines learn about them every year.Do you know what Stefan-Boltzmann is? If you had a little bit of physics somewhere along the line, then you do. If not, you may still have heard of it.(Re-)familiarize yourself with it. Reread it a few times to make sure you understand it. Now- think about what happens to the equilibrium surface temperature of a body when it receives an increase in energy. What does the proportional difference between radiated energy and temperature mean? Does it sound, perhaps, an awful lot like a feedback- specifically a negative feedback?Can you understand this? If not, don't worry. You probably already know someone who can explain it to you. If you don't, you can reach out to a local university and ask someone in their physics, engineering, or atmospheric science department to help you out. There is no shame in asking for help. The shameful thing to do is to pretend you know what you're talking about when you obviously don't.When you can understand the concept of a feedback mechanism and recognize that it is no way a "fudge factor" but rather is a fundamental concept in energy flows within systems, I'll be happy t ...
Arsten: Perhaps you should look up "Fudge Factor". It's an addition to a calculation to allow for error or unanticipated circumstances. Pretty much the exact definition of
Hollie Maea: I never fail to be astonished by the Great American Myth which states that my input on a subject is valuable no matter how little I know about it.
Jon Snow: If you actually are knowledgeable about this stuff, and you're not are just pretending to be ignorant of it, then it will be a very quick
Jon Snow: jaybeezey: Damn you Global Climate Change! !dkimball: Are you trying to say that Mother Nature isn't as predictable as we thought?pdee: Thanks Global Warming.trappedspirit: They have plenty of footage they could air about how global warming caused by humans is going to lead to more and stronger storm systems than anything we have seen before.If anyone's curious, and doesn't find the LOLALGORE derp to be particularly helpful, the impact of increasing greenhouse gas levels on tornadogenesis remains an area of signifcant uncertainty and active research.
Jon Snow: Arsten: However, I also know that we have a long way to go before we understand something as complex as the global climate system and how small or large changes in CO2, methane, or other gases affect the system in whole.
Jon Snow: Gosh, and I failed to directly answer a couple-Just a few of the many "predictions of GCMs that have come true":stratospheric cooling
Jon Snow: Arsten: Perhaps you should look up "Fudge Factor". It's an addition to a calculation to allow for error or unanticipated circumstances. Pretty much the exact definition ofWe're talking about feedbacks, not parameterizations.
Jon Snow: When you can understand the concept of a feedback mechanism and recognize that it is no way a "fudge factor" but rather is a fundamental concept in energy flows within systems, I'll be happy to talk to you.
Arsten: So...wait. There's only one feedback, now?
THE GREAT NAME: ou idiot. Greenhouse effect theory said the upper atmosphere should warm more than anywhere else, and certainly not cool.
Arsten: Bartman66: jaybeezey: Damn you Global Climate Change! !But I thought climate change meant MORE tornadoes? and they were going to be 10X and intense?According to the tee vee, intensity only comes from Mountain Dew. Obviously, this high from "Doing the Dew" as kids these days call it will dramatically increase the intensity of tornadoes.To combat this, I am submitting a bill before Congress to outlaw all tornadoes that are reaching maturity from imbibing this harmful beverage. This will generate millions in revenue and keep people from being flug across the landscape like rag dolls. This will mean more alone time and togetherness, which will increase the number of children we are producing, to hopefully reach the 2.1 sustainability figure we need to survive as a country. We must think of our future: the children./Is this sarcasm? Parody? I don't even know, anymore, dude.
Jon Snow: THE GREAT NAME: ou idiot. Greenhouse effect theory said the upper atmosphere should warm more than anywhere else, and certainly not cool.Again, some things are simply not up for debate. Stratospheric cooling is a (confirmed) prediction of increasing greenhouse gases. There is no arguing about this, there is only reality and whether you choose to accept or rail against it.I will make you the same offer I made Arsten. If/when you can, in your own words, explain ...
THE GREAT NAME: Absolutely not. You made the initial claim, so it is on you to support your assertion that climate models predicted cooling of the upper atmosphere. Note that this prediction has to be dated substantially IN ADVANCE of the observations. No naughty substituting hindcasting for empirical confirmation.
Jon Snow: slight of hand
If you like these links, you'll love
Come for the Total, stay for the Farking.
Sign up for the Fark NotNewsletter!
Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.
When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.
Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.
You need to create an account to submit links or post comments.
Click here to submit a link.
Also on Fark
Submit a Link »
Copyright © 1999 - 2017 Fark, Inc | Last updated: Dec 17 2017 11:48:52
Runtime: 0.242 sec (241 ms)