There can't be Global Warming because...

[Owledge]

... we're not in the Ming Dynasty era.

 

What's global warming without ming? .... Global war. ... Sounds about right I'd say.

Edited January 31, 2013 by Owledge

[Vanir Thunder Dojo Tan]

oh nooooooooo... no oh mmmmmmmmaaaaaaaaaaaannnnnnn you went there.... haw... HAW! dammit.

[Cat Pillar]

It took me a second to get it.

 

And then my brain broke.

[Marblehead]

I won't even touch this one.

[joeblast]

more precisely, the carbon scam cannot possibly be true because every model that asserts a preposterously high warming coefficient for CO2 is also preposterously wrong.

 

sorry to the true believers, you're not going to shoehorn this one into existence, the measure has already failed

[Mokona]

Where do you get reliable information on this subject?

[joeblast]

http://wattsupwiththat.com is the world's most viewed climate site. no bs, open discussion of topics in comments, although ralis will of course have a problem with the site because Watts is "just a weatherman" and of course wont acknowledge that there's a lot more people of many disciplines contributing towards the discussion - oh, that and its not on the government subsidy gravy train, which in some circles is a requirement in order to be "a real climate scientist."

 

or if you want to look at something a little more solar related, http://solarcycle24.com is another good one that has very good discussion about the sun and also a climate section.

[ralis]

The problem with the denial crowd is one of complete misunderstanding of the scientific method. The so called researchers are paid shills by the oil companies and the Koch bros. Just this past year a research scientist at UC Berkeley whose research was funded by the Koch's in order to debunk the research, reversed his previous assessment to one of supporting the research that global warming is caused by CO2.

 

What Anthony Watts et al fail to comprehend, is that the biosphere is a complex non linear dynamic system whereby the variables change due to the mutual effect of all variables inherent to the biosphere. JB will claim that the models are being artificially skewed. Although it may appear that way to an amateur, the models are reflecting the dynamic changes in the system.

 

The study of non linear dynamic systems and in this case our biosphere, is extremely complicated. What the denier crowd is engaged in is cherry picking data and thereby making absolute conclusions to support their preconceived bias. A bias fed to them by persons who do not have the best interests of all species that Inhabit this biosphere.

[joeblast]

right on cue

 

still not sure what following the money means, are you ralis? most of these people are unpaid for this and dont rely on grant money to fund their activities. you trying to tell me koch money is more than government and agw-invested companies money? need to do some more and honest looking if that's the case.

 

models are reflecting dynamic changes in the system that's a great one. no man, the models are dealing with bad coefficients and they're trying to tweak the shit out of them and still keep the bad coefficients. borne out in evidence by every single model that makes wacky predictions diverging very sharply from reality at mediocre time scales.

 

what the agw crowd doesnt get is that the IR absorption of CO2 is a logarithmic band that is magnitudes of order smaller in forcing weight than something like water vapor - that's why over the deserts like the sahara you have massive 80, 90 degree diurnal heat differential - because it is very dry. as compared to a more tropical area that has plenty of water vapor in it, diurnal temp difference in the mid 20 degrees.

 

meanwhile, the co2 has gone up, up...and co2 cannot explain the sahara-tropics difference.

 

and that's just the difference between a second and third order forcing, water vapor is second order iirc.

 

and oh hey, look at all this strange behavior from the jet stream its wobbling all over, right after the sun did things that nobody predicted, because we still dont fully understand the solar mechanisms. (see http://solarcycle24com.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=324 for a good theory on solar variation) 270+ days of sunspot funk in 2009, 200ish iirc in 2010, and look what happened last winter...look what happened this winter.

 

"climate scientists" cannot even correctly predict the el nino-la nina dynamic - so you're seriously asserting that, what...they understand all this stuff so well that a 3rd order trace gas somehow overwhelms the entirety of the sun's effects? (Yes, James Hansen himself told me that about 10 years ago.)

 

the big problems aside from the massive waste and misallocation of resources (and grant money ) to study this stuff is that a lot of real environmental issues are getting left by the wayside because of this farce sucking up far more than its deserved share of resources - all on the alarmism of people like james hansen, who is so smug that he couldnt admit he gave too high of a cooling coefficient to aerosol cooling back in his work in the 70s, and subsequently had to give co2 a too-high coefficient to balance it out, because he just couldnt possibly be wrong about aerosols.

 

hubris.

 

 

I've asked for you to bring a good argument with data before, ralis - you fail to do so every single time. that's why all of the global warming threads die - because you get taken to school, and take your toys home and go play with them there.

[Vmarco]

http://wattsupwiththat.com is the world's most viewed climate site. no bs, open discussion of topics in comments, although ralis will of course have a problem with the site because Watts is "just a weatherman" and of course wont acknowledge that there's a lot more people of many disciplines contributing towards the discussion - oh, that and its not on the government subsidy gravy train, which in some circles is a requirement in order to be "a real climate scientist."

 

or if you want to look at something a little more solar related, http://solarcycle24.com is another good one that has very good discussion about the sun and also a climate section.

 

For the most part, I dislike taking the word of sciential minded folks,...I'll listen, but need a less number orientated view also. From how I understand JoeBlast, there is no carbon problem, thus no global warming.

 

I would very seriously ask JoeBlast to help me understand that better. Joe, if you could spend tonight in a garage with your car running, in the morning explain how nearly 1 billion combustion engine vehicles have no carbon effect within the garage of the Earths atmosphere.

[Protector]

OGAWD IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN

SOMEBODY CRACK A JOKE

SOMEBODY

ANYONE!

[ralis]

 

For the most part, I dislike taking the word of sciential minded folks,...I'll listen, but need a less number orientated view also. From how I understand JoeBlast, there is no carbon problem, thus no global warming.

 

I would very seriously ask JoeBlast to help me understand that better. Joe, if you could spend tonight in a garage with your car running, in the morning explain how nearly 1 billion combustion engine vehicles have no carbon effect within the garage of the Earths atmosphere.

I can't wait to see the answer to this one! If JB even answers.

[ralis]

Joe,

 

The glaring problem with your post is the irrational fear of some massive government conspiracy among research scientists. That allegation is just another unproven allegation. The problem with conspiracies is that the best conceived ones are only between two people and will eventually fail. The 'prisoners dilemma' is a classic example as to why conspiracies fail. Also see the 'Watergate' documents. BTW, 'the prisoners dilemma' is from basic game theory. Furthermore, this incessant worry about money is also a main part of your post. Those two issues remove any credibility from your narrative.

 

To posit 'third order processes' or forcing including rambling about coefficients being wrong without substantive evidence is just fancy BS talk.

Edited January 31, 2013 by ralis

[Owledge]

right on cue

You say that to ralis, but you're the one who started tuning a joke thread into a clone of the many other global warming threads. You can't really expect to convince believers, so why are you still trying to?

[ralis]

You say that to ralis, but you're the one who started tuning a joke thread into a clone of the many other global warming threads. You can't really expect to convince believers, so why are you still trying to?

Belief has nothing to do with it! It is appalling to me that anyone who is a so called Taoist, forgoes critical thinking (never had it in the first place) and fails to observe the natural world. I am fortunate to spend most of my time in the natural world. Also I keep company with artists, writers, research scientists from Los Alamos National Labs, Santa Fe Institute among others. I very we'll understand the difference between a belief system BS and scientific analysis. JB wants a static linear world in which he and his deniers can exert absolute control.

[joeblast]

You say that to ralis, but you're the one who started tuning a joke thread into a clone of the many other global warming threads. You can't really expect to convince believers, so why are you still trying to?

heh, I'm not trying to convince ralis. I have no more chance of convincing ralis than he does of convincing me, we've both made up our minds. the only difference is, I'll post up data that supports my conclusion, whereas the majority of what you get from ralis is disparagement of the sources of my information, never the information itself. that...in and of itself, is telling, no? but anyway, I only stand up for nature because I have a bad distaste for misinformation. (so think of how that makes me feel about gore making 100 million off of peddling this )

 

Joe,

 

The glaring problem with your post is the irrational fear of some massive government conspiracy among research scientists. That allegation is just another unproven allegation. The problem with conspiracies is that the best conceived ones are only between two people and will eventually fail. The 'prisoners dilemma' is a classic example as to why conspiracies fail. Also see the 'Watergate' documents. BTW, 'the prisoners dilemma' is from basic game theory. Furthermore, this incessant worry about money is also a main part of your post. Those two issues remove any credibility from your narrative.

 

To posit 'third order processes' or forcing including rambling about coefficients being wrong without substantive evidence is just fancy BS talk.

no fear of conspiracy here, it is what it is - what the government wants, it will subsidize - and when it sees a possible avenue for a vast new source of untapped tax revenue, if that argument can in any way shape or form be made, it happens. it is the same reason why around here many of the highway speeds are still 55mph, despite that being the original speed set on the highway, and unless a state cop is sitting there, nobody does anything close to the speed limit - because altering the speed limits to realistic speeds would necessarily decrease the "revenue" in fines accumulated. Hansen was arrogant enough to declare that since he knew of the possibility of a certain chemical reaction (see cfc-ozone, explaining the ozone hole in the 50s, 60s, 70s) then all of his assumptions following that were necessarily correct, based on the "truth" of that reaction being able to take place. And he entirely ignored the actual natural physical mechanism (tilt of the earth modulating a natural very high altitude reaction w/ sun,) which was by orders of magnitude more substantial. Ok, no problem - scientists must propose hypotheses - but AGW never really got past being a hypothesis before it was crowned law - because it has not bee able to make testable predictions, it was very short term applicable and diverged wildly after a short time. Instead of admitting the limits of the mechanism as more information and knowledge is gleaned, doggedly hold on to old pieces of maths that were written back when it was far less understood, but assumed to still be a fundamental piece of the puzzle - any wonder its mathematical gymnastics and a not real world representing model? Every single catastrophe outcome you see is based on a model that has a certain amount of correlation to reality but does not faithfully replicate the entirety of reality.

 

i.e. forcing your model of earth to comply while not even having a decent understanding of how the sun's dynamo has shaped the evolution of the earth over the millenia, and having the gall to claim it is reality, is just pure plain hubris.

 

For the most part, I dislike taking the word of sciential minded folks,...I'll listen, but need a less number orientated view also. From how I understand JoeBlast, there is no carbon problem, thus no global warming.

 

I would very seriously ask JoeBlast to help me understand that better. Joe, if you could spend tonight in a garage with your car running, in the morning explain how nearly 1 billion combustion engine vehicles have no carbon effect within the garage of the Earths atmosphere.

exactly, there is no carbon problem. like I mentioned about the whole "fun house mirror" thing at some point in the past, equating the earth's atmosphere to your garage and our emissions to a car in there is so wildly skewed its not even funny.

 

by the way...what's the main component of that exhaust? 14% co2 vs 12% water vapor - and with water vapor being orders of magnitude greater in "warming coefficient strength" what does that really say in terms of weight on the equation? human emissions are still but a fraction of what the natural cycle is. of course at some point there is some sort of an impact, but trying to assert that we're anything close to such after a couple hundred years of human industry is just wildly out of context - if your're considering carbon dioxide.

 

that's why I said it takes away from real environmental efforts...

Edited February 1, 2013 by joeblast

[Owledge]

Oh well, I guess since the joke has been made, the thread has served its purpose. After all, forum discussions are fun, no?

 

Ralis, I observed nature recently. I noticed that nights with clear sky coincide with a severe temperature drop from the daytime compared to overcast nights which have much less temperature drop.

Clouds are water vapor. A cloud cover is a massively effective heat trap.

 

Also, not having to observe nature, but merely using common sense, I realize that the Earth's ecosystem is not a closed system. Everybody who thinks it is should turn off the sun for a while and see what happens.

 

Two important facts:

1) The sun supplies the ecosystem with heat.

2) Heat escapes into space.

 

Without these principles, an aquarium couldn't work or would be massively more difficult to balance. The aquarium is the half-open ecosystem that gains more self-balancing potential the bigger it gets, and our planet is a freaking big ecosystem. An aquarium usually has lighting and heating, and those would be a pain in the ass if the aquarium wasn't able to release excess heat through its glass container. The fact that there is energy transfer in both directions all the time makes it stable/controllable. Greater temperature differences tend to even out quicker. If you supply a certain heat per hour to an aquarium, you get a certain water temperature. If you supply twice the heat, don't expect to get twice the temperature increase. The aquarium will dissipate more heat to the surrounding air.

 

But this is just of minor relevance compared to the way clouds work.

[thelerner]

OGAWD IT'S HAPPENING AGAIN

SOMEBODY CRACK A JOKE

SOMEBODY

ANYONE!

Alright I'll try.

An environmental scientist, global warming skeptic, hooker, priest and rabbi walk into a bar during the Ming Dynasty.

 

 

 

 

The bartender says 'What'll you have?'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The environmental scientist says 'Bourbon, plenty of ice'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The skeptic says 'Whisky, neat'

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The two get into a fight and the priest, rabbi and hooker leave for a quieter place.

 

WHAT? too realistic?

 

I can do better.

The hooker says to the Believing scientist: 'What's your favorite position?'

He says 'Missionary and I like to be on top.'

 

Next she asks the Skeptic.

He points to the scientist and says 'He's lying' and they get into another fight.

Edited February 2, 2013 by thelerner

[Owledge]

Nice improv there!

[Owledge]

Interestring