There’s the problem, right there! Your viewpoints on global warming is a complex tapestry of subtle interconnections. Not so much lacking in nuance but burdened with a surfeit of nuance, too intricate for our stunted minds to grasp.
What you need is a better board, where your stunning insights will be recognized and applauded! Your brilliance is wasted here, you need to hang with the smartest, hippest people on the planet…oh, wait. Forgot. Nope, you’re screwed.
That’s an excellent description of the one liners here. They can’t even follow the conversation, but they just have to say something, because they need attention.
When faced with 20 lines of text (not paragraphs) which include scientific sources, they get this dumb look on their face.
Then they just have to say something. Not about the greatest threat to mankind ever, oh no, they can’t be bothered lifting a finger to learn about that. But they always have time to pass wind.
FX, you’re a fucking idiot.
Very well stated, the question is whether carbon dioxide pollution in the atmosphere is as nasty as Oakridge or Hanford, and where our tax money should be spent today. I think the recent Obama administration policies concerning cutting back on coal production is GREAT, but maybe 30 years too late.
I’m sick of this global warming because it’s a good thing for humanity, we’re at the dawn of a new Golden Age of the human condition … belch that CO[sub]2[/sub], suckers, I dare you.
Forget it, VT, it’s The Bozo Show.
I grew up with Bozo. I knew Bozo. Bozo’s Circus was a favorite of mine.
FXMastermind, you are no Bozo.
Reminds me of a joke: A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on a desert island with no food but a can of beans. The physicist thinks for a while then says “I’ve calculated the precise height we need to throw the can in the air so that when it comes down and hits a rock it’ll burst open”. The chemist also thinks for a while and says “I’ve calculated the precise amount of time we need to leave the can in the fire so that the contents expand and the can bursts open.” The economist also thinks for a while and then says “assume the existence of a can opener…”
Anyway, good rebuttal, watchwolf49. You’ve spotted the flaw in his argument—he’s making the wrong assumptions!
No, not Bob Bell’s Bozo. He’s the grand marshal of this parade of clowns, that makes him a syndicated Bozo.
I can totally relate when people say it’s hard to understand the point.
Can we get a wrap up of what the argument is about?
We are? There’s no sunlight? Why is it warmer in the daytime than at night?
I have the solution, but it only works in the case of spherical cows in a vacuum.
Don’t dismiss this out of hand. It’s actually a brilliant idea. As Evil Economist suggests, all we have to do is ignore the effects of the sun and we can totally solve global warming. Scientists have been wasting all this time being hilarious, and the answer was right under their noses. All it needed was an idiot with a complete lack of understanding of basic scientific terms to jumble them together in a nonsensical way.
The Sun is way too far away to contribute any energy to our closed system. It is kind of a miracle to me that I can even see it’s light.
If your climate theory doesn’t work when energy’s conserved, you’re wrong.
That’s a very good point.
Warren M. Washington notes in Appendix C of An Introduction to Three-dimensional Climate Modeling that this is modeled “reasonably well”, and that in climate models energy is “approximately conserved”.
But since “… changes in the energy balance of the climate system are not explicitly considered”, some people want to use other methods to determine the cause of changes. Thanks for the insight.
Well now the problem has become obvious. You aren’t funny. Not even close.
None of your one liner shit is funny. This clip (from 2010) is funny
You are not.
The tactic of “you are are confusing and make no sense” has come up before of course. It’s a rather easy one to expose, much like the “you are a paid shill” nonsense, each person who does it seems to think they invented it. Here’s a look back in time, where somebody easily solved the problem. Post are edited because of length, but the links work fine.
When somebody describes this as “being a Bozo” or whatever fuckhead idea they come up with, it says more about them than anything else.
When one person says this about everyone else, then yup, I’ll give you this. When everyone else says it about you, then maybe it’s time to reevaluate. Guess which of these is pertinent to you.
The prevailing climate theory works perfectly well under the law of conservation of energy.
Energy is not conserved in the earth’s atmosphere. Energy also isn’t conserved in your bathtub, and for the same reason: external sources of heat exist.
No, I am not talking about weather, though I can see why you might think that, considering I used the words ‘warm front’- usually a weather, and not a climate, phenomenon. Allow me to clarify.
Consider Charles’ Law:
V is volume of gas, T is temperature in Kelvin. If we know the volume and temperature of a mass of gas, we can easily predict its volume at a different temperature.
What is the Arctic Circle? For my explanation, this is the relevant part:
I am going to calculate the expansion of the volume of air 1 mile thick over the arctic circle with a change of 1 degree Celsius.
Google tells me the average temperature in the Arctic Circle is -34 C in winter and ~4 C in summer. The overall average is about -15 C, I will run with that. That is slightly flawed, but this is just a ferinstance calculation, relax.
-15 C equals 258.15 K, link. The volume of the Arctic atmosphere 1 mile deep is 7,700,000 cubic miles. Let’s run the numbers:
V1= 7,700,000 sq miles. T1= 258.15
T2= 259.15 (a 1 degree C increase). V2= (V1/T1)*T2 = 7,729,828.
So, for every degree Celsius increase in temperature, the Arctic atmosphere increases in volume by 29,828 cubic miles.
So, when I say, “warm front”, I don’t mean it in the usual meteorological way. I mean it in the long-term sense, the sense in which the Arctic is warming, and how, over time, large volumes of really cold air push outward via expansion as understood through Charles’ Law.
Your links point out that the equator gets more sunlight than the poles. But, what is important here is “the delta”. If you have studied Calculus or especially Differential Equations, you are familiar with the Greek letter Delta (which I don’t know how to produce with my keypad, so I am going to continue to call it “the Delta of _____.”) The Arctic is changing in a way the rest of the world is not. Ice that used to reflect sunlight back into space is disappearing for parts of the year, such that the change in the amount of heat captured via sunlight in this region is greater than the change in other regions. And so the Arctic can be viewed as a region that drives global climate change.
I’ll go more in-depth on this last point later if you want, it is getting late. Point is, I am talking about a climate effect. As the Arctic warms, cold air is pushed south via atmospheric expansion, which isn’t fully countered by expansion of the rest of the atmosphere because of its own global warming, because of the greater Delta of the Arctic atmosphere.