Says the person who wrote this:
But please do lecture us on maturity.
I jumped you for making a statement of certainty when describing probability. You don’t have to be a climate scientist to know the extreme dangers of claiming probabilities of 0 or 1. Now you seem to be suggesting that this is getting way too detailed and I think I’m going to agree with you. I guess either you agree with thermodynamic equilibrium or you have shit for brains, doesn’t seem to be any middle ground here.
Word like 'retained", “trapped” and “bitchhead” are poorly chosen when describing the atmosphere. On the other hand, these words describe a gardener’s greenhouse quite adequately, but here we have a physical barrier to the transfer of energy, the glass sheets. In our atmosphere no such structure exists. What these greenhouse gasses are doing is slowing down the transfer of energy through the atmosphere, which has the same effect as a gardener’s greenhouse. Think about it, with the same amount of energy coming in, but energy leaving more slowly, then at any given instant in time, we’ll have more total energy in our atmosphere, which directly implies a higher temperature. This isn’t a “runaway” effect, for a given concentration of greenhouse gasses, the temperature will stabilize at some temperature, equilibrium.
My contention is that the atmosphere quickly responds to changes in greenhouse concentrations, perhaps within a few hours. So that temperatures today are very very close to this equilibrium. This is easily demonstrated by just sticking a thermometer outside first thing in the morning and checking the temperature every hour. Note that it takes only a few hours to gain 5ºC, not the hundred years AGW theory predicts.
Besides, glaciers kill peoples, so fuck glaciers and I hope to see them all die a slow painful horrible death.
No, and you can’t make me … [sticks tongue out] …
FWIW, I do too, and I appreciate it when you post interesting things like this without the trollery and asshattery. (And you know I use those terms as endearments.)
The TL;DR version of the Cohen et al article seems to be “weather is complicated, Siberia is a bugger, and global warming as a whole seems to cause NH winter cooling so suck on that seeming paradox, y’all.”
Do you agree that a model that more fully incorporates the snow cover-AO relationship is the way to go?
Wait, is one of they guys who was swearing up and down that AGW is the bunk now pressing for a somewhat more accurate version of the same thing? Huh? What?
Who, FXM? Mystery wrapped in an enigma tucked inside a Klein bottle.
So now that you have identified a mechanism by which global warming can cause the colder temperatures and heavy snowfall seen in parts of the U.S. this year, do you plan to stop posting all the frivolous links to weather reports?
See, this is the part I don’t think you (FXM) get. There are a lot of intelligent people who participate or once participated in this thread. We didn’t originally come here to make fun of you. We came because we know something about AGW or wanted to learn more. When you discuss things like what might be wrong with models that predict warmer temperatures where colder ones are actually observed, and what corrections should be made to these models, it’s actually interesting. When you post page after page of disconnected weather reports, it makes us think you aren’t interested in the science and are only in it for the trolling.
I don’t think you are an idiot. You have a decent grasp of the science (unlike some of the other posters). But you certainly can be an asshole. So cut that shit out. Engage people on the science and listen to what they say, and it might turn into a worthwhile thread. And for god’s sake, stop with the weather reports.
Area forecast discussion…updated
national weather service peachtree city ga
1050 am edt wed aug 26 2015
.update…
No changes planned for the forecast.
41
.prev discussion… /issued 342 am edt wed aug 26 2015/
.short term /today through thursday/…
Current satellite loop shows mostly clear skies across the region. Latest analysis shows the cold front just south of the cwaand it appears to have stalled. The drier airmass that the frontusher into the region is still firmly in place with dewpoints inthe 50s and 60s across the area. This drier airmass is still
expected to dominate the short term keeping precipitation southand east of the area. The models are showing a bit of mid level
moisture return beginning this afternoon so will see somescattered clouds across the region today and thursday but that isall we are expecting. Still expecting daytime highs in the 80s and90s with low temps in the upper 50s to 60s.
01
.long term /thursday night through tuesday/…
Models show high pressure settling along the mid atlantic coastand establishing an easterly wind flow on friday. This will begin
to increase area moisture enough to warrant a slight chance ofconvection across mainly the southeast zones for friday afternoon.Long range models continue to show a return to scattered afternoonand evening showers and thunderstorms by the weekend andcontinuing into the first of next week as a series of upperdisturbances interact with increasing moisture and instabilities.
Still much uncertainty on the potential track of tropical stormerika late in the extended period… With the ecmwf showing a deepsurface low tracking along the east coast of florida on tuesday…And the gfs showing a much weaker surface low meandering over theeastern gulf on tuesday. So far… Both models keep the surfacelow south of the forecast area through mid next week… But thiscould change and all interest across the state should closelymonitor later forecast of erika over the weekend and beyond.
39
&&
This is a novel and creative approach. Many’s the time I have seen a conclusion offered without any actual facts to support it. But here we have a bunch of facts confirming the notion that there is weather in Peach Tree City, Georgia. That is no longer in dispute, if ever it were.
The ozone layer is not a physical structure? Since when?
…And then tucked way up a Bantha’s butt.
Ozone is not a physical barrier, it’s just another gas, rockets pass right through it without crashing. I believe that’s at about the 10 mb level, or above 99% of the mass of the atmosphere. The air gets pretty thin up that high.
…while festering for an eon in a Sarlaac’s gut…
Do you honestly believe that gases are not physical?
Go back (again) to those physics textbooks you claim to have access to.
“…balanced on the tip of a cashew nut…”
We’ve got a new hit song on our hands!
It’s easy to fall into the deeply anthropocentric mistake of defining “physical barrier” as “stuff I can’t put my hand through.” Glass is a fun example; obviously it’s a physical barrier to our movement, but not to visible light. It blocks UVB radiation, but not UVA. Water vapor in the air, on the other hand–fog–is not a barrier to our movement, but a lot of photons get grumpy about it.
I always enjoy remembering that, at the end of the day, neutrinos just don’t give a fuck. OG particles, yo.
.
I think the issue here is one of English usage, for which I have no immediate access to any textbooks. I realize that the impoverished backwards third-world nation you learn English in does indeed place the adjective after the noun, “physique du barrière”. I’d speculate you’re instructor was from someplace in the United Kingdom and you’ve picked up their God-awful thick dialect, did she say she was from Glasgow by any chance? Anyway, I’m sure you’ve heard this before but when translating from Neanderthal (Ostrogot) to English, always bring your adjective to the front of the noun.
This is a common mistake for peoples whose mother tongue is one of the wide variety of knuckle-dragging languages. In English, word order matters, and it matters a lot. In the proto-human languages we can just throw all our words, phrases and clauses together somewhat randomly. Not so in English, where we place these elements convey an amazing amount of nuance. If I had said “the barrier to the physical”, then I would have been decoupling the phrase from the context. However, I specifically chose “physical barrier” which is a comparison operator, meaning I was specifically comparing ozone with 3/8" tempered glass. Subtile I know, but that’s why English is so difficult to learn for the typical Ostrogot-speaking person.
I understand this is all a moot point since you apparently don’t understand how gardener’s greenhouses work. The glass barrier (barrière des verre) arrests the convective transfer of energy. Neither ozone nor the free oxygen radicals in the Stratosphere can do this, thus they are not barriers in the greenhouse sense of the word.
I hope this clarifies my point …
I realize that everyone loading this page will be greeted by me sticking my tongue out at someone’s left ear. Hopefully that won’t reflect on my credibility … sheesh …
Nope, it’s just pure idiocy at work. Barrier by definition “a physical structure which blocks or impedes something”, so it’s utter bullshit to pretend the ozone layer is a barrier, in any way. Gases that absorb EM frequencies are not considered barriers. It’s a fuck over of the language itself, however I did enjoy your post, especially the Latin parts
The ozone layer does not block or impede anything?
The entire atmosphere can be considered a barrier, and you can certainly describe the ozone as a “thermal barrier”, but not a “physical structure”, which is where the original fuckhead dispute started.
If you call the atmosphere a barrier, it’s semantics, the curse of a scientific discussion.