I'm sick of this Global Warming!

I forgot about evil e, who is sort of an insane person.

What sort of person considers being wrong, or right, in a science argument, with shame? I blame politics somehow. I also forgot I linked to the other thread the last time this moron started pestering for attention.

What seems to happen, is the nutjobs (and fuckheads) think any criticism or challenge to the AGW theory (CO2 theory, basic global warming theory) is some monstrous attempt to subvert science for political reasons, meaning “I fucking love coal” or “he must be getting paid to post this crap”, both of which are completely wrong.

But trying to correct that level of wrong is a complete waste of time, and since they didn’t use logic and reason and facts to reach their conclusion, no amount of facts or logic can reason them out of it. It’s a belief.

Since you appear to asking an actual scientific question, (hope springs eternal), lets try to narrow it down. Oh wait, it’s not actually a question at all.

Yep, there’s that rabid disdain again.

If you were actually asking questions, I always try to answer them. But this isn’t acvtual inquiry, is it?

Grabbing at the lowest-hanging fruit?

[Emphases Mine]

In a time of normal global warming we have an increase in temperatures. This is regular GW theory. You’'ll either have to disprove this or show what part of increasing temperatures is caused strictly by AGW Theory.

There’s a mathimagical ratio between ∆T and %CO[sub]2[/sub] that would be helpful, if someone can lay hands on that and repost here … perhaps we can threaten the question and not have to beg it as much.

Or, we can do like Judah Cohen did, and modify the theory, and create a model that includes the effects of snow extent, hoping to be able to predict what will happen.

Because it is indeed a theory, we can also discuss the results of the predictions, which would be scientific and all that.

At least we have predictions, not some mumbo jumbo like “it get warmer some places” because physics!

Next year I hear they are going to try including the sun in models, because what the hell.

Open a few threads in GQ about global warming where the science can be discussed and all this trolling won’t be tolerated. It has a side benefit - Fuxsie has already demonstrated that he can’t help but slip into his trolling persona, so your wish might come true.

For everyone still fighting the good fight, it’s now page 97. We have excessive proof that he isn’t going to listen to an argument and say yeah, you’re right (and if he does, he’ll immediately return to the bullshit). He refuses to state his thesis, which makes arguing against it impossible. On the occasions that he says he wants to discuss the science, he refuses to follow through when taken up on it.

I get the point that we’re arguing not for him, but for the sake of everyone else who comes across the thread; I made my attempts at this too. But it’s fucking page 97. No one is going to come across this and think, “you know, this FXM guy makes a good point.” He has demonstrated his complete inability to present a cohesive argument, let alone a persuasive one. He has been caught in innumerable lies, and his retorts that he’s not the one lying don’t make him look right, they make him look insane.

So let him return to posting to himself. Who cares if he makes 10 posts every day with cherry picked weather reports and no one counters them? It’s a battle with no point.

tldr; DNFTT

Shhh. When he is sufficiently fattened up, we will sell him to the zombies. They don’t have any use for all that cash they find on their victims, so its a good deal all around.

Seriously? You’re going there?

I love you with all my heart. Never stop being you.

[sigh] … a master at his craft …

I’m sure there is a measurable convection effect, but I think it is just a thin layer of icing on the cake of jet stream arctic air transfer.

The polar air mass expands by about 37,000 cubic miles per mile of depth per degree Celsius. Sure, that’s a lot of air, but in terms of latitude advance of the polar front, it has little effect. It amounts to pressure that squeezes the jet stream between the arctic and temperate sides of the polar front. This pressure simply forces cold air into the jet stream, whisked away at high velocity to be deposited somewhere else. Temperate side, arctic side, I bet the mix is about half-and-half, but either way we are talking about cold air.

The jet stream doesn’t really move much. It gets more cold air forced into it. Its current trajectory seems to trace from the arctic to the North American cooling zone, so…

:confused:

Interesting, and I admit that I am no foremost jet stream expert by a long shot, but my proposition is ‘cold air pressed into the jet stream’, not ‘convection changing the temperature of the jet stream’.

What? I have been almost fastidious about my hygiene/odor control! Maybe I will pick my nose or develop a dingleberry in the near future to provide you with a cite, you dog!

Here. You will have to deduce the %CO2 change.

I think I once partied hearty with a sorority chick from ∆T. Kinda fuzzy. The memory, I mean.

I used to tutor math at the Sigma Epsilon Chi house, very hard to get much past ∫e[sup]x[/sup] dx though …

You seem to have the basic concept down and for the most part all the details correct. I’ve yarded up some diagrams to help us both clarify what is going on. This first one shows two different polar jet stream configurations of the many many that could be. The actual polar front would be just an RC hair north of the jet stream. Remember, this jet stream is a feature on the temperate side of the polar front, it doesn’t really cross over ever …

(Hold on … HEY … are you trying to make me say something I shouldn’t … you ARE trying … why you cat-lover … I can’t believe you’ve cornered me like this … of all the low-down, despicable, sneaky snaky … you must be a Canadian lawyer … fine … dammit dammit dammit)

… because the polar front is a physical barrier to air flow …

(That hurt me to say, hurt me BAD … I hope you’re happy now … excuse me while I wash my mouth out with bleach)

… albeit a rather imperfect one. Some polar air would leak across in the scenario we’re working with, but it’s so little at a time it would quickly be warmed to the jet stream temperatures. There’s no ability of the polar air to stay together and be deposited over, say, the British riviera.

More insidious would be these “lobes” of the polar front extending far far to the south. We’ve seen in recent years that even Atlanta, GA, is subject to polar air intrusions. Under the conditions of normal GW theory, we’d have a more energetic atmosphere which could indeed provide for more of these intrusions. This means we’ll not find evidence for AGW theory here, this is all normal and expected and there’s absolutely nothing about elevated CO[sub]2[/sub] concentrations that would effect this.

I know your flea-magnet cat implanted that thought in your head … you remind her I have access to the caternet and tell her I’m posting the video of her running like a yellow-bellied coward from a damn squirrel … and hey, check the ground connection on your tin foil helmet, if it’s good you’ll need to upgrade to sheet aluminium helmets …

No, elevated CO2 would encourage this phenomenon. I get where you’re coming from when you say we’ve been emerging from an Ice Age for 12,000 years or so- there appears to be a natural, long-term warming trend going on. Do you feel better now that I’ve copped to that, cat-hater?

But the warming trend seems to have sharply accelerated in correlation with the Industrial Revolution, that is, in step with man-made increases in atmospheric CO2 concentrations. So. Temperature increases attributable to man’s contribution to CO2 levels will create the ‘more energetic atmosphere’ that results in these events. I’m not saying you are altogether wrong, I’m saying we are both pointing to causes of this phenomenon, natural and man-made.

Now, with great restraint, I am going to give you just one chance to leave my cat out of this before I get really nasty. Watch it, watchwolf!

ETA: but really I was just talking about cold air being pressed into the jet stream. The polar vortex seems too large an effect to be wholly caused by AGW. Encouraged? Yes. Magnified? Sure. Wholly caused by AGW? Seems like a natural phenomenon to me, one that is nudged by AGW (and nudged more all the time the greater the delta T starting… now!) It’d be interesting to solve the problem of how much more polar vortex we get because of nudging from AGW.

We will probably never know. Does it matter? I introduced an Asimov essay early on in the topic, and not a single person responded to it, much less showed any possibility they understood any of it. Certainly only a very few write as if it has meaning, not that it matters in any case.

It’s the source of the great sentiment, “John, when people thought the earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the earth was spherical, they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together.”

Was he right about that? Such a question is only answered by an individual, by your own mind. Nobody can tell you that’s true, and force you to believe it. You have to realize for yourself the meaning of it, there is no scientific experiment, no cite, no evidence to point to, no double blind study or consensus science. And if somebody disagrees with that, there is no way to convince them otherwise. Asimov goes on to say a lot more, like

Which was one of the points I thought important in a science discussion, about something as contentious as global warming. When Asimov writes

he is speaking to a critic of science and our current understanding. It’s an answer to the idiot view that because we don’t know everything perfectly, we don’t know anything. This idiot belief shows up in climate science, and definitely rears it’s idiot head when it comes to recent temperature data.

This essay is from The Skeptical Inquirer, Fall 1989, Vol. 14, No. 1, Pp. 35-44

While he is speaking about the old “flat earth” belief system, and the ancients and such, it’s also pretty valid for measuring global temperatures, and how our view of the earth has changed. For example, the jet streams. As with most everything that comes up, it was mentioned and a source provided long ago in the thread.

There is this idiot belief that the “jet stream” is a single entity, a “thing”, and that it has some sort of stable structure, and exists for some reason, by itself. This is possibly due to the idiocy spewed forth by talking heads on the weather channel, where they describe it as “the jet stream”, and attribute qualities to it as if it controls the weather somehow.

The link still provides the easy ability to see for yourself that this is just not true. Here’s a winter view of the jet streams.

Here’s a summer time view. If you look at those and compare them and think, “There isn’t much of a jet stream in summer”, then you now know more than most people in the world do. The jet streams are caused by large differences in air temperature, where warm tropical air meets cold polar air. It’s why the south pole always has strong jet streams, even in the austral summer. It never warms up over Antarctica, even though the summer sun there is much stronger that in the north pole summer. This is because of the ice there. Lots and lots of ice.

Moving on, if you watched the video when I first linked to it, and thought “Wait a minute, that makes it sound like cold years in the arctic would have mild winters, while the years with extreme cold are from it being warmer up near the poles”, which is stupid and nobody would ever say that. Right?

Ah, that’s enough of that.

Ha! I dated a girl in Delta Delta Delta. I really did!

Condolences.