I'm sick of this Global Warming!

The BBQ Pit
661

To put it mildly. Of course we still haven’t seen the alarmists demonstrate they have even the basic understanding of how we can know warming is due to CO2, rather than warming which occurs with no human input. Which is actually the crux of the matter.

I can’t speak for what other people actually are thinking, or their motivations, or even what they really believe. We have to go by what is in black or white, so to speak.

Like when once again somebody asks questions.

I said it is obvious you haven’t read the thread, because if you had there is little doubt about what was said.

So when I see yet again somebody asking for clarification, it seems dishonest.

Yes, but it also completely avoids the scientific part. How can we know any warming is due to CO2 increase? That is the fundamental issue in regards to “it”. That this is actively avoided, by the very people insisting “it” is happening, is beyond annoying.

Do they actually just not know? Do they know and don’t want to discuss it? How do you know?

It’s sick.

662

Then there is the real issue I started the thread out with. The cold. And also the snow.

While the self proclaimed experts on AGW simply can’t, or won’t, state the important things predicted by AGW theory (or whatever “it” is), it doesn’t matter in the grand scheme of things. Extreme cold, record cold, unusual cold, more snow, early winters, longer winters, these things are the exact opposite of AGW theory.

The semi educated warmist will repeat the party line of “there will still be record cold times, but there will be more record highs”. They have some sort of App that spits that sort of thing out. The humor is, it’s not a response to the science, nor is it even a response to the long tend trend of cooling that is happening in the boreal winters.

I would bet no warmer posting here, or the more rational observer, even knows what that means. You may have heard that cold winters are being attributed to low arctic ice, with out realizing what that actually is saying, or why.

What we do know (by “we” I mean educated scientists keenly interested in the climate) is that in large areas of the NH there is a trend of colder winters, with much more snow. Several mechanisms are being investigated, as this actually is an alarming trend, and one that must be dealt with, and being able to predict the future, in this case, is vital.

Of course the thread got dumped into the Pit, but even so, science still rules.

And Physics is my bitch.

663

Err… What? So carbon causing a warming in the earth’s climate overall could not have the effect of cooling in some areas? For example by drastically changing how the polar vortex works (which is the cause for April 2012’s bizarre coldsnap which ruined a lot of harvests)? Never mind that you’d actually expectrecord snowfalls in a warmer world. And you know what? When the global trend nudges downward in a period of actual statistical significance, then you might have a point. 2013 has been a fairly cold year. It doesn’t negate what we already understand about the physics behind the greenhouse effect, nor the massive warming trend we have had over the last century.

664

This thread is freaking awesome.

Moar!

665

And we are still just getting the terms defined.

Imagine how fucking awesome it will be when SCIENCE BITCHES shows up

666

That isn’t what I said at all. Of course. Try to just read the black markings, and not the empty spaces in between.

667

It’s one thing to blame such weather events on global warming after the fact. But if you are not just blowing smoke, you should be able to predict those things without the benefit of hindsight.

So let’s hear your specific predictions about future weather events. (No need to be as specific as a weather forecast, of course.)

Could you summarize what “we already understand about the physics behind the greenhouse effect”?

And in particular, what does that understanding say about water vapor feedback?

And what does it say about warming in the first half of the 20th century?

(I would note that even the IPCC doesn’t blame warming in the first half of the 20th century on CO2 emissions. It’s just ascribed to natural causes. Of course there is essentially no evidence that the same thing which caused this warming is not also responsible in large part for warming in the latter part of the 20th century.)

668

I thought you were the Science Bitch.

In any case, I want moar!

669

Because I’m 90% sure the true believer won’t grasp it, there is humor in simply plainly stating something. Then watching how the warmist tries to figure out if it somehow is “wrong”, which means it goes against the “great belief”, so they can figure out how to respond/attack.

Misrepresenting what I clearly said is a common theme. Then there is all the other song and dance, as well as the blank stare. Where an entire post is just ignored.

People get fucking upset when they learn something new, and find it seems like it is going to make them “wrong”. Get the fuck over it. That’s SCIENCE BITCHES.

If you are afraid of being wrong, you should avoid science.

Plus, it’s not like you did any of the research, published any papers, so even when you realize you are “wrong”, you aren’t really. You just got fooled. Not the same thing at all.

670

What’s whackier than playing chess with a special needs child?

Playing chess with two special needs children in luchadores costumes.

671

That’s just fucking cruel. You know good and damn well nobody is going to open that door.

You are just poking people with a pointy stick.

672

Emphasis on just.

673

Since I know there will be another 100 page tap dance around it, I am actually considering answering for them. I don’t think anyone here actually knows.

Those are simple, easy to answer questions. Any climate scientists, or anyone who spent twenty minutes in study knows the answer.

Shit, I can fucking link you directly to an explanation of both those questions.

Why the fuck do the alarmists shitheels have so much trouble?

674

Not if the answers would shed light on issues which are embarrassing to the position in which you are invested. The reality is that you can’t just use physics to figure out whether greenhouse warming is amplified by water vapor feedback. Which is a problem for the warmist side since their predictions of doom and gloom hinge on water vapor feedback.

So the more educated warmists tend to dance around this issue. Which means that GarbageSpewer and his merry band of fucktards cannot find anything to regurgitate when they search their warmist web sites. So they must dodge and weave.

See above.

675

Actually you can use physics, and science to know that water vapor does not have the feedback that some people have assumed MUST happen. In fact, it may actually act in the opposite manner that THEY JUST ASSUME will happen.

I mean, it sounds good, from a physics POV, to say
“more” heat = “more WV” = more heat = MOAR WATER VAPORS!!

I brought up the boreal winters for a reason, as WV and heat are the two main factors in the new hypothetical mechanism to explain why warming is leading to cooling. Of COURSE that sounds like crazy satire to the ignorant fuck who looks to SS and other blogs to understand the world. They actually think I’m being ironic, or satirical, or making fun of global warming.

In reality I am repeating peer reviewed science.

Maybe, but experience has shown full well the dangers of making predictions, because after enough time people will actually be able to tell what happens. It’s why caution and care are part of science, when it comes to predictions based on untested theories, hypothesis or unknown mechanisms. If you are deluded and think you actually understand everything about the earth, you might start making predictions. You might also start trying to explain why you were wrong, and throw your hands up in the air and cry about how people just don’t understand science.

Or start insulting everyone. Good luck with that.

Or the warming in the past, which we know good and damn well was much warmer than now. The myth that “it’s warmer now than it has ever been” is probably the biggest scientific blunder the “consensus” came up.

Even when they can’t ignore the evidence that shows they are wrong, they just switch to “but the rate of change is faster!”, never conceding a damn thing. They have to be right, at all cost.
It’s sickening.

676

This is an actual problem with the armchair climate scientist, and the uneducated. Only looking at the “global” picture leads to some serious problems when you are trying to predict what will happen in the real world. The alarmist actually realizes this when somebody points out that due to record Antarctic sea ice, the “global” sea ice levels are at a record high. They quite rightly object that the south pole is different, and you can’t add the two together to make it seem like the arctic ice hasn’t gone way down.

Right? You know about that, right? It’s why adding the entire land/ocean heat up and claiming it’s getting warmer is nonsense, if you are talking about the actual real world. It doesn’t matter if the “global yearly temperature average” is .1 degrees higher or lower this year. That doesn’t actually mean anything when looking at the boreal winters, and the cooling trend that is evident. same for the snow. A drastic decrease is spring/summer snow (which is with out any doubt) doesn’t matter if the winter snow is increasing. Which is the same for “global temperatures”, it doesn’t matter to the winter what the summer is doing. (except it actually might, but that is the complicated part). If winters in large areas are trending down (and they are, since 1988), then in the real world you have to deal with that. Not a mythical “global warming” which only exists if you average the entire year, and the entire word.

Now there is a LOT of complex shit in that paragraph. SCIENCE BITCHES!

It may just be an anomaly, especially since there have been very warm years of late. I’m focusing on the boreal winters and the long term trend for a good reason. Extreme swings from year to year are normal for climate. It has always been that way.

Of course not, nobody is trying to overturn the warming effect of CO2. What seems to be happening, is an unexpected feedback, involving arctic warming, and it seems to be leading to a very unexpected trend. and it’s PHYSICS BITCH.

No, and this is why your ignorance about AGW, or Climate Change is showing. A retroactive prediction (like the one you linked to) is bullshit. If there was a prediction from twenty years ago, or even a decade ago, that would actually be meaningful. But realizing that the extreme winters are just not going away, and THEN trying to say it was predicted by AGW, that is extreme dishonesty.

Another reason I suspect some serious religious like belief infecting honest scientific inquiry.

677

Sure. I don’t think anybody disagrees that the details of climate science and specific predictions about the AGW hypothesis are complicated issues with lots of uncertainties in them.

But just because something is hard doesn’t mean that it’s false, or that we can just ignore the whole thing until it’s all settled beyond any possibility of dispute.

For one thing, we need to get straight exactly what parts of the theory you’re looking for experimental verification of. Do you believe that it’s not yet sufficiently established that human activities are increasing greenhouse-gas concentrations in the atmosphere? Or that rising greenhouse-gas concentrations are driving the observed warming trend?

Or do you accept those parts of the theory as adequately supported by science, but just not the predictions about specific climate impacts?

If you make it clear how far the common ground extends in your assessment of the AGW hypothesis, it will be easier to get down to details about testable predictions regarding the parts of it you find problematic.

678

Actually, there’s a lot of vague, garbled rambling in that paragraph. You don’t seem to have any clear idea of what point you’re trying to make with regard to boreal winter cooling, except “this is a complicated subject that I’m going to pretend I know more about than you do in order to intimidate you into shutting up”.

Why I look at (and cite at length) actual published research and public-science explanations by actual climate scientists on the AGW hypothesis is because they generally try to be clear and informative on the technical aspects. They actually want their readers to understand what they say, rather than just trying to sound esoterically incomprehensible to boost their own egos.

679

Indeed, I’m not disagreeing. Nor am I yet saying it’s false, or that we can ignore it.

I’m asking what’s currently being predicted – in terms of what hypothetical evidence would prove it false. If it’s so complicated and uncertain that such questions can’t be answered, well, then, yes, it’s Not Even Wrong – but I think you can supply those answers, and I hope to see 'em in this thread.

Well, ‘the future parts,’ I guess. What, at a minimum, is currently being predicted? What, if it happens instead, would fall short of that? Could that happen as soon as next year? Could it happen no sooner than five years, or five decades, from now? How would things have to play out for that to happen?

What predictions about specific climate impacts? I can’t tell you whether I accept “the predictions about specific climate impacts” until you name them.

Well, that’s odd. Can’t you relay said testable predictions regardless of whether our common ground about the rest is total or nonexistent? I’d figure the claims about WHAT WILL HAPPEN IN YEARS TO COME could be typed out – or copy-and-pasted – no matter who you’re addressing and what they believe.

680

Frankly, I think the “deniers” do have valid questions and the answers they get are often not fully adequate. Yet you’d never suspect that from reading this thread. I click on this thread and read a random post every now and then; this time I got:

There is nothing whatsoever about this post that could be considered intelligible, let alone polite, let alone intellectual. The only meaning apparent amidst this prattle is that Mr. Mastermind pretends not to know what “anthropogenic” means. Let me Google That for You.