I'm sick of this Global Warming!

The BBQ Pit
1401

I know you’re having too much fun, and far be it from me to rob you of your merriment.

But it seems to me—as a fan of science—that you can find disagreement in any area of science. For instance, while the theory of evolution is well-established, there are countless details and facets of evolution that continue to be debated by scientists.

This is essentially the same thing happening with Climate Change. Humans are emitting billions of metric tons of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere every year, trapping heat radiating from Earth toward space. Like evolution, that is the bigger picture that the scientific community is confident “will not be overturned by new evidence”.

What you are pointing out are the details of that overall effect. And like the details of evolution there are numerous sources for those findings and yes, some of those conflict with each other … as the science of details often does.

But again … I don’t really want to get in the way of your fun.

The question I would ask you, is why the scientific community isn’t likewise seeing these conflicts in the same way you do? How is it that they don’t likewise cause Climate Change to be questioned as it so bothers you?

My suggestion to you is that science understands that the arguments over the details doesn’t change the soundness of the overall theory.

But until the day that you understand that point, knock yourself out. Have fun.

I’m sure it impresses … somebody.

1402

You sure can. But when the science can’t agree on such basic issues as whether global warming causes increase or decrease in prostitution levels… As somewhat of a connoisseur of fine whores, that’s where I draw the line…

1403

I am truly amazed at how many people log-in to a humor web-site that have no sense of humor.

1404

Well, I am new here.

I didn’t realize that opinions here are not to be taken seriously.

What a strange way to spend one’s time.

1405

Perhaps only in psychology can you even get close to the level of woo woo beliefs and opposing claims as we find daily with “climate science”. It doesn’t help at all that the media and politicians and activists distort every last thing to try and spin it.

1406

Greenhouse ocean may downsize fish

Bigger fish due to climate change

1407

Meanwhile, back in the crazy world of climate science, the sun is blamed for the “pause”, and also for us not seeing a steady rise in Global temperature from greenhouse gases.

The educated reader will know exactly why that’s fucking hilarious. The reader of skepticalscience and that sort of blog, probably will not.

1408

I log-in to read The Master’s words, and I laugh. So sue me …

Please, don’t judge an entire web-site just on my behavior. You’ve stumbled into the Pit where almost all rules are suspended. Even I don’t act this way on the other boards.

1409

In your opinion, does the distortion come from only one side?

Because I’ve seen a lot of distortion coming from the denial side.

Then it becomes an exercise in circular logic …

The problem with Climate Change science is all the spin and distortion!

[They said as they furiously spun and distorted.]

1410

There are dishonest people on both sides, all sides, people with motives, with desires, with beliefs and denial and all the traits that we expect from humans. Certainly the FOX news/right wing side distorts and spins, and while I can’t prove it, I suspect there is some serious fucking money spent trying to delay and defraud any science or political decisions that would effect their bottom line, or even their comfort zone.

In brief, both sides are full of shit IMNSHO

For starters, because they make it a matter of “sides”, not scientific research, not trying to discover and know what is actually happening. That is the real failing of both sides. They seem to already know everything, so that anything they disagree with they discount, rather than add to the mix. But, and this is about the scientific fray, the skeptics seems to stick to science more than the alarmists. Of course that may be because the skeptic is debunking claims, while the alarmists is making them.

Until you get to the solar stuff, or biology, or clouds, in which case the shoe is on the other foot, with the warmistas being all skeptical of any other factor than mankind effecting things. Which is why that solar study is so damn funny. It is trying to use the sun to explain the cooling, all the while in denial that the sun could cause any climate change, which is fucking retarded.

1411

This is even more ironic because according to various “sources”, there has been no cooling, no pause in warming.

Or the warming is being masked by China spewing coal exhaust pollution.

Or the warming is being masked by natural variation.

Or that warming has actually increased, we just can’t measure it right.

Or that this was expected by the models.

Or some other thing, it’s always something being thrown out to explain what clearly shows up in the instrumental record at this point. Which is

Cooling trend for NH winters.

No warming on a global scale.

Increased global sea ice.

Increased snow fall and snow extent in winter

Cooling of the oceans

No warming of upper troposphere in tropics

No arctic amplification

Large glaciers growing

Sea level rise not increasing

Storm frequency and intensity questionable (no increase)

To be fair, the spring and summers ARE warming, precipitation is increasing in some areas, decreasing in others, arctic sea ice still far below “average” in summer. and some tidewater glaciers shrinking. Far less snow cover in summer, warming in some areas of Asia, as well as Australia.

It’s fucking complicated as can be.

What is clear, is that the models didn’t work. We are not seeing what was predicted. This does not mean greenhouse gases are not increasing (they are), and it does not mean that this is fucking with things (it most probably is).

It just means the models as they currently are, are dead wrong.

1412

Global warming is good, it signals the dawn of a new era of prosperity, blah blah blah …

1413

Well, I’m happy to report that I visited my local Via la Putas today (kinda missed it, having skipped the last two evenings) and there has been no noticeable increase nor decrease in the availability of offered merchandise. So, global warming can suck on that.

1414

On a website devoted to fighting ignorance, this thread is a cancer that should be nuked from the internet.

1415

Oh shit, we have a cancer-nazi now. I’m ready, willing and able to talk the science right now, right here. But if you violate even one of the three laws of thermodynamics, then it’s not science, it’s religion.

Cancer on the internet is a GOOD thing, we should be nurturing it and feeding it so it can grow and blossom into an adult crackpot theory !!!

1416

Have one of the three laws of thermodynamics been violated?

If so, please describe.

1417

This typically comes from a “cherry-picking” of scientific papers which brings the statement “AGW is 2.8 W/m^2 of [output] radiative flux due to carbon dioxide” (Watts per square meter). This is presented as an all-encompassing reason for Global Warming. I’m looking at 1000 W/m^2 input flux, so you can see the 2.8 number is just a small fraction of input. Turns out 60% of output flux is due to water vapor, 29% due to carbon dioxide, of which only 2% is due to AGW. If one insists that we only need to consider this 2.8, and completely ignore the rest, basically one would be violating the Conservation of Energy (or 1st Law).

Violations of the 2nd Law come about when we consider the initiator of these various feedback loops. “Disorder” is always increasing, for us to have the “order” of a feedback loop, we must have energy input … otherwise we have perpetual motion. If someone calls upon a feedback loop, I’ll ask for the initiator, and if they say it’s not important, I’ll call it perpetual motion.

3rd Law violations are much harder to create, that the sum of all “disorder” in the universe is zero. This would be statements like “there is no equilibrium in the atmosphere” or “equilibrium need not be maintained”, all of which are violations of the 3rd Law.

WARNING: I don’t understand this material well enough to teach it. This will give you a rough idea though, I’m sure some of the details are off and stand to be corrected. My point here is to show some of the fallacies of copy/pasting scientific papers, there’s a tendency to leave out what are very important details. If I should ask, and the poster cannot answer, then I begin to question the posters knowledge of the principles they’re espousing.

1418

This first part is above my pay grade. I’m a graphic designer. That’s why I count on scientists to discuss these kinds of issues amongst themselves and report on whether they make sense or not.

I’ll assume that in this case, they looked at those numbers and found they made sense, or perhaps the way the problem is posed isn’t being framed correctly.

The little that I do know [or assume to know] about the 2nd Law is that it concerns closed systems. Disorder always increases because there is no energy being put into the system. But the Sun constantly radiates the Earth with energy. The system isn’t closed. Therefore I don’t see how the 2nd Law applies.

1419

Well why not fight that ignorance by posting the truth? You can start by summarizing whatever statements manifest ignorance; then explain what is correct; then summarize the evidence and argument which supports your position. Finally, you can submit to questions about your position, evidence, and argument.

1420

No no no! The way to fight ignorance is to post one line insults, and try and impress other people with your wit.

That’s how you educate the masses.

All this science and shit just confuses people.