Cite?
Right, I’m not disputing what a scientific paper says in total, rather taking a couple of sentences, saying “this confirms my statement”, yet when read in context of the paper in fact actually does not confirm the statement. Typically by ignoring 98% of the energy involved, and that’s always a bad idea.
[startled look] Graphic designer, eh … the above is most intelligent thing I’ve read here on SDMB on this subject. I’ll be making it a point to be very very careful disputing your science. My copy of Halliday/Resnick gives the 2nd Law in terms of “system and environment”, and if compared to your statement the Earth and Sun are the closed system. Yeah, I can see you rolling your eyes already. [sigh].
However, my main dispute when people post about positive feedback loops is they still have to specific the “initiator”. Consider holding the electric guitar up to its speaker, nothing happens until we apply an external energy source to pluck the string. Then and only then will the positive feedback loop begin. It may not have anything to do with the 2nd Law, but it’s still true [whine whine bitch bitch].
It’s in the Bible, Watchwolf 14:27 - “If thou shouldst consume 12 letters for thou’s username, ye be no better than a hair dresser” To wit:
dv/dt = ∂b/∂t + ∂g/∂t + ∂F/∂t.
Here, let me quote 14 scientific journals over the next 6 column-feet …
I never have understood why people choose pretentious user names.
Um …
Nah … too easy.
A slow lob across the plate …
and it’s a ball.
Okay you seriously have to be trying to be that bad at metaphors.
You’d think a mastermind could do better …
An Inconvenient Truth - the way I see it
http://www.enviroalternatives.com/globalwarming.html
You know in your heart it is true.
And now it is confirmed by science. Game. Set. Match.
Says the poster who claims there are lots of ways to prove the prediction false – but doesn’t produce even one such hypothetical when repeatedly asked.
Al Gore wins!
Actually putting something out there opens you up to all kinds of hassles.
Like the climategate email said, “Why should I share my research with them? They are just looking for a way to find something wrong with it”.
SCIENCE! Bitch
Someone sees a thing that confirms what they believed. This proves that their belief is incorrect.
Yep, sounds good to me.
What was his prize?
A Nobel
Seattle … what the hell do people in Seattle care about global warming … Mt Rainier will incinerate them long before sea levels rise … sheesh …
In large part from the fact that warmists tend to be very reluctant to either (1) precisely define their hypothesis; or (2) lay out exactly what evidence would undermine or disprove their hypothesis. (Although they are eager to tell you that various evidence does NOT undermine or disprove their hypothesis).
Just look at your behavior in this thread. You state this:
However you refuse to even give examples of such data or to offer a precise definition of what you mean by “global warming.”
You are a perfect example of why I state that “NOTHING is inconsistent with the Sacred (But Undefined) Theory of Global Warming.”
Are you silly enough to think climategate was a real scandal?
Or are you just mentioning it in an aside, to create a general atmosphere of denial?
It wasn’t a real scandal ??? That would be exceptionally bad news if I knew what the hell that was. But if there’s a Wikipedia article about it, then I don’t have to read it to know I wanna be a part.
“Climate change denialism is the prime example [of pseudoscience], where a handful of scientists, allied with an effective PR machine, are publicly challenging the scientific consensus that global warming is real and is due primarily to human consumption of fossil fuels.”
There it is … thermodynamics is a pseudoscience now. Add that to astronomy and chemistry and we have quite the impressive list of heresies. I’m sorry, there’s not one shred of evidence to back up the claim that global warming is caused primarily by humans. If that makes me a denier, then I wear that badge with honor. Why, I’m damn proud to use strictly wind farm electricity for reasons that have … absolutely … no … connection … to … global … warming. (yea, I hope that pisses off people too).