I'm sick of this Global Warming!

The BBQ Pit
1521

I think it’s more than that – refusing to define “global warming” allows the warmists to conceal the essential failing of their position. By keeping the definition vague, they make it essentially impossible for anyone to provide evidence which might undermine or refute their position. Also, it allows them to avoid scrutiny of their predictions of doom and gloom.

That said, I doubt that most of the warmists in this thread have given much conscious thought to this issue. What mainly happens is that they get a feeling of cognitive dissonance when it is brought up. So they either ignore the question; misinterpret it; or react angrily. Anything to avoid confronting the flaw in their position.

1522

Perhaps, but at least some researchers are honest, and looking for reality, and the mechanisms that explain what actually happens. Sure they are constrained by the paradigm that everything has to be within the realm of “human caused drastic never before seen global warming happening now and it’s a real dangerous huge problem”, but even so, reality is going to eventually trump computer models and belief systems.

1523

In regards to “climategate”, and I use that term in an ironic manner, since every goddamn thing now has “gate” added to the end of it, which is fucking retarded, I can still remember reading the emails when they first were slapped on a Russian server, and thinking, “These have to be fake. Those climate researchers can not have possibly written this shit”.

But the phone numbers were real, so I was all like, how the fuck did they get all those phone numbers and email addresses? And the details, and the timelines, it was either a huge body of work by a team of seriously talented writers, with enormous background on the players, or there was some fuckery afoot.

Trenberth’s lament, while stuck in unusual snow and cold in Colorado, sounded exactly like what somebody would say when confronted with extreme cold, while faced with the latest data showing the oceans were cooling as well. What the fuck? Where is the warming? Such a human moment. I even checked the weather data for that day in October, and sure enough it was a brutal snow event, early and unexpected, October 2009, a harbinger it turned out, of what was to come that winter.

Then when it turned out they were all actual real emails, what a clusterfuck. Of course people tried to spin it, both sides dancing a tap dance of epic proportions, truth be damned.

But to hand wave all of it away, say it means nothing, it was not an event, well that level of denial is hard to fathom.

1524

Well spoken, they don’t understand what they’re saying. At one level it’s pretty funny reading their claim, then checking their reference only to find the link doesn’t say what they claim it says … sometimes the link says the exact opposite of their claim. I don’t mind them holding a position, but geez, have the humility to admit the guesswork involved.

Now don’t get me wrong, I respect the average Climatologist. It is “science” in the strictest sense of the word. I would never blame them for skipping on the third year of Calculus required for Dynamics … hehe … 'cause you need a love for math for any “hard” science. Climatology is all guesswork and conjecture, as demonstrated by the lack, indeed the complete absence, of any rigid mathematical derivations. Not a damn one have I found. What the fuck are they using for their computer modeling, peanut butter and jelly sandwiches [roars with laughter]. Here’s an example of what numerically modeling uses, and you’ll not find anything even remotely close to this on any of these [poo-poo] climate links. Guesswork and conjecture, hell, from what I read they’re still trying to figure out what they’re supposed to be measuring hahahahahaha.

Average forcing due to Global Warming is 0.0000031 W/m^2. Anyone who would say it’s closer to 1 W/m^2 is totally confused, because that’s 10ºC increase every five fucking weeks. Oh shit, I’m using math, better whip out the Strawman attacks now. Amateur climatology and Algebra don’t mix, thus making it the preferred hobby for those who failed Algebra four straight years.

1525

Will you go into detail of the mechanics of that? I’m quite sure it is way over the head for most of us.

1526

Opps … that should read +0.0000031 W/m^2 … it’s a vector value so the plus sign is required … sorry

1527

Sure, I’ll try, and I’ll stay away from definite integrals if you could grace me with a tiny bit of religious faith.

Let’s look at the phrase “Watts per square meter”. That is the rate of energy transfer per unit area. Yes, that word Watts (W) has the exact same meaning as what’s printed on your light bulbs (the old kind). So if your 100W light bulb has, say, 10 sq inches of surface area, then it is correct to say the flux of the light bulb is 10 W/in^2. There’s a mess of sq inches in a sq meter, so that would shoot up the value if we were to use metric units. Yes … if the Earth shined like a light bulb, we wouldn’t call it a planet, we’d call it a star.

Flux is measuring how much energy flows through an area over so much time. We use Joules (J) for measuring the amount of energy, a square meter (m^2) as a standard unit area, and the second (s) as the basic unit of time. Thus J per s per m^2 or J/s-m^2 and since W=J/s therefore W/m^2.

From the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, the total energy the Earth absorbs from the sun must be equal to the energy the Earth radiates out into space for the total energy the Earth is holding to remain the same. Temperature is a direct measure of this energy content. The forcing in this case is zero … the positive value of energy input is added to the negative value of energy output gives exactly zero. Input flux + Output flux = 0.

Turns out this forcing is actually positive. The Earth is either receiving more sunlight, or something is interfering with the Earth’s ability to radiate. Whchever is happening, the total energy being held by the Earth is increasing, and it’s direct measure of temperature is also increasing. For example, if you’re pouring gas into a tank at one gallon per hour, and the engine the tank is feeding consumes one gallon per hour, the level in the tank stays the same. Now, if a wolf comes and bites you in the ass, you’re going to slosh more gas in, the engine consumes the same, the level in the tank will go up.

I came up with +0.000031 W/m^2 for average forcing over the 10ºC temperature rise we’ve seen these past 10,000 years. The calculations were giving to a doper for double checking, currently with no response … and it involved multiplication so we know the yo-yos can’t understand it.

1528

^^ haha look at this chump who thinks FXMastermind is arguing in good faith!

Do you know what a square meter is? And a Watt? Those are pretty important concepts!

1529

Not at the moment. In fact, if you go with the annual figures, it’s a slight cooling trend since 2002, no matter which dataset you use.

1530

I’m not able to resolve a ten year period in my dataset. 10,000 years pretty much needs a magnifying glass to see. My arguments are based on a 100 million years, as in “Why isn’t Late Cretaceous climate good for human-kind”. Remember that the sun’s output is in some ways unpredictable, any sort of ‘constant’ from that source isn’t. We are, in fact, measuring less sunlight right now. No one knows why, it’s an unpredictable value. It’s fair to say that the past ten years data is full of ‘white noise’. I believe it would be an easy thing to subtract out, but that would require math.

1531

That’s denier talk there buddy. We don’t cotton to no “sun effects the climate” talk round these parts.

1532

[beams] We’ve lived to see the dawning of a new golden age of human prosperity and understanding … blah blah blah …

1533

Denier! The oceans will rise! The world will bake! Snowfalls will be a thing of the past!

1534

… boiling oceans …

1535

Funny you should say that

1536

I’m sorry, there was nothing there that did anything to hurt the hypothesis of anthropogenic global warming, nothing to demonstrate any sort of collusion, conspiracy, or fudging of data. There was nothing in the entire set of emails with any actual meaning, unless you’re an insane conspiracy theorist, or you read way too deep into things. Of course, I don’t know which email you’re talking about, and you don’t provide a link or a number, so I’m left once again with claims that “oh, climategate was this huge deal!” and nothing to show for it.

1537

It’s called a theory, not a hypothesis.

OK now I know you are being funny.

OK now that is cold. Real cold man.

1538

Hey, put up or shut up. Because this has been examined, again, 7 fucking times. There’s nothing in there.

1539

So, your stance is that the world’s climate scientists don’t know enough math to understand the issue as well as you, someone who has no training in climate science, do.

Sounds legit.

1540

FX, will you please describe what you think Climategate is?

I’ve asked several times and you haven’t yet been willing to reply.