Dude, in all seriousness, please make it clear when you’re quoting from another thread.
I hear ya. Like in the topic where it’s claimed Antarctica is melting, getting warmer. It won’t matter if I post a paper and a link showing that is wrong.
The trolls and fuckheads simply don’t care. They already KNOW THE TRUTH and only they have it, and anything you post they disagree with, it just
won’t
matter
If you really believe that, start a thread in great debates. Bring it bitch.
For example, I posted a complete thought about something you claimed, and provided evidence for why I said it.
Instead of admitting what I said is true, you come back with a quote that does not contain the very thing I told you did not exist in a textbpook.
Courtesy of “Climate Change and Climate Modeling”, J. Neelin, Cambridge University Press, 2011.
And you actually think that countered what I clearly stated;
**“When people make things up, like “Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing”, there isn’t any evidence that such a statement exists, except where somebody made it up.”
** I pointed out the claim “Water vapor is a feedback and not a forcing” won’t appear in a textbook. You quote something else from a textbook, and claim victory or something.
And you can’t grasp that.
Priceless.
Well, if you’d read beyond the first sentence in my post, you’d have seen that there are different ways to choose the set (or “ensemble”) of climate variables, depending on what aspect(s) of global climate you’re studying.
The particular example I gave in the part of the post you apparently didn’t read, from the WorldClim Global Climate Data, uses 22 variables. Are you capable of following the link I gave there to see what those variables are, or do you need me to quote them for you explicitly?
And by the way, if you’re hoping to be able to argue that it’s somehow “cheating” that different studies of global climate use different ensembles of climate variables, forget about it. Regional climate studies also use different ensembles of climate variables depending on the focus of the study. There’s no one unique set of climate variables that universally defines regional climate, any more than there is for global climate.
As before, your core problem here is that you don’t really understand the concept of “climate” as a scientific term. You’re thinking of the word strictly in its ordinary-usage sense as implying intrinsic comparison of atmospheric patterns: e.g., “The Indian subcontinent has a subtropical climate”, “The American Southwest has an arid climate”, “The climate of Quebec is colder and drier than that of the Bahamas”, etc.
“Climate”, to you, is similar to other geographical entities such as “latitude”: namely, a characteristic that a place or region has relative to somewhere else. So when you hear the term “global climate”, your reaction is along the lines of “The whole globe can’t have a climate, any more than the whole globe can have a latitude! There’s no basis for comparison, so the concept is meaningless!”
But that isn’t how climate scientists understand “climate”. Climate, scientifically speaking, is simply some selected ensemble of climate variables evaluated at some selected spatial resolution over some selected area. That area can be, say, a lake, a peninsula, a continent, the entire planet, or anything in between.
In before “So you can’t define it lols you’re dumb and wrong!!!”
Next up,we discuss the galactic climate, and how it changing due to galactic warming.
Would you care to provide three specific examples of “weather on steroids”?
That paper doesn’t “show” what you think it does. (This is because another thing you don’t really understand is the complex relationship between different aspects of climate-change hypotheses.) One study showing no significant recent change in Antarctic annual snowmelt does not invalidate the hypothesis that Antarctica as a whole is getting warmer. Annual snowmelt is just one factor in climate variability, and it’s not the only kind of Antarctic melting that exists.
As you can see from this article that cites the “snowmelt” paper you linked to, climate scientists have known for a while that annual meltwater runoff is not currently a major contributor to Antarctic ice mass loss. But other factors such as ice shelf breakup are also affecting the ice mass balance, and no studies involving meltwater runoff or anything else have “shown that is wrong”, as you claim.
Hey guys, have ya heard? There’s some global warming going on…
And I am SICK of it!
Hahaha you always crack me up with that, even when I know you are serious.
tell it! Tell it on the mountain!
Sciences!
If you can identify some set of “climate variables” that can be evaluated at some spatial resolution everywhere in the galaxy, and appropriate detection techniques for evaluating them, then we most certainly could discuss the “galactic climate”.
At present, however, since all the climate variables we recognize (with the possible exception of insolation, and that to a pretty negligible extent) are defined exclusively with regard to terrestrial systems, it is meaningful to speak of terrestrial “climate” (including “global climate”) but not “galactic climate”.
We do know, though, that the universe as a whole (with certain local fluctuations due to gravitational-field heating of intracluster medium) is cooling, not warming.
Galactic warming denier!
I c wut u did there
You’re going to tell us with a straight face that this discussion was about finding a particular English sentence, not a discussion about how water vapor functions in the climate system? I Googled for “gravity is a property of mass and not caused by magical fairies” and I couldn’t find that either.
So you’re now trying to slime out of being completely and utterly scientifically wrong about the role of water vapor in the climate system by claiming that you were actually talking about finding a particular English sentence in a textbook, thus establishing beyond any doubt that you are now a proven certified troll, and possibly a certifiable lunatic, too. Which doesn’t encourage me to have much further conversation with you. This is great, thanks for helping a number of us nail down what we’re dealing with here. 
There you go again. I had forgotten how this particular stupid started.
You can remove the “loop” from the claim, you still won’t find it a valid claim. Nor in any textbook. Yes, I am talking about the claim “.You’d be dead wrong, of course; water vapor is a feedback loop, not a driver.” Especially this bullshit that “it is a feedback loop”, which is just batspit lunacy.
Not only is a fiction, the basic concept isn’t even valid. It’s one of those made up things the new breed of idiot climacticologists just made up, in order to bolster the idea that a tiny little warming will feedback into a huge disastrous amount of warming, all due to water vapor.
If that falls, they have zero, nothing at all to be alarmed about, in regards to temperatures. Obviously the potential change to the pH of the oceans is a serious fucking problem, and for no other reason we need to stop burning fossil fuels at the record pace we see. How to do something about that is a huge topic.
But you can’t just make up something and claim something, and then refuse to debate the claim, not online you can’t. OK I guess you can, but people will mock you and shit like that.
But goddamn, I was clear about what I stated, no confusion there.
You want to take something else from a textbook and crow aboput victory, you go right ahead. You complete fuckhead.
Here’s the thing about this lunacy of “water vapor makes it hotter” or “water vapor acts as a feedback, more water vapor, more heating, more vapor, more heating”. It’s bullshit. It is made up out of whole cloth, it has no science behind it, no experiments, no theory and no evidence.
It doesn’t matter how many people repeat it, or how many fuckheads write it down, or how many clueless fuckheads teach it to others. It has no trail of evidence, no hypothesis, no theory, no experiments, and even the physics used are faulty. It just is not true.
And this can proven with ease.
The post above, two posts back, contains posts from another thread.
I forgot.
- You’re a fucking idiot not worth my time.
- You’re a fucking idiot not worth my time.
- You’re a fucking idiot not worth my time.