I'm sick of this Global Warming!

The BBQ Pit
1761

Why not? It’s not rocket science, it’s physics. Plus, if I get any of it wrong, somebody will be sure to correct it.

Increasing CO2 in the earth’s atmosphere, being a well mixed gas, persists and increases in all parts of the atmosphere, and since it absorbs and heats and re-radiates some of the IF red not absorbed by any other greenhouse gas, causes a positive imbalance of the radiation budget, leading to warming. The source of the increase in CO2 is both from the warming that naturally is occurring, the oceans release more CO2 than they absorb as they warm, as well as from fossil fuels and cement making. It is also thought that due to deforestation there is a further decrease in the natural sinks, leading to more CO2 staying in the atmosphere each year.

That is the basics. There is of course an increase in other greenhouse gases, some of them artificial compounds with a very long life, and a huge amount of greenhouse effect, which also destroy O3, leading to both warming and cooling effects in the upper stratosphere. NO2 from combustion and agriculture, methane from natural gas leaks, black carbon from incomplete combustion, particulates and aerosols, like SO2 and human caused lower troposphere ozone, changes to hydrology from dams and irrigation and pumping ground water, NO2 and H2O in the lower stratosphere from aircraft, and contrails, as well as vast destruction of tropical and boreal forests for pulp and timber, a huge phosphate imbalance from mining for agriculture use, a huge nitrogen increase from making fertilizers, changes to albedo from paving and rooftops, destruction of reefs and wetlands, and on and on and so forth.

It’s not really that hard if you have studied even a little.

The expected feedbacks from the small amount of CO2 forcing calculated are the real issue, as well as ocean acidification, which could be the biggest problem, but that is far from certain. Once you get into the possible feedbacks, which are usually the realm of fear mongering and disaster scenarios, it get a lot less scientific.

Hows that for starters?

1762

The mechanism of CO2 forced warming would be one of those things that you would think, I mean you really would, you would think skepticalscience or realclimate would have laid out in both simple and complex forms, with maths and physics and all, to explain the most important thing of all to anyone who is interested.

Like the bands and overlaps and the IF spectrum and scientific shit like that, with the amount of increase from 300ppm and 400ppm and 500ppm and 600ppm, all neat and tidy and explained so there would be no arguments over the simple stuff. The Kelvins and the Celsius and the amount of re-radiation at the equators vs the poles, night time vs day, the seasonal effects, why the most warming is expected in the high latitudes of the boreal winter, and in the polar regions, and why polar warming is expected to have a huge positive feedback, and why polar warming is supposed to happen first, and all that good science shit.

Like what the enhanced greenhouse theory actually is, and how it is supposed to work, and why the predicted changes are as they are, which is actually pretty damn interesting.

You would think the basic stuff would be easy to find.

That it is anything but easy to find, well that is fucked up.

1763

Fuck that noise. My calculations? Could your trolling get any more transparent?

The absorption spectrum and energy budget for H[sub]2[/sub]O isn’t something I need to calculate - it’s something I look up. Which you’d know if, you know, you ever did any science yourself.

Or could read.

Fuckwit.

“roll”? Learn English, you simp. And “called?” Only by people who don’t actually seem to have any ante in the pot. Or cells in the brain.

I’ll explain “in detail” after you tell me why you want to use a thing you want to measure as a variable in your inputs. And why that doesn’t create a logical fallacy rendering your entire approach redundant. Better yet, tell me how you define “climate”.

And also tell me where I said anything about WV’s “Greenhouse Effect” being ignorable (as opposed to it’s role in climate change, which are sooo not the same thing) You…you are aware that “global warming” and “greenhouse effect” aren’t synonyms, right? And that it’s just the former, not the latter, that the IPCC’s radiative forcing measure is used for? That the latter is the baseline for the former?

1764

So how much CO2 before we melt Antarctica? 1000 ppm? 2000? I want to see those sweet Elder Thing ruins.

1765

“it’s”? I must have been drunk. Curse you, Gaudere.

1766

No need to get butthurt over a typo

1767

No, because to correct it they would have to understand it, which brings it back to the original point, nobody here can explain the physics, much less the theory.

OK now I am arguing with myself. Goddamn it.

Well why the fuck is that predicted? Why wouldn’t CO2 increase result in warming everywhere? Why is the most warming, from an increase in CO2, supposed to happen in winter? At high latitudes?

I mean, that is the point you made several times concerning Cohen et al(2012), that caused GIGO galloper to run away and cry. Why do they say such things?

Well, to explain that is to lose the audience. Nobody wants to actually discuss radiative heating and greenhouse gas properties, they just want to bitch about how evil people keep causing them to burn fossil fuels and how it will destroy the earth. And warmers want to feel smarter than everyone else, especially real scientists like Dyson. They are fed from blogs run by idiots, they don’t actually know much.

The really smart people here on the Dope, they are smart enough to stay out of any global warming topic.

You moron.

1768

It’s…it’s like…

I really don’t have the words to describe it. Elements of a one-man show, certainly, and a streetcorner preacher. And the socially inept dorky Aspie guy at the party who just can’t shut up. And some sort of meta-aware performance art.

I give. You have me absolutely stumped, FX. I honestly cannot tell if you’re smart with big flashes of idiocy or stupid with moments of brilliance; shiningly self-aware or utterly clueless; sane but kinda nuts or functionally schizoid. Sometimes I’m convinced you’re trolling deliberately, other time that you’re trolling entirely on accident.

You’re a mystery wrapped in an enigma inside a giant Klein bottle full of WTF balanced on a Schwartzchild discontinuity.

1769

I checked with a few of the local universities, and no, their College of Sciences do not employ lawyers or travel agents. The university as a whole does, but that’s mostly because of athletics [sigh]. The IPCC also has the mandate to provide the United Nations with recommendations of the socio-economic impact of climate change and climate change mitigation efforts. The IPCC itself does no science at all.

UCLA doesn’t teach any classes about “climate science”, but they do have classes about climatology. If you want to be technically correct, let’s call all this Atmospheric Science (It can be argued that “meteorology” is a sub-discipline of Journalism, the art of using weather data to sell you Ford F-150 4x4’s because just look at how much goddamn snow just fell here !!!).

I’ll focus on the my hypothesis I, as our inescapable conclusion here is relevant to most of the others. Hopefully you know that none of our solar system’s natural satellites scribe a perfect Kepler orbit. We have oscillations within oscillations within oscillations, although each one is very small in any given orbit, over millions of orbits we gain something of discrepancy. With the inverse square law and climate sensitivity going on, we see profound changes in climate.

The argument against this hypothesis is that it is, in of itself, inadequate. I would like to see the citation for that, but moving forward, I’ll concede this argument. Almost all hypotheses fail to adequately describe the data we have, the few remaining are bogus. Looks like they all provide a part, and there’s many many more yet to be discovered. “It’s fucking complicated”. Unless you can prove your pet hypothesis is completely adequate, it’s anti-science to reject any other hypothesis.

I was sitting on a tarmac a few weeks ago watching them jet engines belch out black black smoke. How care you state that lacing the lower stratosphere with soot has no bearing on any science, anywhere at any time?

Whoa … I’m impressed … the “anti-science” guy know the science better than all the “pro-science” people put together. How does this apply to the late Cretaceous?

Yeah, energy is inversely proportional to wavelength, gotcha.

1770

Oh stop it. Nobody gives a fuck about the late Cretaceous. Plus the land situation was so different it’s not fair to compare. The only reason anybody even argues over the “Cretaceous Ice sheet” issue is because of funding issues, not current climate concerns.

1771

OK now, in case you couldn’t tell, that was complete bullshit. I know almost nothing about the fight over the Cretaceous period. But I do know it’s spurred on by the fear factories over current warming.

1772

It’s called “dancing circles around the clueless”. It’s fun to watch. What we have here is a bunch of people who understand climatology real well, but lack understanding of the basic physics involved. As such, we get some pretty outrageous statements, and an amazing amount of anger by just asking for clarification. It’s like they’ve put that wedding ring of AGW’s finger … and now they’re stuck married to a bitch.

1773

No sweetie. You I understand. I realize you’re studying at the feet of the master, but you ain’t there yet. You’re Robin to his Batman, on your best day.
.

1774

And not Dick Grayson, either. Not even Tim Drake. You’re like Jason Todd.

1775

I wasn’t even aware there was a fight over it. I bring it up as a more normal climate, where there is no permanent ice anywhere on Earth. The O18 proxy data gives our being in an ice age right now, something that is uncommon in Earth’s history. A hundred millions years is a rather short period of time, if you think about it. If man-kind can in any way return the Earth’s climate to a more normal state, I think we have the responsibility to do so. Belch that CO[sub]2[/sub], suckers, I dare you.

1776

Now now, did you miss the part where I said “all the really smart people know enough to avoid any global warming topic”?

In essence, I am saying I am not that smart. See?

And it’s true. You get an atmospheric physics dude in the the thread and he will wipe the floor with my dumb ass at 255K in the N band

1777

I don’t see you out on the dance floor, say something substantive … try just one equation … any one … I don’t care which one … just try to not use ∂t as an independent variable, okay (that’s a bad example I set)?

1778

That’s a real stretch, to think we can change the climate to that degree by just pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. If you want that sort of climate change it’s going to take some water vapor.

Hell, water vapor is so powerful of a greenhouse gas, that if we reduced the amount in the atmosphere by even a percent, it would negate all the warming from CO2 overnight.

We could put the planet back into a real ice age real quick if we started messing with the water cycle. Maybe.

Nature is a bitch about these things.

1779

Can you imagine my embarrassment if someone actually checked my arithmetic?

1780

I can understand most people’s dis-inclination to waste much time mulling over numbers someone’s pulling out of their ass…