Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnirizon
PS. I'm not a rude guy. I wasn't rude for the sake of being rude.
|
Then why were you rude? Because you are a rude guy?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnirizon
but like I said, no one here really gives a damn about science, they are more concerned with just blowing flames at their opponents ad nausuem until someone gets bored with the whole odious ordeal and leaves, while the other person can convince themselves they've somehow 'won' a battle.
|
The irony is quite amusing. Considering you are the primary person in this thread throwing flames.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Omnirizon
In case anyone here decides to actually read _real_ literature related to what they are talking about and arguing, I've attached an article I downloaded using my membership to the Social Studies of Science journal. Not that anyone will, since no one really cares to understand what's actually going on in science or how it really works. But here's hoping against hope.
|
Quote:
The journal is multidisciplinary, publishing work from a range of fields including:
·political science, sociology, economics
·history, philosophy, psychology
·social anthropology, legal and educational disciplines
|
Oh my, I can see why this journal would be chock full of information on climate science...
Have you read the IPCC reports? And not just the summary report, the whole big thing? I don't know, but I find it amusing that you are acting like some big tough 'flamewarrior' while calling everyone else who happens to disagree with the premise you support whatever names you want.
Anyway, out of idle curiosity what is your background Omni? Are you involved in some field related to climatology?
Quote:
|
Atmospheric [CO2] decreases q radiation losses. Since solar q intake has been relatively stable, terrestrial q release has been increasing, and atmospheric [CO2] has been increasing, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize total planetary q is increasing.
|
Well except that lately we cannot find the extra 'q' in the places we think it should be (oceans primarily, as the atmospheric heating doesn't account for the projections). So you may want to rethink your supposition that the heat flux from the sun is (or has been) indeed constant. Beyond which you still need to find the mechanisms for previous hot and cold periods without human influence (and yes, the planet has had higher CO2 concentrations before...).
Following your statements rigidly leads to a particular conclusion, true, however, I challenge that your statements are actually born out in observable evidence.