Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[Omnirizon]

PS. I'm not a rude guy. I wasn't rude for the sake of being rude.

and actually llama, MW was patronising first when he dodged my question by posting a link to literature on it. The tone and specificity of that question should have made it very clear that I'm more than familiar with the literature.

I wanted MW to show a grasp of what he talks about by applying it to the argument, rather than just mentioning the concept. MW is talking tropes, llama, and any fool can do that by just regurgitating what he is spoonfed. I want him to show that he understands what he's saying by applying it to the argument.

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. I would actually theorize that the reason we see the anti-GW/GCM crowd doing the most talking is because it is only in OT threads on internet forums that they can somehow 'win' their battle. so put another notch on the keyboard there Big Dogs, because your ****ing 'flamewarriors' talking about GW in a place where no one gives a damn what you have to say.



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.

[cleveland]

"Modelers generally agree that the climate system is a chaotic system in both a technical and practical sense, rendering short-term weather patterns unpredictable beyond a few weeks." (pg 899)

How true that is.

Since the venerable Dick Goddard can't even tell me if it'll be 10F or 60F next week, I'm inclined to ignore anyone who says, "Based on my sophisticated computational model, the 2027 global climate will be [insert stupid opinion here] ."

Even the simplest weather models are chaotic - i.e. extremely sensitive to initial conditions. No dungeon master worth his twenty-sided die believes the outcome of this roll can be predicted.

----------------

Heat is a different story, though. Heat ("q" from thermo) can only added to the planet from a) cosmic (specifically Solar) radiation, and b) terrestrial release (e.g. burning the Cretaceous period). q can only be shed by radiation.

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.

The effect of that increased q is (obviously) quite debatable, however.

[licker]

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.