Someone cast Wolven Winter on New Orleans!

[llamabeast]

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.

Thanks, that's exactly what I've been meaning to say. i.e. regardless of the (enormously complex) details, we are definitely trapping more heat in the atmosphere (non-controversial I think?) and one way or another, that's bound to have some big effects. Big effects are most likely bad news.

[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.

[Omnirizon]

congratulations licker!!! YOU WIN!

[Tifone]

Oh, c'mon, we can't let him win!

For his own ammission, he didn't read a word of the scientifical souces provided. He posted only that article that was saying the opposite of what he was thinking (the scientists saying the reports of the robots was a phenomenon to study and broaden, him thinking that it was the great proof of "there is not heat" - also while I had provided articles showing that some local cooling being irrelevant).
As source we have only his own word on the topic (not a graph, not an unbiased article) and his belief that thousands of adult, top-intelligent scientists lie and don't really think what they say about this vital phenomenon, because they fear the other childr... ehm the peer review

(Not to sound rude myself too, licker, that's just random thoughts)

[licker]

I know I win, thanks for admitting it.

Anyway, I've posted links to studies showing the temperature drops, I've discussed the findings and why omni was wrong in his assumptions about my positions.

If anyone isn't reading all the information available it's clearly not me, but as omni points out so eloquently...

Some people in this thread don't care about the research, they just care about flaming.

Tifone-

Do you really think I said any of that? Or are you just spinning to what you want to hear?

I've looked at your sources and realized they were not scientific in nature, you do realize this yourself right? So there's nothing wrong with looking at them, but you shouldn't just leave it at that.

Anyway as far as the robot findings are concerned, you really should read that article again, as it appears you have completely missed the point. It was not 'some local cooling' it was over 3000 robots world wide. And they didn't find (much) cooling either.

Seriously what filter do you run information through when you process it?

And when some one says 'not to ' clearly they are fulling intending to . That's ok, like I said, I can keep it seperate from the game (since we're still on the dominions forum) and I don't mind a provocative discussion, I just find it amusing to see you and omni doing exactly what you are accusing me and others of.

Hypocrite much?

Well maybe that's not fair, maybe you and omni just don't have the backgrounds to understand what this debate is really about. I don't know and I don't really care. But if you aren't actually going to show evidence for your claims about what you imagined I said then I'm not going to bother to take your interpretations of some blogs seriously.

And if that sounds rude it probably is.

[MaxWilson]

Originally Posted by Tifone

As source we have only his own word on the topic (not a graph, not an unbiased article) and his belief that thousands of adult, top-intelligent scientists lie and don't really think what they say about this vital phenomenon

It's actually sufficient that some of them don't say what they think. (Others say what they think in the report and let UN bureaucrats write the summary and shift decimal places around to exaggerate what they think.) How many people spoke out against eugenics in Nazi Germany?

Oops, I killed the thread.

-Max

[Omnirizon]

way to kill the thread MW...

Godwin's Law

[MaxWilson]

Yes, I couldn't resist.

[Executor]

I've been reading this thread for the last hour when I should have been studying. I blame you all for that, however It was interesting reading your arguments about GW.

[JimMorrison]

For the past 48h I've been on the edge of my seat waiting for Godwin. :P What an epic name.


Anyway, kudos all. I am amazed that you can stare analysis in the face that show that the Earth is warmer than it has been in a thousand(s) years, probably since the last ice age, but we can't accurately verify that..... yet still you continue to bicker about scientific process, and the apparent "trend" of the last several years.

Once a scientist has defined "2", even a layperson can add it to itself, if just stop arguing for long enough.