Skip to main content

TR Memescape

  • If there's not at least one goonsay in the memecloud, I can't be held responsible for the actions that I or other concerned citizens of Talkrational might take.

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - F X

1
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
But I'm still not seeing grounds for a physics lawsuit.

a physics lawsuit?
2
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Has anyone here ever given you acknowledgement that you successfully communicated whatever it was you were trying to communicate?
All the time.  In fact, it is very common.
3
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Here is some more communication.
Quote
Although the Deep South has a reputation for hot, steamy weather, part of the Southeastern United States actually experienced cooler-than-normal temperatures in the years between 1991 and 2012.
https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140509-global-warming-hole-southeast-climate-change-scienc

All three of those quotes contain some serious bullshit. 

If the real data and the real story was laid out, it wouldn't make one bit of difference.
4
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Here is some communicating.
Quote
But according to a scientific study published this month, the Southeast's colder winter weather is part of an isolated trend, linked to a more wavy pattern in the jet stream that crosses North America. That dipping jet stream allows artic air to plunge into the Southeast. Scientists call this colder weather a "hole" in overall global warming, or a "warming hole."

"What we are looking at is an anomaly," said Jonathan M. Winter, an assistant professor of geography at Dartmouth College and the principle investigator in the study. "The Southeast is the exception to the rule."
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article200169249.html

Quote
We present a novel approach to characterize the spatiotemporal evolution of regional cooling across the eastern U.S. (commonly called the U.S. warming hole), by defining a spatially explicit boundary around the region of most persistent cooling. The warming hole emerges after a regime shift in 1958 where annual maximum (Tmax) and minimum (Tmin) temperatures decreased by 0.46°C and 0.83°C respectively. The annual warming hole consists of two distinct seasonal modes, one located in the southeastern U.S. during winter and spring and the other in the midwestern U.S. during summer and autumn.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2017GL076463/full
5
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
I assume you have the goal of communicating something in your posts.
That's not an assumption, that is a given. 
6
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
If after 8 years you can't figure out when somebody is having a bit of fun with you, you actually might be some kind of idiot.
7
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Have you considered that the problem might not be me?
I don't consider you a problem to be solved.
8
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
After 8 years of what you believe to have been clearly explaining and providing evidence for whatever it is you're trying to demonstrate on this topic, have you persuaded anyone here of it?
I see your confusion.  You think I have a goal of persuading you.  Now that is funny.
9
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
After 8 years of clearly explaining things to you, and providing evidence, you still act like you can't understand anything. 

Idiot.
10
Science / Re: NH winter cooling
Of all the questions you've pointedly ignored, I think this might be the most telling...
Even in the contiguous U.S., one of your all-important "areas where a lot of people actually live," if you extend the trend by just 4 years, making it 1994-2017, it's a warming trend. So why is a 20-year cooling trend more significant to you than a 24-year warming trend that encompasses it?
Because it's an idiots question. You make assumptions, then demand somebody explain your errors.  And when you are ignored you claim ignoring your idiocy means you must be correct.  Because you are an idiot.
11
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
It's the same with ozone and CfCs, both very powerful greenhouse gases.
12
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Thanks for your unsupported opinion on that. I still find the consensus position of the people who actually study this stuff more persuasive.
No, you don't.  In fact, you don't actually know anything about it.  The "people who actually study this stuff" are the source of how we know contrails and the cirrus clouds from them are warming much of the world. Far more than CO2 forcing. 


13
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
How does an increase in CO2 warm the oceans?  This issue isn't even mentioned in the papers on the theory.

The MIT idea that albedo changes and SW will be the reason for warming is a start for explaining it.  But they offer no mechanism other than arctic ocean warming to explain global ocean warming.  It's certainly not settled.
14
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
I'm noticing a decided lack of "the only thing that actually matters" here.
Quote
Ample physical evidence shows that carbon dioxide (CO2) is the single most important climate-relevant greenhouse gas in Earth's atmosphere.
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6002/356

"most important" and "control knob" should be a clue.  That you don't get this is hilarious.
15
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
The real problem is the lack of current papers on the greenhouse theory of climate change, especially ones on the CO2 theory. It's just mentioned and used as fact. 

The papers by Callendar, Plass, Arrhenius and Hulburt are the sources for the theory.




16
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Quote
We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century. Since we now can measure the sun's energy output independent of the distorting influence of the atmosphere, we shall see whether the earth's temperature trend correlates with measured fluctuations in solar radiation. If volcanic dust is the more important factor, then we may observe the earth's temperature following fluctuations in the number of large volcanic eruptions. But if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously as long as man consumes the earth's reserves of fossil fuels.
1959

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/carbon-dioxide-and-climate/

"We shall be able to test the carbon dioxide theory against other theories of climatic change quite conclusively during the next half-century."

" if carbon dioxide is the most important factor, long-term temperature records will rise continuously"

17
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
If you don't know CO2 is the claimed control knob for climate, now and in the past, you are an idiot.

Not to use an overly technical term here, but there's a neat paper in this week's Science that explains clearly why carbon dioxide (CO2) is the main agent behind changes in the Earth's climate--now and in the geologic past.

Atmospheric CO2: Principal Control Knob Governing Earth's Temperature


Using a paper that lays out a version of the CO2 theory as a source for the CO2 theory is how science works you fuckhead.
18
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
The CO2 theory of climate change (the AGW theory, climate change, global warming, or any of the other names for it) claims CO2 is the main reason, the only thing that actually matters.  The control knob, the thermostat, the driver, the actual reason that changes from the sun can cause the drastic global changes in climate.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2153-3490.1956.tb01206.x/pdf

19
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Something is responsible for the observed planetary temperature excursions and we know it certainly isn't carbon dioxide from the ice core data.
Since the discovery of the vast global climate changes (especially the ice ages) there have been theories with out end.

http://joannenova.com.au/2014/06/lubos-and-a-few-misconceptions/


20
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
 :parrot:
21
Newsflash

Eating crap food makes you sick
22
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Not really.  When you believe you already know the answer (CO2) it's easy to handwave away all the papers, studies and science that don't match your belief.
23
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Does this matter in regards to longwave heating of the surface?  Of course it does.  Far more than the slight changes in CO2 levels.
24
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
Contrails have been known to be a direct cause of warming (climate change) since the 1970s
(the moisture added to the stratosphere also changes Ozone levels)

Especially in polar regions (where the night time heating happens for months, because it is night for months).  The warming of the lower atmosphere also causes stratospheric cooling, which alters ozone levels in winter at the poles.  And this also changes the circumpolar vortex.

The IPCC reports hand wave it away.  Just as with ozone and CfCs, both major players in climate change.  The IPCC blames CO2, and downplays three real factors that are actually changing the global heat balance.

I use the word "alarmists" as a parody of"deniers", because it is funny.  Deniers also don't think ozone, CfCs and contrails are anything to worry about. 
25
Science / Re: Longwave oceanic heating
High altitude flights, or flights over the poles creates ice contrails, which are a different story.