A
Amaris
Guest
*sigh*
Cosmos - With Neil deGrasse Tyson
- Thread starter Greylock Crescent
- Start date
Does seeing some random segment on the Weather Channel count as a valid source?
No, I said I wasn't going to cite the literature that says that all animals poop. Obviously you have issues with number two, as do many young Americans raised on Dr. Spock.
That we affect cloud cover is beyond question in the scientific literature. We do it in spades. We even make whole freakin' artificial lakes in the desert, whose moisture goes up into the atmosphere. Our land use changes have a dramatic impact on evaporation and local albedo, along with surface temperatures.
(Why do I think I'm addressing a class of elementary school students? Probably because I am).
Our cities make rain because they are very warm. Warm air rises, pushing up air that's passing overhead. As the air gets pushed up, it cools due to expansion (see "moist air adiabatic lapse rate"). As air cools, water vapor condenses, just as it does on the outside of your sippy cup. That forms clouds, which in turn form rain. The rain clouds sometimes form thunderstorms, and that formation happens on the leading edge of major urban areas, which then get rained on.
This provides some insight into why the Sahara desert stays so dry despite the moist Atlantic air that moves across it. A desert has a high albedo (it reflects light), and thus there isn't any intense hot spot to bounce the moist air upwards to form a cloud and induce any rainfall. The moist air just sails across, oblivious to the needs of the desert below.
We've had a major impact on surface water distribution, and will impact it further. For example, when Ohio was settled most of it was an unfarmable swamp. One of the top 100 technological inventions was a simple power ditch digging machine that turned Ohio into cropland by allowing farmers to drain Ohio into the Great Lakes. Much of the Midwest should be very dry, but we irrigate it intensely from the underlying aquifer (as visible from any airliner, assuming you've ever ridden an airplane across middle America).
People would take warmists more seriously if they didn't sound like they were eight-year olds.
That we affect cloud cover is beyond question in the scientific literature. We do it in spades. We even make whole freakin' artificial lakes in the desert, whose moisture goes up into the atmosphere. Our land use changes have a dramatic impact on evaporation and local albedo, along with surface temperatures.
(Why do I think I'm addressing a class of elementary school students? Probably because I am).
Our cities make rain because they are very warm. Warm air rises, pushing up air that's passing overhead. As the air gets pushed up, it cools due to expansion (see "moist air adiabatic lapse rate"). As air cools, water vapor condenses, just as it does on the outside of your sippy cup. That forms clouds, which in turn form rain. The rain clouds sometimes form thunderstorms, and that formation happens on the leading edge of major urban areas, which then get rained on.
This provides some insight into why the Sahara desert stays so dry despite the moist Atlantic air that moves across it. A desert has a high albedo (it reflects light), and thus there isn't any intense hot spot to bounce the moist air upwards to form a cloud and induce any rainfall. The moist air just sails across, oblivious to the needs of the desert below.
We've had a major impact on surface water distribution, and will impact it further. For example, when Ohio was settled most of it was an unfarmable swamp. One of the top 100 technological inventions was a simple power ditch digging machine that turned Ohio into cropland by allowing farmers to drain Ohio into the Great Lakes. Much of the Midwest should be very dry, but we irrigate it intensely from the underlying aquifer (as visible from any airliner, assuming you've ever ridden an airplane across middle America).
People would take warmists more seriously if they didn't sound like they were eight-year olds.
But not, apparently, on the overall rising global temperature?
Uh-huh. That's a rather myopic point to make.
There's no use really. He's convinced he's right and no fact or evidence will ever convince him.
This is true. Though, it is amusing to see the contradictory and hyperbolic statements. If anything, those statements do a great disservice to any potentially scientifically skeptical position on climate change.
Well, anyways. My sincerest wish is that someone in power (several someones)will be willing to sacrifice their political career to actually make effective changes before it is too late.
I also want rainbow tailed Unicorns to make a comeback in the Great Plains.
I figure one of those things has to happen eventually.
I also want rainbow tailed Unicorns to make a comeback in the Great Plains.
I figure one of those things has to happen eventually.
Scientists frequently make skeptical statements on climate, and it ends in their denouncement and excommunication, as happened to Lennart Bengtsson last month, one of the world's leading climatologists with 258 published papers and who was the first to give definitive numbers on Arctic warming. Now he might as well be the Anti-Christ, forced to resign because of the threats from US alarmists that made him fear for his health and safety.
All climate scientists know that if they dare question the "consensus", which is only supported by about 60% of climate scientists (the strongest correlation on their position is whether they believe that everyone else has reached a consensus , indicating that it's purely a social and not a scientific position), not only will their careers be ruined, but their very lives may be ruined. It takes a lot of courage and a thick skin to stand up to the likes of Michael Mann, who will sue anyone for anything.
I'm amazed he hasn't sued me, since I feel a great deal of responsibility for his lawsuits against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, as I comment daily at Simberg's site and don't hold back on climate issues like I do here. Rand weakly echoed my opinion of Mann, and Steyn quoted Rand, and it's probably all my fault. On the bright side, Steyn is counter suing Mann for $30 million dollars and will probably win, so there's that.
I also have the joy of seeing my arguments against global warming picked up by Congressmen, Lords, and members of Parliament, because I've been writing on the subject for almost two decades, read textbooks on coupled ocean/atmospheric dynamics for fun, read GCM source code, and am willing to think and dig into the issues nobody has yet raised. This weekend I realized that PV=nRT is invalid in an accelerating reference frame, which is blindingly obvious. I've used the equation daily for most of my life without once pausing to think "That can't possibly be true." Well, oopsie. Those things happen when you're measurement tools are from the 18th century.
All climate scientists know that if they dare question the "consensus", which is only supported by about 60% of climate scientists (the strongest correlation on their position is whether they believe that everyone else has reached a consensus , indicating that it's purely a social and not a scientific position), not only will their careers be ruined, but their very lives may be ruined. It takes a lot of courage and a thick skin to stand up to the likes of Michael Mann, who will sue anyone for anything.
I'm amazed he hasn't sued me, since I feel a great deal of responsibility for his lawsuits against Rand Simberg and Mark Steyn, as I comment daily at Simberg's site and don't hold back on climate issues like I do here. Rand weakly echoed my opinion of Mann, and Steyn quoted Rand, and it's probably all my fault. On the bright side, Steyn is counter suing Mann for $30 million dollars and will probably win, so there's that.
I also have the joy of seeing my arguments against global warming picked up by Congressmen, Lords, and members of Parliament, because I've been writing on the subject for almost two decades, read textbooks on coupled ocean/atmospheric dynamics for fun, read GCM source code, and am willing to think and dig into the issues nobody has yet raised. This weekend I realized that PV=nRT is invalid in an accelerating reference frame, which is blindingly obvious. I've used the equation daily for most of my life without once pausing to think "That can't possibly be true." Well, oopsie. Those things happen when you're measurement tools are from the 18th century.
A
Amaris
Guest
gturner, your statements are baseless, invalid, and filled with errors and untruths. Quite frankly, no one should engage you, as your posts show nothing more than misdirection and disinformation.
Indeed.
It's certainly a lovely story he tells. But the fact remains that his posts are anything but scientific and are far too often unsourced ("60% of climate scientists"), misleading ("flat-lining"), hyperbolic ("their very lives may be ruined"), sensationalist ("they're a bunch of wackos who can't reason logically"), myopic ("HadCRUT data" - but no others!), filled with empty rhetoric ("all animals poop"), and completely biased ("most will react like a bunch of Souther Baptists"). So ... I guess it's no wonder that politicians might gravitate to them (if the story is true in the first place; given the sensationalism and the lack of sources and all that, I'm going to remain skeptical).
"Warmist?" 
"Warmist?"
Yeah, that one got me too. What exactly is a "warmist"?
Especially because global CLIMATE CHANGE is the phrase used by these various reports, not global WARMING.
I wish we had two identical Earth's so we could put all the climate change skeptics on one and the rest of us sane people on the other,come back to check in on them in 100 years from now and see how they are faring in their flooded, heavily polluted air, unstable climate causing massive food shortages & extinctions of plants/wildlife planet.
Thats your future! and since we all live on one Earth, the rest of us fuckers have to be dragged down with you.
Thats your future! and since we all live on one Earth, the rest of us fuckers have to be dragged down with you.
^ Said no one in this thread. 
So stating the factual outcome of the current course of human conduct is "alarmist" and therefore "a turn off"?
Wow. That response is like you telling your wife after she informs you that if you don't start brushing your teeth before bed: "that kind of comment is a big turn-off".
Just brush your teeth, man and stop obsessing over how the message is presented!
I don't think that really anyone is anywhere close to saying that. Maybe in the worst case scenarios, things will be incredibly shitty. Especially for people in poorer countries. But the world isn't ending and we aren't going extinct. Pointing that out isn't any more alarmist than point out that a boat is headed for an iceberg and we can avoid it. But in our case, we have idiots shouting out that the iceberg doesn't exist and other people are saying that we don't even need to worry about the iceberg, but we keep getting closer and no one is steering us away.
"Warmist?"
Yeah, that one got me too. What exactly is a "warmist"?
Oh, it's self-evident what he's going for. It's a common tactic, to dismiss scientific ideas by painting those who accept them as "-ists" of one sort or another, ideologues blindly following a dogma. For instance, the way creationists (who do choose to call themselves that, I believe) refer to evolutionary theory as "Darwinism," which is ridiculous, because Darwin's work was just the bare beginning of a science that's been greatly added to and expanded and revolutionized by molecular genetics and the like -- so it's tantamount to referring to modern physics as "Newtonism." But groups like this believe that objective reality is not a thing, that only belief defines truth, and that anyone who disagrees with their beliefs is simply a practitioner of a rival faith.
And we shall call it... Chia Earth!
^ Said no one in this thread.
Said the guy directly above my post.
