-Good! Good! That's what I was looking for!Originally Posted by Vandal-72
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Posts
- 2,106
-Good! Good! That's what I was looking for!
Does light cause heat?
Does carbon dioxide allow the sun's heat to pass through the Earth's atmosphere?
Do climate scientists ever claim that a single storm event is proof of global climate change?
Do you have the slightest bit of actual evidence that counters the conclusion that human activity is responsible for a great deal of the measured climate change of the last half-century?
Or, are we simply going to be subjected to the standard denialist game of quote-mining, red herrings, and falsehoods?
-Essentially, yes. If you try to say otherwise, you're just going to make a pedantic a$$ of yourself, and you're not going to impress anyone.
-I don't know. There are hundreds. But plenty of idiots here do:
...and you don't correct them.
-I don't have to. The burden of proof is on the guy with the new theory.
EDIT: BTW, could you bother explaining, if the homoglobowarming theory is accurate, why in the world we would want to wreck the economy to prevent it?:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...aking-records/
...The unrelenting increase in global crop production is especially noteworthy given the Internets fear-mongering flavor of the week. An article sensationally titled, Fortified by Global Warming, Deadly Fungus Poisons Crops, Causes Cancer, has people without access to scientific data believing global warming is harming crop production. The poison corn article follows fresh on the heels of another Internet fear-mongering story last month. Claiming global warming is decimating wheat crops, Newsweek reported, If humans want to keep eating pasta, we will have to take much more aggressive action against global warming.
Last edited by JDG 66; 06-26-2013 at 05:17 PM.
Rag,
Insulating molten salt tanks isn't that difficult. How far up they can scale, I don't know, but they are certainly one of the better things going on that front now.
May I suggest bat caves? A batty place for a batty idea.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Vandal Seven-Two, you are being subjected to Pad 13's treatment, which is one million parts per million hot air. You really do not want the spectroscopic/biological analysis of what it contains.
-Oh, Wally Bad Poodle Pink Splice, you didn't always use to think that way:Vandal Seven-Two, you are being subjected to Pad 13's treatment, which is one million parts per million hot air. You really do not want the spectroscopic/biological analysis of what it contains....until you discovered that you didn't like my politics. Judgments based on ideological correctness are unworthy.
Oh, I know. I called out his textbook denier BS at the very beginning. But, at the moment I've got nothing better to do than point out how unbelievably uninformed his prattle is. I'm not really trying to get him to see reason.Vandal Seven-Two, you are being subjected to Pad 13's treatment, which is one million parts per million hot air. You really do not want the spectroscopic/biological analysis of what it contains.
Maybe Wally Bad Dog Poodle Pink Splice happens to find value in your posts on generational boundaries in the military but not on global warming? I don't see those two as mutually exclusive.Oh, Wally Bad Poodle Pink Splice, you didn't always use to think that way:...until you discovered that you didn't like my politics. Judgments based on ideological correctness are unworthy.Originally Posted by Pink Splice
James Glick has done some excellent work on generational boundaries in the military. Check his posts on this...
Of course, perhaps I should let Bad Dog bark for himself.
Last edited by The Wonkette; 06-26-2013 at 10:16 PM.
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
You don't want to use the accurate terms unless you think it will score you some rhetorical point. Straight up denier crap.
Standard red herring.-I don't know. There are hundreds. But plenty of idiots here do:
Red herring....and you don't correct them.
Climate scientists do have the evidence. Their theory is not, in fact, new. It's been established and verified over the past several decades.-I don't have to. The burden of proof is on the guy with the new theory.
Holy moron, Batman! Do you really think a puff opinion piece written by a lackey from the Heartland Institute is actual evidence of anything? He simply claims that since global climate change has occurred and crop production has increased the two are therefore linked. Never mind all that increased infrastructure for irrigation, pesticide development, and increased use of genetically modified crops (both through engineering and traditional breeding programs).EDIT: BTW, could you bother explaining, if the homoglobowarming theory is accurate, why in the world we would want to wreck the economy to prevent it?:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...aking-records/
...The unrelenting increase in global crop production is especially noteworthy given the Internets fear-mongering flavor of the week. An article sensationally titled, Fortified by Global Warming, Deadly Fungus Poisons Crops, Causes Cancer, has people without access to scientific data believing global warming is harming crop production. The poison corn article follows fresh on the heels of another Internet fear-mongering story last month. Claiming global warming is decimating wheat crops, Newsweek reported, If humans want to keep eating pasta, we will have to take much more aggressive action against global warming.
You are nothing more than a standard xerox copy of a denier.
BTW: I noticed the gay bashing term is still being used. Deniers . . . never admit errors, never acknowledge ignorance and never ever give up a chance to let your bigot flag fly.
*cough*mutually exclusive*cough*Maybe Wally Bad Dog Poodle Pink Splice happens to find value in your posts on generational boundaries in the military but not on global warming? I don't see those two as mutually expensive.
Of course, perhaps I should let Bad Dog bark for himself.
-No. That's what you're doing. Even Pat seemed to agree.
[-Hmmm... warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons...
Yeah. Far fetched. But CO2 = hurricanes, awesome!
-Homoglobowarming bed wetters just change the goal posts.
QUOTE=Vandal-72;473948]...Climate scientists do have the evidence. Their theory is not, in fact, new. It's been established and verified over the past several decades...[/QUOTE]
-And which climate prediction turned out right? The IPCC's sea level rise?
No. I'm requiring anyone that wants to discuss the science of climate change actually understand what the various terms actually mean. Instead of pretending to understand the topic like you and Pat do, why not actually learn about it.
Increased pest prevalence and spread, increased drought frequency . . .-Hmmm... warmer temperatures, longer growing seasons...
Oh, how nice. A standard denier strawman.Yeah. Far fetched. But CO2 = hurricanes, awesome!
"Never admit errors, never admit ignorance and let the bigot flag fly."-Homoglobowarming bed wetters just change the goal posts.
Yes.-And which climate prediction turned out right? The IPCC's sea level rise?
-Ha ha ha! That battle's over. Even the IPCC backtracked when they got caught.
-No. You're being a pedantic dick because you think it will intimidate people. All it does is make you look like a dick.
-And yet, world crop production continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Obviously, the factors you fear are being counterbalanced by something else...
You didn't actually look at the link I see.
Says the gay basher.-No. You're being a pedantic dick because you think it will intimidate people. All it does is make you look like a dick.
That something else is technology, based primarily on fossil fuels no less. Did you really gloss over my list for why crop production has actually increased?-And yet, world crop production continues to grow by leaps and bounds. Obviously, the factors you fear are being counterbalanced by something else...
I do not "fear" those factors. I simply acknowledge the fact that the ecology of the planet and our modern agricultural system are intricately linked. Ignoring one has the potential to impact the other.
Red herring.
How about letting seals bark for red herring?
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Hmm.... Except, of course, that the facts don't back up that particular hobbyhorse. From the Nature abstract:
"Here we show that the previously reported increase in global drought is overestimated because the PDSI uses a simplified model of potential evaporation7 that responds only to changes in temperature and thus responds incorrectly to global warming in recent decades. More realistic calculations, based on the underlying physical principles8 that take into account changes in available energy, humidity and wind speed, suggest that there has been little change in drought over the past 60 years."
Feel free to continue parroting, though. GRAWK!
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ŕ moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
-I did. It came from some homoglobo bedwetter group. The graph doesn't really back up their claim, and doesn't explain why the IpCC backtracked its own report.
-And longer growing seasons, right?
And you're still glossing over the point that it clearly more than balances any negatives.
Now. If we accept the premise of homoglobowarming, what other benefits might it bring?
btw, Vandal, I'm still waiting for your condemnation of an entire thread titled homoglobalwarmimg, to which no one objected:
...it's obvious you're bellyaching about it now because you think you score some sort of points. You don't.
-Nah, this:
...was a blanket condemnation, don't you think?
-Let's be honest. The only reason you posted was so that you could make that joke, right?
No. The research was published in the scientific journal Environmental Research Letters.
Are you really going to try to tell me that the scientists who produced the graph from the data are unable to understand what the graph actually shows?
For some crops yes.-And longer growing seasons, right?
Care to take look at the world's current supply of freshwater aquifers? Any idea what is happening to the ecosystems of rivers that are continuously drained for agriculture? Any idea what happens to soil's halinity if it is continuously watered from underground sources? Do you really not grasp the potential downside of a major pest outbreak? Are more frequent droughts great for the economy?And you're still glossing over the point that it clearly more than balances any negatives.
The few benefits will be drastically outweighed by the problems.Now. If we accept the premise of homoglobowarming, what other benefits might it bring?
The thread is fine. The word is blatant gay bashing and everyone here, including you, knows it.btw, Vandal, I'm still waiting for your condemnation of an entire thread titled homoglobalwarmimg, to which no one objected:
BTW: My join date is 2012. I'm supposed to be faulted for not condemning a thread that saw it's last post three years before I joined? I'm to be faulted for not putting in a gay bashing term into the search archive window?
Since I didn't point it out earlier, the word is now magically not gay bashing? How exactly does that work?...it's obvious you're bellyaching about it now because you think you score some sort of points. You don't.
Last edited by Vandal-72; 06-26-2013 at 08:03 PM.
Let's check your Nature article author's CV shall we?
Most recent abstract listed (bold by me):
Abstract: Global warming is expected to intensify the global hydrological cycle, with an increase of both evapotranspiration (ET) and precipitation. Yet, the magnitude and spatial distribution of this global and annual mean response remains highly uncertain. Better constraining land ET in twenty-first-century climate scenarios is critical for predicting changes in surface climate, including heatwaves and droughts, evaluating impacts on ecosystems and water resources, and designing adaptation policies. Continental scale ET changes may already be underway, but have never been attributed to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols. Here we provide global gridded estimates of annual ET and demonstrate that the latitudinal and decadal differentiation of recent ET variations cannot be understood without invoking the anthropogenic radiative forcings. In the mid-latitudes, the emerging picture of enhanced ET confirms the end of the dimming decades and highlights the possible threat posed by increasing drought frequency to managing water resources and achieving food security in a changing climate.
You were misunderstanding, I mean, saying?
Last edited by Vandal-72; 06-26-2013 at 08:46 PM.
Batteries; I already posted references for that issue. Electricity in the grid is stored in the sense that it is a common pool. When one source is weak, another can make up for it, including customers with solar who give energy back to the grid.
Power outages are less outrageous than needless deaths and extinctions. Hospitals have generators in emergencies; not to worry. I'm sure I would still give you a charge if you run out on the road. But like I said, I am not likely to be driving in an ultra-red state like Oklahoma anyway. So, no worries.You choose power outages, I choose not to. Feel free to have the lights go out when you're in the hospital and the suchlike. Also, from prior post, "bitch switch" coming right up to Eric's power meter.
France does not have thorium or fusion. Their nucs are disasters waiting to happen. Germany is smarter.Oh, but there is. France for example has no problems.
More non-issues, and covered in my previous posts and references therein.Well, that's better, but what about if it gets cold or something? How do you keep the salt hot. Remember, we're talking about a lot of salt to get megawatts of power. Uh, what happens if a front stalls out and it rains for a week? And... are they hail proof?
I just saw this. Huh? Now this is just lame. There are no batteries that store gigawatts of electricity. What ya been smokin' I want some?
Some more info from Sheffield's research.
Sheffield J., and E. F. Wood, Projected changes in drought occurrence under future global warming from multi-model, multi-scenario, IPCC AR4 simulations, Climate Dynamics, 13 (1), 79-105, doi:10.1007/s00382-007-0340-z.
Our paper published in Climate Dynamics shows that drought will increase globally over the 21st century. We analyzed soil moisture from 8 climate models that participated in the latest IPCC assessment (AR4) and calculated changes in drought frequency, severity and spatial extent globally and regionally. The regions projected to be hardest hit are the Mediterranean, southwest US, central America, southern Africa and Australia: regions that currently suffer from drought. The main culprit is descreasing precipitation, coupled with warmer temperatures that lead to increased evaporation. Although the climate models generally predict wetter conditions in high northern latitudes, these will be offset somewhat by earlier and faster spring melt and increased summertime evaporation. The time frame for these changes to be noticeable (statistically different form current climate variability) is of the order of a few decades in some regions.
Any other misinformed, out of context, thoughts about the facts of this "hobbyhorse"?
There are no batteries that can store megawatts of power.
[/quote]
This part is correct. Now if you want to replace some coal power plants then the only other thing of that scale right now is nuclear.I already posted references for that issue. Electricity in the grid is stored in the sense that it is a common pool. When one source is weak, another can make up for it, including customers with solar who give energy back to the grid.
Nuclear power doesn't emit CO2 or the other noxious stuff coal plants do.Power outages are less outrageous than needless deaths and extinctions.
Yup. However if the power is out for a while, It's kind of hard to get fossil fuel (diesel). Ya see, if we do Ericland style stuff, we end up with regional blackouts (unless Rag's "bitch switches") are used and you can't pump the diesel.Hospitals have generators in emergencies; not to worry.
Red dirt and black outs, no thanks.I'm sure I would still give you a charge if you run out on the road. But like I said, I am not likely to be driving in an ultra-red state like Oklahoma anyway. So, no worries.
Continent wide blackouts are even worse, you know stuff like raw sewage and stuff.France does not have thorium or fusion. Their nucs are disasters waiting to happen. Germany is smarter.
Except "red state" issues. You have lots of those man.More non-issues, and covered in my previous posts and references therein.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Ruff! Thank you.Maybe Wally Bad Dog Poodle Pink Splice happens to find value in your posts on generational boundaries in the military but not on global warming? I don't see those two as mutually expensive.
Of course, perhaps I should let Bad Dog bark for himself.
I think JDG has some insight, and intelligence. He's certainly well read. Yes, I liked him better before. But, he's like devotees of Advanced Squad Leader in the wargaming world (trees vs forests), or the giant tabletop miniatures/boardgamers with Douglas MacArthur/Monty/Patton/Halsey complexes, and that gets old, fast. If he wasn't such a bar-room bully/troll, so certain of himself, he would be more likeable. I'm fallable, and boy-oh-boy have I got my faults. I haven't bothered archiving anyone's posts, however, in a quest for total dominance of the board.
So... you posted something completely irrelevant to your point as if it weren't. Are we to be impressed by your lack of attention to detail, or by your poor reading comprehension skill? Both?
In any case, the journal article I linked straight-out contradicts your unbacked assertion that the incidence of drought has been increasing. It flat says that the apparent increase in droughts over the multidecadal past was no more than an artifact of poor data management. The most recent article whose abstract you quoted argues that the overall mix and location of both drought and flood events can only be clearly correlated to AGHG forcings. It then argues that models based off that correlation suggest that further increasing AGHG will result in increased instance of drought.
That is, it talks about the predictions made by a model. As opposed to actual, historical fact -- which was what you were asserting above, and what the Nature article debunked. You do recognize the difference between data from reality, and the output of simulations, don't you? Though ideally they track, one is (quite emphatically) epistemologically very much not the other. Arguing that "the models predict" is a very different thing (and very much not what you were doing that I rebutted) from arguing that "this thing happened".
The fact that you want to argue a point completely unrelated to both what you were saying originally, to the point with which I rebutted you, and to the factual basis for my rebuttal? That's just transparent weasel-tactics. Hardly becoming of a person who claims to value scientific inquiry.
----
-edit-
And then, I see, you continued to post quotes defending the different and wholly unrelated assertion. Are we to take it, then, that you have recognized the error in your initial false claim and retracted it? Or is it just that you give so few fucks about coherency and consistency of thought that you feel comfortable arguing "But it's green!" when the question was "2 + 2 = ?"?
Last edited by Justin '77; 06-26-2013 at 10:16 PM.
"Qu'est-ce que c'est que cela, la loi ? On peut donc ętre dehors. Je ne comprends pas. Quant ŕ moi, suis-je dans la loi ? suis-je hors la loi ? Je n'en sais rien. Mourir de faim, est-ce ętre dans la loi ?" -- Tellmarch
"Человек не может снять с себя ответственности за свои поступки." - L. Tolstoy
"[it] is no doubt obvious, the cult of the experts is both self-serving, for those who propound it, and fraudulent." - Noam Chomsky
