Ragnarok.Nausi said: »
And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal.
After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love.
Farmers Almanac More Accurate Than Climate Science |
||
Forum » Everything Else »
Politics and Religion
»
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Farmers Almanac more accurate than climate science
Ragnarok.Nausi said: » And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal. After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love. Offline
Posts: 35422
I'll have you know I didn't believe in bigfoot till I was in the grocery checkout line.
Phoenix.Amandarius
Offline
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal. After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love. Yeah so he abused his power and sexually assaulted women that were his subordinates and then subsequently tried to destroy the lives and reputations of the victims that had the courage to speak out against their abuser. moveon.org This is the part where the liberals say the victims were probably asking for it. Not really a case of "legitimate rape." So yeah, moveon. Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal. After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love. Yeah so he abused his power and sexually assaulted women that were his subordinates and then subsequently tried to destroy the lives and reputations of the victims that had the courage to speak out against their abuser. moveon.org This is the part where the liberals say the victims were probably asking for it. Not really a case of "legitimate rape." So yeah, moveon. Not saying that their breakthrough was due to journalistic integrity or anything, it's like hitting a 1" bullseye while blindfolded and throwing 100 feet away. It happens, just very rare and due to luck more than skill. Offline
Posts: 35422
Phoenix.Amandarius said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Ragnarok.Nausi said: » And the national enquirer was a joke too, until it broke the Clinton sex scandal. After which, it went back to being the joke we all know and love. Yeah so he abused his power and sexually assaulted women that were his subordinates and then subsequently tried to destroy the lives and reputations of the victims that had the courage to speak out against their abuser. moveon.org This is the part where the liberals say the victims were probably asking for it. Not really a case of "legitimate rape." So yeah, moveon. Cheating on your wife is good for a marriage though. It makes it stronger. Also good for global warming. Bahamut.Milamber said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: In all cases current AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy that can be back radiated due to the logarithmic scaling involved. We passed that limit back at ~250ppm and now any additional back radiation would be so insignificant that it would be lose in the noise. The feedback loops are based on (relatively constant) overall energy input into the system, with an increasing proportion remaining trapped. Over time, temperature would increase until it reaches a new equilibrium. This comes from elementary logic being applied to an understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To put it simply the argument is that AGW is a hoax based on the fact that upper atmosphere is cooler than the lower atmosphere and that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that heat flows to the cooler system. Then there was this tidbit: Gary Novak said: O2 Absorption Spectrum There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. The key word to focus on here is "frequencies" in that: Carbon dioxide absorbs Infrared Radiation (IR) only at two very narrow ranges of wavelength, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. I don’t know how much of the total IR radiation is emitted in those ranges, but, even if it’s a uniform probability distribution, it couldn't possibly be more than 10-15% of all IR. If it’s a normal probability distribution, then the percent of all IR that falls in those two ranges would be more like 5%. Leaving, lets say for shits and giggles, about 85-95% Disclaimer I'm just reciting what skeptics propose. Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Bahamut.Milamber said: » Lakshmi.Saevel said: In all cases current AGW theory violates the laws of thermodynamics. There is a finite limit to the amount of energy that can be back radiated due to the logarithmic scaling involved. We passed that limit back at ~250ppm and now any additional back radiation would be so insignificant that it would be lose in the noise. The feedback loops are based on (relatively constant) overall energy input into the system, with an increasing proportion remaining trapped. Over time, temperature would increase until it reaches a new equilibrium. This comes from elementary logic being applied to an understanding of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. To put it simply the argument is that AGW is a hoax based on the fact that upper atmosphere is cooler than the lower atmosphere and that the second law of thermodynamics indicates that heat flows to the cooler system. Lakshmi.Zerowone said: » Then there was this tidbit: Gary Novak said: O2 Absorption Spectrum There is no Valid Mechanism for CO2 Creating Global Warming Proof one: Laboratory measurements show that carbon dioxide absorbs to extinction at its main peak in 10 meters under atmospheric conditions.* This means there is no radiation left at those frequencies after 10 meters. The key word to focus on here is "frequencies" in that: Carbon dioxide absorbs Infrared Radiation (IR) only at two very narrow ranges of wavelength, one between 2.5 and 3 microns, and another between 4 and 5 microns. I don’t know how much of the total IR radiation is emitted in those ranges, but, even if it’s a uniform probability distribution, it couldn't possibly be more than 10-15% of all IR. If it’s a normal probability distribution, then the percent of all IR that falls in those two ranges would be more like 5%. Leaving, lets say for shits and giggles, about 85-95% Disclaimer I'm just reciting what skeptics propose. Second, the absorption spectra are not entirely correct/fully defined, you can see more here: Link to CO2 absorption spectrum on page 5 Third, if you look at the blackbody emission spectra for -93.2 to 0 to 56.7C (I've used recorded extreme temperatures for boundary values)(simple calculator here), you can see that they are in the range of roughly 16.1um 10.6um to 8.8um, respectively. From the link above regarding emission spectra, a good amount of the temperature range below 0C is absorbed completely by CO2, while there is some (relatively minor, compared to H20) absorption at some higher temperature ranges. As a quick note, it appears that global ocean temperatures range from roughly -2C to 45C, while land temperatures range from -25C to 45C.
Frankly, if anyone's skeptical of global warming/climate change, they should just publish a paper and have it peer reviewed by the scientific community. If you know better than 97% of the climate scientist, you can do better than spread your knowledge on a video game website.
Bismarck.Ihina said: » If you know better than 97% of the climate scientist Offline
Posts: 35422
Bismarck.Ihina said: » Frankly, if anyone's skeptical of global warming/climate change, they should just publish a paper and have it peer reviewed by the scientific community. If you know better than 97% of the climate scientist, you can do better than spread your knowledge on a video game website. I come to video game websites for proof of global warming first. FFXI second. 97% is a phantom number that serves as more re-inforcement of the hoax and a perfect example of how the discussion is broken. 97% of scientist believe in what? That the globe has warmed over the past 100 years (no ***)? Or that CO2 is the single most important influence against planetary temperature over the past 5 billion years (incorrect)?
The goal of the hoax is to manipulate the debate into arguing against something that doesn't exist. Proponents of the hoax insist that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, that warms the atmosphere. Skeptics also recognize that it warms the atmosphere, but simply point to the piles of predictions that haven't come true as evidence that the potency of CO2 and the accuracy of the claims should be re-evaluated. However skeptics are portrayed as knuckle dragging arrogant "flat-earthers" who seek out to burn scientists at the stake like witches. Weather/climate is complicated yo, after 100 years, we still clearly don't understand ***, so why panic? The discussion is broken because people like you are too stupid to realize that you've fallen for propaganda pushed by oil companies and politicians, and somehow you think they're as credible as climate scientist in the area of climatology.
Don't conflate skeptic with denier. The people in the article you and King linked are skeptics. They adhere to the idea that increased CO2 is warming the planet, but challenge the ability of current models to accurately predict it's extent.
A skeptic implies a greater understanding of the topic than you appear to have. You're a denier. That's why people laugh at you. humanity is over rated anyways! the problem is the solution!
Hurrah for Co2! Bismarck.Ihina said: » The discussion is broken because people like you are too stupid to realize that you've fallen for propaganda pushed by oil companies and politicians, and somehow you think they're as credible as climate scientist in the area of climatology. Offline
Posts: 35422
I'm not too worried I planted a tree last year.
It only counts if you routinely hug it.
Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » The discussion is broken because people like you are too stupid to realize that you've fallen for propaganda pushed by oil companies and politicians, and somehow you think they're as credible as climate scientist in the area of climatology. I think you're making some assumptions there. Bismarck.Ihina said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » The discussion is broken because people like you are too stupid to realize that you've fallen for propaganda pushed by oil companies and politicians, and somehow you think they're as credible as climate scientist in the area of climatology. I think you're making some assumptions there. "You don't agree with my way of thinking? It must be because you bought into propaganda pushed by oil companies and their politicians! Never mind that others who disagree with me have a good argument against my opinion, because that's detrimental to my viewpoint!" Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Don't conflate unless they buy you dinner first! What, no-one wants to talk about absorption spectra or physics anymore?
Asura.Kingnobody said: » It must be because you bought into propaganda pushed by oil companies and their politicians! Never mind that others who disagree with me have a good argument against my opinion, because that's detrimental to my viewpoint!" I am of the opinion that when it comes to the field of science, the only opinion that matters are those that come from the scientist themselves that specialize in the field. Any "other" opinions are not relevant, no matter how good they may sound. If you don't agree, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Bismarck.Ihina said: » I am of the opinion that when it comes to the field of science, the only opinion that matters are those that come from the scientist themselves that specialize in the field. Cerberus.Pleebo said: » Don't conflate skeptic with denier. The people in the article you and King linked are skeptics. They adhere to the idea that increased CO2 are warming the planet, but challenge the ability of current models to accurately predict it's extent. A skeptic implies a greater understanding of the topic than you appear to have. You're a denier. That's why people laugh at you. And in comes the hateful bigot to further perpetuate the hoax and argue against people who aren't really there. Skeptic became too legitimate a term to discredit (especially since the "professionals" keep getting it wrong), so thus "denier" was coined. You're swinging at a figment of your imagination... But, how old is the Earth?
Bismarck.Ihina said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » It must be because you bought into propaganda pushed by oil companies and their politicians! Never mind that others who disagree with me have a good argument against my opinion, because that's detrimental to my viewpoint!" I am of the opinion that when it comes to the field of science, the only opinion that matters are those that come from the scientist themselves that specialize in the field. Any "other" opinions are not relevant, no matter how good they may sound. If you don't agree, then we'll have to agree to disagree. Feel free to ask questions, even ones that you may think are stupid. If you have specific ones, those are the best. In general, it is a good idea to take the advice of experts in a particular field, but also to have due dilligence in the matter (for example, get second/third opinions). What is generally a bad idea is to keep going after different opinions until you find someone who has an opinion that suits your belief. That is usually where you find charlatans, snake-oil salesmen, and generally disreputable or unethical people. Bahamut.Milamber said: » What, no-one wants to talk about absorption spectra or physics anymore? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Bismarck.Ihina said: » I am of the opinion that when it comes to the field of science, the only opinion that matters are those that come from the scientist themselves that specialize in the field. I never asked you to believe what I believe because I believe it. I've only asked you to consider believing that particular field of science because that's what the scientist believe. Where exactly is the break down in communication? Do you not believe that approximately 97% of climate scientist believe in AGW? |
||
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|