Global Weirding

[Heissonear]

After decades "look at what we have found" it seems there is nothing that additional CO2 in Earths atmosphere cannot do!

No joke.

Though such can be presented many ways, through real sensationalism news or overly projected research findings or inferred cartoons.

Both can be presented and discussed in this thread.

Really, what can Anthropologic Global Weirding not do? Tell me.

 

[Heissonear]

A cartoon can break the ice.

It can hurt your grades, kids. Prove me wrong.

 

[eclipsenow]

Is that humour or are you just being a childish troll?

 

[Goonie]

Is that humour or are you just being a childish troll?

The smart money is on the latter.

 

[Heissonear]

Is that humour or are you just being a childish troll?

Keep thinking.

 

[Heissonear]

Anthropologic Global Weirdness has arrived. I guess some need to be notified.

 

[Goonie]

 

[Heissonear]

Here is the biggest one, guys!

CO2 is the temperature control knob of planet Earth.

There are no greater Anthropologic Global Weirding.

To control Earth's atmospheric temperature just add or subtract CO2.

And let's sue Exxon for knowing this.

Is the Anthropologic Global Weirdness sinking in yet?

If not it will.

 

[timewerx]

Keep thinking.

I agree but there's not much to tell.......we live in a world where insanity is made sanity by those who run our world.

 

[Loudmouth]

After decades "look at what we have found" it seems there is nothing that additional CO2 in Earths atmosphere cannot do!

No joke.

Though such can be presented many ways, through real sensationalism news or overly projected research findings or inferred cartoons.

Both can be presented and discussed in this thread.

Really, what can Anthropologic Global Weirding not do? Tell me.

All of this hang wringing just so you feel justified in ignoring 100 years of established science demonstrating that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

 

[LastSeven]

"Established science"? Where?

 

[Gracchus]

"Established science"? Where?

Well, we could start with: PV=nRT. There isn't much that can be explained unless you get that. Basic thermodynamics is necessary. When those prerequisites are under your belt we can move on to the differential absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases. A little familiarity with partial differential equations would be useful. Then we could move on to basic meteorology. All that, of course, depends on if you are up to it.

Really, what can Anthropologic Global Weirding not do? Tell me.

It can't teach a pig to play the piano, even if the pig were willing. (By the way do you mean "anthropogenic global warming", or are you just a terrible speller?)

 

[eclipsenow]

(By the way do you mean "anthropogenic global warming", or are you just a terrible speller?)

I've heard respected climatologists refer to it as Global Weirding to reflect the fact that even though, on average, the world is getting warmer, some bits will actually get cooler, some bits dryer, some bits wetter, and some bits nastier. It's not equally warmer everywhere, and the effects depend on the local physics of local climate systems. The Antarctic Vortex spins faster, tugging storms in and concentrating them over central Antarctica making it cooler. The Arctic jet streams are 'drunk' on the extra heat energy in the Arctic (with a lower thermal in-equilibrium ratio to the equator), and so Arctic storms that used be locked above a certain point now drift down across North America, freezing the Great Lakes in late spring. Weird.

 

[AV1611VET]

Anthropologic Global Weirding

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that humour or are you just being a childish troll?

Wez aw troze, innint wez?

 

[LastSeven]

Well, we could start with: PV=nRT. There isn't much that can be explained unless you get that. Basic thermodynamics is necessary. When those prerequisites are under your belt we can move on to the differential absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases. A little familiarity with partial differential equations would be useful. Then we could move on to basic meteorology. All that, of course, depends on if you are up to it.

Impressive.

I may not be familiar with all those things, but here's what I do know.

• Even scientists have agendas
• Not all scientists are in agreement
• There are strong arguments on both sides of this debate
• Popular opinion is rarely formed on facts
• Politicians will perpetuate popular opinion for easy votes
• A carbon tax is an easy sell and easy new revenue
• Just because Obama says "the science is settled" doesn't mean the science is settled

 

[Gracchus]

I may not be familiar with all those things, but here's what I do know.

So, you admit that you are ignorant of the science. "But..."

Even scientists have agendas.

And you are aware of all those agendas? Could it be that many of those agendas are concerned with dealing with impending catastrophe? Or do you see some vast secret conspiracy, involving thousands of scientists who compete with each other for funding?

Not all scientists are in agreement.

Climate scientists are in overwhelming agreement that climate change is occurring much faster than it ever has in the past, and they disagree only on how much faster. So far, observations have shown most of them have underestimated the rate of change, because there were so many positive feedbacks they had not considered.

There are strong arguments on both sides of this debate.

And yet, you have admitted that you are not qualified to even begin to judge the relative strengths of those arguments because you do not understand even the basic science.

Popular opinion is rarely formed on facts.

Your opinion is a very popular opinion, and not based on facts because you admittedly neither understand the facts nor believe those who do.

Politicians will perpetuate popular opinion for easy votes.

Most will do that because truth is a hard sell, and won't help them get re-elected. Those satisfied with the status quo will almost always resist change and deny even its obvious necessity.

A carbon tax is an easy sell and easy new revenue.

Taxes are never "an easy sell". The easiest taxes are not given much publicity. All that is necessary is a few tenths of a percent added to a sales tax.

Just because Obama says "the science is settled" doesn't mean the science is settled.

It is not settled by Obama or Gore. Indeed, the science is never quite settled. But by and large a scientific consensus has been reached, not by Obama or Gore, however diabolically powerful you imagine them to be. The consensus is that of the vast majority of qualified climate scientists.

 

[LastSeven]

So, you admit that you are ignorant of the science. "But..."

But Google is my friend...

And you are aware of all those agendas? Could it be that many of those agendas are concerned with dealing with impending catastrophe? Or do you see some vast secret conspiracy, involving thousands of scientists who compete with each other for funding?

I don't need to know everybody's agenda to know that everybody has an agenda.

Climate scientists are in overwhelming agreement that climate change is occurring much faster than it ever has in the past, and they disagree only on how much faster. So far, observations have shown most of them have underestimated the rate of change, because there were so many positive feedbacks they had not considered.

So here you admit that they got it wrong when they first warned of impending disaster. So how can you be sure they're not getting it wrong again?

And yet, you have admitted that you are not qualified to even begin to judge the relative strengths of those arguments because you do not understand even the basic science.

Who said I don't understand even the basic science?

Your opinion is a very popular opinion, and not based on facts because you admittedly neither understand the facts nor believe those who do.

So if two qualified scientists tell two very different stories, which one is giving us "the facts"? The one you agree with?

Most will do that because truth is a hard sell, and won't help them get re-elected. Those satisfied with the status quo will almost always resist change and deny even its obvious necessity.Taxes are never "an easy sell". The easiest taxes are not given much publicity. All that is necessary is a few tenths of a percent added to a sales tax.

I guarantee you a few tenths of a percent added to a sales tax will be remembered by the voters much longer than a carbon tax on big business.

It is not settled by Obama or Gore. Indeed, the science is never quite settled. But by and large a scientific consensus has been reached, not by Obama or Gore, however diabolically powerful you imagine them to be. The consensus is that of the vast majority of qualified climate scientists.

So I guess the majority is always right? Good to know.

 

[Gracchus]

But Google is my friend...

It is useful for definitions, not so much for deeper understanding.

I don't need to know everybody's agenda to know that everybody has an agenda.

To paraphrase a popular saying: Everyone has a fundamental orifice, but some stink more than others.

So here you admit that they got it wrong when they first warned of impending disaster.

They underestimated the magnitude of the disaster, and the speed at which it is progressing.

So how can you be sure they're not getting it wrong again?

You demand certainty from scientists but accept the assurances from politicians?

Who said I don't understand even the basic science?

You did.

Well, we could start with: PV=nRT. There isn't much that can be explained unless you get that. Basic thermodynamics is necessary. When those prerequisites are under your belt we can move on to the differential absorption of radiant energy by atmospheric gases. A little familiarity with partial differential equations would be useful. Then we could move on to basic meteorology.

I may not be familiar with all those things, ...

Do you remember now?

So if two qualified scientists tell two very different stories, which one is giving us "the facts"? The one you agree with?

If 95 qualified scientists tell you one thing and 5 tell you another you can examine the areas of disagreement, and the arguments presented by both sides, if you understand the basic science involved.

I guarantee you a few tenths of a percent added to a sales tax will be remembered by the voters much longer than a carbon tax on big business.

But the "carbon tax" will raise prices across the board and thus result in higher sales taxes. The "carbon tax" is the response of politicians who don't really know how to do anything but tax.

So I guess the majority is always right? Good to know.

The majority is occasionally right. Don't count on it.
The change is happening. That is becoming increasingly clear.
It is happening faster than original estimates and models predicted. The models have been corrected and improved, but still seem to be underestimating the magnitude and rate of change.
That doesn't mean it isn't foolish to ignore it.
What we are experiencing is a trophic cascade of unprecedented proportions.

 

[The Barbarian]

I'm wondering if Hess is actually a very dedicated Poe.