Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

**~~tanq_tonic~~** · 23 Aug 07,, 21:54

Originally Posted by Bluesman

dalem, he obviously still thinks we dislike him because of his OPINIONS, and the stance he's taken on this or another ISSUE. When it's obvious for all to see that he's a snide and poorly-socialized mook that has no real idea that he's being condescending, arrogant, and extremely unlovable with all his 'such a shame you're beneath me' schtick.

This is the kind of little snirp that got melvined every day in skool because of that act.

1. I see that it is okay, in your mind, for those who disagree with my opinion to call them "puffheaded numbers"; and for them to (in a knee-jerk fashion) label anything that supports the concept of AGW as "religious". If the person who shot off that gloriously and grossly generalized remark actually bothered to ask about any political affilitation, any industry affiliations or ties, my views on Bush or Iraq, my views on many environmenatal issues, my views on gun laws, or my views on an industrialized economy, they just might be suprised. Unfortunatley they they did not do so; they "shot from lip" at that time and the discourse has devolved from there.

It is apparently not okay, in your opinion, for that person to whom those remarks are directed to respond in kind...... interesting delineation, Blues.

2. I also can surmise from your post that you somehow think that it is un-politic and/or improper to somehow present counter-refutations of some of the widely held "refutations" of AGW. If someone wants to presnet anything against my counter-refutation(s), please do so. I will definitely consider them. I am somewhat surprised at your implicit polemic about them.

3. I thought you said you were going to "ignore" me. Apparently you have not.

Perhaps you may want to do that. Or not. Your call. If you actually want to chime in with ideas and facts on AGW, instead of publishing two rants, you can do that. Or not. Again your call.

And, just perhaps, you may also want to characterize those who slung out the initial ad-homs and gross generalizations as "poorly-socialized mooks". Or you can continue to be selective in that. Once again, your call.

And yes, boorish behavior at the outset *is* definitely beneath me (so I guess "arrogant" in your book). If you don't like that I do counter-punch to those asides, well then, too bad My Friend.

Also, you will notice that I am deliberately refraining from stooping to your "schoolyard" response, both in tone and in substance. In the military (where, iirc, your immediate family is professionally doing service for me and my country), I believe by not "counter-punching" here it would be known as "stepping down". But, considering that I have never offered you any harsh words personally, it really wouldn't be a "step down", would it? Or would that be "condescending"?

**Parihaka** · 23 Aug 07,, 23:22

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Par, you will notice that the article attributes much of what they see to albedo effect and the changes wrought by an albedo effect.

Or, in other words, once there is any perturbation in albedo, it leads to dynamics that force other perturbations in albedo, leading to more dynamics. Underthe scenarion that they describe, Mars' temperature would rise even when the temperatures and/or solar activity remained flat.

They are silent as to the first cause of the first dynamic.

Sorry about introducing a "disproof" into the conversation, since that is seemingly not horribly tolerated in this forum, and is characterized as "arrogant" (too bad there is not a rolleyes smilie on the right to press)

btw: edited to say "thank you", Par, for posting the source and the link.

No problems, I'm happy for "disproofs". What I don't understand is how in Lori Fenton's subsequent work, she can attribute it to increased dust storms, but not explain why those increased dust storms occur. It's like she's proposing a chicken and egg scenario i.e. there's perturbations in albedo, causing dust storms, which causes perturbations in albedo?

**Parihaka** · 23 Aug 07,, 23:27

Originally Posted by astralis

i've never read so much scientific debate in such an engagingly insulting manner.

Yes indeed. Now however that we have all established our argumentum ad hominem ju jitsu credentials, I would ask that we get back to the topic at hand.

Just a friendly moderator request

**Parihaka** · 23 Aug 07,, 23:28

Originally Posted by glyn

I have to agree (although I really shouldn't).

Lets get back to the science, guys. I'm eager for more.

Well said that man

**Parihaka** · 23 Aug 07,, 23:30

tanq_tonic, I'm not on my own time at the moment so I'm just doing the moderator thing, I'll reply to your science (and thank you for posting it

)when I'm at home.

**~~tanq_tonic~~** · 23 Aug 07,, 23:31

Originally Posted by Parihaka

No problems, I'm happy for "disproofs". What I don't understand is how in Lori Fenton's subsequent work, she can attribute it to increased dust storms, but not explain why those increased dust storms occur. It's like she's proposing a chicken and egg scenario i.e. there's perturbations in albedo, causing dust storms, which causes perturbations in albedo?

Par,

on page 2 of the article did you note:

The link between dust movement and global warming is likely to be unique to Mars and not something that could affect Earth, the scientists added.

My take on the article is that seems to outline a "sh*t happens" occurrence. IIRC, dust storms have been part and parcel of Mars' history for as long as the planet has been observed.

It stands to reason that these storms would effectively scour the surface, essentially to the point that the underlying "bedrock" is exposed for longer periods of time. Unfortunately in Mars' case that bedrock has a lower albedo, which tends to increase the surface temperature.

The only "larger" storms that were mentioned were ones that happened in the 70's. Again, much like small scale weather variations on Earth, I would assume that Mars gets periods of extreme weather events for no readily apparent reason.... In this case, it just happened to pop another variable "to the surface" (pardon the pun)

**glyn** · 23 Aug 07,, 23:33

Originally Posted by Parihaka

Well said that man

Oi, Chinese Gooseberry, you called me a patsy last time!

**Parihaka** · 23 Aug 07,, 23:59

Originally Posted by glyn

Oi, Chinese Gooseberry, you called me a patsy last time!

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
Parihaka's dear departed Grandmother

**ArmchairGeneral** · 24 Aug 07,, 02:06

Originally Posted by Parihaka

"Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds"
Parihaka's dear departed Grandmother

Heh, that's a favorite quote of one of my biology profs.

**ArmchairGeneral** · 24 Aug 07,, 02:37

Originally Posted by tanq_tonic

Well, even though it supports my position; it *is* "wikiality" (as Stephen Colbert) says. (unless you look at the base studies or comments from the originators of the studies, I would not readily rely on Wiki).

Armchair, if you look at the actual study that Gun brought up earlier, it too says that we are at a (whatever time period) "unusual activity" (or somefink). But it also goes on to say that the added "unusual activity" is not sufficient to account for the increased temperatures and/or energy in the terrestrial system. That study from Max Planck also says that "we are in a very long trend of higher solar activity" (i.e. on the order of thousands of years, but in the *short* term observations there is not enough in the upswing to account for the net energy flux of the system.) In fact, I think that I actually quoted from it after Gun brought it out.

Not looking to Wiki as a final arbitrator or anything, just a quick source of general info, quotes, and studies to look at. Since I assume that anything and everything I read is biased one way or another, Wiki doesn't really bother me.

I did look at the study from the Max Planck Institute, that's what I was referring to and quoting from in my post. But that report is talking about sunspots, not a direct measure of solar output.

Anyhoo, here's my general impression, as of this post: The total energy output of the sun has not changed significantly over the past few decades, but it is true that certain types of solar activity, such as sunspots, have increased recently, and it is possible that certain types of energy output have increased, thereby possibly affecting our climate.

Not sure if that is the whole picture, or even accurate part of the whole, but it's the best I can figure right now. Looks like Pari is right and I'm going to have to do my own research.

Nasty icky hard work, pointing and clicking and pointing and clicking.

I need servants or something to do all this heavy duty internet work for me.

**dalem** · 24 Aug 07,, 04:00

tanq & I have buried the hatchet via PM, so my claws are retracted.

Apologies if I distracted anyone.

-dale

**glyn** · 24 Aug 07,, 08:55

[QUOTE=dalem;400520]tanq & I have buried the hatchet via PM, so my claws are retracted.

Three cheers for the PMs!

**ArmchairGeneral** · 24 Aug 07,, 13:57

[QUOTE=glyn;400554]

Originally Posted by dalem

tanq & I have buried the hatchet via PM, so my claws are retracted.

Three cheers for the PMs!

Amen to that. Thanks, guys.

**gunnut** · 24 Aug 07,, 20:00

W00t, this thread is still going.

I've been playing Civ4 for the last 2 days.

Damn game...

**astralis** · 24 Aug 07,, 20:16

gunnut,

how many of your grasslands have turned into desert yet? doncha love global warming in that game?

Thread: Climate Change is real!!!!!!!!!

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Display

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Study: S. Arabia, United States do least for climate

Australian Liberal MP's: No Proof For Human-Driven Climate Change

Global Warming, A Good Thing?

The Great Global Warming Swindle

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions