Climate continues to change.

[gunthernehmen]

Fewer cow farts, not less.

It's "less", not "fewer".

On farms, it's a bit daunting to count instances of flatulence. You can, however, gauge the relative flatulence of the stock (at least in the cold periods when they're in the barns) simply by walking into the building. "More" smells considerably riper.

Therefore, Mr. Hurry was most likely speaking of "volume" of the gas, not the "quantity" of farting instances.

 

[phrodeau]

It's "less", not "fewer".

On farms, it's a bit daunting to count instances of flatulence. You can, however, gauge the relative flatulence of the stock (at least in the cold periods when they're in the barns) simply by walking into the building. "More" smells considerably riper.

Therefore, Mr. Hurry was most likely speaking of "volume" of the gas, not the "quantity" of farting instances.

Less cow flatulence, fewer cow farts.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Less cow flatulence, fewer cow farts.

You clearly did not grow up on a farm.

 

[trysail]

Featuring none other than Michael "Piltdown" Mann (creator of the discredited and infamous "Hockey Stick").



https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2018/05/screen-shot-2018-05-28-at-6-18-03-pm.png


​

 

[Hypoxia]

You clearly did not grow up on a farm.

I grew up next to my Quaker grandparents' poultry farm. Chicken, turkey, and rabbit farts aren't real noticeable.

 

[phrodeau]

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2018/06/12/reason-moon-warmed-up-blame-astronauts.html

Astronauts walking on the moon or riding around in rovers disturbed the surface soil and exposed the darker soil beneath.

The darker soil then absorbed more of the sun's heat instead of reflecting it away, and that resulted in the temperatures rising 1.8 degrees to 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit from 1971 to 1977.

Twelve people visited the moon, with a combined total time of less than two weeks. Yet they caused lunar warming.

It's on Fox News, so it must be true.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Yet, somehow, those same physics principles are denied here on Earth.

 

[Hypoxia]

Astronauts walking on the moon or riding around in rovers disturbed the surface soil and exposed the darker soil beneath.

Twelve people visited the moon, with a combined total time of less than two weeks. Yet they caused lunar warming.

It's on Fox News, so it must be true.

Luna has soil! With moonworms and moonants and moonmoles and everything! Who knew? Another scoop for Faux!

 

[thør]

Yet, somehow, those same physics principles are denied here on Earth.

Actually not.

The disturbance measured on the moon was very localized to the 2.3m boreholes that were excavated by the astronauts. This is pretty common here on earth to have the same phenomena for similar reasons. Folks that do this type of work understand the principles and processes.

The effect on the moon's overall temperature because of these disturbances is not measurable.

 

[von_Bismarck]

Actually not.

The disturbance measured on the moon was very localized to the 2.3m boreholes that were excavated by the astronauts. This is pretty common here on earth to have the same phenomena for similar reasons. Folks that do this type of work understand the principles and processes.

The effect on the moon's overall temperature because of these disturbances is not measurable.

Oh, I completely agree. And actually, I intended physics principles to be read broadly. What I meant was, the utility of ostensibly universal physics gets accepted for Mars, but not for Earth, by a certain political segment.

 

[Que]

Oh, I completely agree. And actually, I intended physics principles to be read broadly. What I meant was, the utility of ostensibly universal physics gets accepted for Mars, but not for Earth, by a certain political segment.

The analog would not be Phrodos co2 caused warming, the analog would be the urban heat islands from paving and building with surfaces that absorb energy.

An explanation of warming that Phrodos church rejects.

Try again.

 

[von_Bismarck]

The analog would not be Phrodos co2 caused warming, the analog would be the urban heat islands from paving and building with surfaces that absorb energy.

An explanation of warming that Phrodos church rejects.

Try again.

I said nothing about CO2 in particular, but explicitly mentioned physical principles in general. As to the urban heat island effect, it is amply studied, and considered by those doing climate, and climate change, research. From the IPCC:

However, over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant.

In other words, STFU, troll.

 

[Que]

I said nothing about CO2 in particular, but explicitly mentioned physical principles in general. As to the urban heat island effect, it is amply studied, and considered by those doing climate, and climate change, research. From the IPCC:

However, over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant.

In other words, STFU, troll.

To repeat: who among those of us that deny the sacred catechisms (primary to which is the exageration of the observable effects of co2) of Phrodos religion deny that dark surfaces absorb more heat?

 

[von_Bismarck]

To repeat: who among those of us that deny the sacred catechisms (primary to which is the exageration of the observable effects of co2) of Phrodos religion deny that dark surfaces absorb more heat?

Lemme help you out, and I'll quote myself.

What I meant was, the utility of ostensibly universal physics gets accepted for Mars, but not for Earth, by a certain political segment.

 

[Que]

Lemme help you out, and I'll quote myself.

What "universal physics" other than the fact that dark surfaces absorb more solar radiation is demonstrated by the above example?

Your gratuitous assertion could be made at any time absent that example since that example has nothing to do with your gratuitous assertion. Fail. Try again.

 

[von_Bismarck]

What "universal physics" other than the fact that dark surfaces absorb more solar radiation is demonstrated by the above example?

Here, lemme help you out again, Queefy.

What I meant was, the utility of ostensibly universal physics gets accepted for Mars, but not for Earth, by a certain political segment.

The same quantum principles that underlie blackbody radiation also underlie the absorption solar radiation (see: scientific commensurability), leading to worries about Earth's energy budget. Folks like tryfail deny the environmental, social, and economic consequences.

Your gratuitous assertion could be made at any time absent that example since that example has nothing to do with your gratuitous assertion. Fail. Try again.

Blah blah blah...trolling...blah blah.

 

[gunthernehmen]

If all mankind simply disappeared along with all of our technology then the climate would smoothen out to a world wide, average temp after a million years or so.

Well, actually it would continue to change, hot, cold, dry, wet...

Climate changes. With us or without us. Anyone that disagrees with that statement will be very surprised in a few hundred or few thousand years, if they happen to still be around.

 

[Que]

Here, lemme help you out again, Queefy.



The same quantum principles that underlie blackbody radiation also underlie the absorption solar radiation (see: scientific commensurability), leading to worries about Earth's energy budget. Folks like tryfail deny the environmental, social, and economic consequences.



Blah blah blah...trolling...blah blah.

No answer, just ascription then. Got it.

 

[Hypoxia]

If all mankind simply disappeared along with all of our technology then the climate would smoothen out to a world wide, average temp after a million years or so.

Climate has been changing drastically since the industrial revolution. That's human-induced, got it? Fix that or go extinct. You want extinction? Go ahead. We'll move on.

 

[von_Bismarck]

I have no answer, just ascription. Got it?

Yes. That's what happens when you try to have me argue against a strawman position. *nods*

 

[Que]

It is not a "strawman position" when calling you on the idiocy of your claim that solar absorbtion by dark surfaces is something that would be "denied" by skeptics and is somehow symptomatic of skeptics anti"science" positions.

You made a poor analogy and a general, unsupported, ad hominem attack and you simply can't admit ever that you made an ineffective argument.

The good news is you didn't use your RDS ID to post this foolishness so now you won't have to run from it for the next two months you can continue to harangue to no effect as von Bismarck.

 

[gunthernehmen]

Climate has been changing drastically since the industrial revolution. That's human-induced, got it? Fix that or go extinct. You want extinction? Go ahead. We'll move on.

Climate has been changing drastically since the dawn of time. Just 12k years ago we were in a freaking ice age. If it had not ended (without the help of Og's campfire, btw) none of us would exist. Thank GOD for Climate Change.

 

[von_Bismarck]

It is not a "strawman position" when calling you on the idiocy of your claim that solar absorbtion by dark surfaces is something that would be "denied" by skeptics and is somehow symptomatic of skeptics anti"science" positions.

You made a poor analogy and a general, unsupported, ad hominem attack and you simply can't admit ever that you made an ineffective argument.

The good news is you didn't use your RDS ID to post this foolishness so now you won't have to run from it for the next two months you can continue to harangue to no effect as von Bismarck.

You're still not understanding epistemic connectedness, and I made no analogy. If there is an analogy to be made, it is between the anti-science propagandists who deny global warming, and young Earth creationists who deny a billions of years old planet. To hold the Earth is only thousands of years old is, by the commensurability of scientific theory, to deny a very large body of science information. Analogously to deny global warming.

I'm not your instructor; if you want to learn more about commensurability, you do that on your own time. Until then, you can have your little fuck fuck games.

 

[Hypoxia]

If there is an analogy to be made, it is between the anti-science propagandists who deny global warming, and young Earth creationists who deny a billions of years old planet. To hold the Earth is only thousands of years old is, by the commensurability of scientific theory, to deny a very large body of science information. Analogously to deny global warming.

You probably lost him with "commensurability of scientific theory". A theory is a workable, testable model supported by the preponderance of data. Young-earth and climate-change-denial claims are not workable, not testable, and unsupported. Pathetic.

Meanwhile, human-induced climate change denial, and claims that the world's climatologists conspired for more grant money, were cooked up by "think tanks" using the cigarette-cancer-denial model. That's documented. And think about that conspiracy crap. Who has more to gain, researchers fishing for grants, or corporations protecting billions in profits? Follow the money.

 

[Hypoxia]

Climate has been changing drastically since the dawn of time.

Human-induced climate change is recent and real. If you think otherwise, move to a trailer on the Florida coast.