Joey Hey thinks that his "indication" is something other than identify a fa d that gullible suckers will fall for.
There's certainly more sucker-fodder out there - John Larkin posts links to here from time to time.
Sure. Joey Hey and his companion in idiocy Jamie are certain of it
You don't come up with sources. You haven't here and you haven't elsewhere. You merely indicate what you have been stupid enough to fall for. Even Jam ie does better - though his sources are so palpably nonsensical that he's m ainly advertising his incapacity to do critical thinking.
You don't know enough to realise that the Murdoch media saves money on climate change reporting by posting stuff from the denialist propaganda machine as if it were news.
I do see more clearly than you do which isn't claiming much at all.
Clairvoyance - which seems to be what you meant, even if you didn't know the English spelling - is knowing without having evidence, which is unnecessary in this particular instance.
You don't believe me because I don't share your opinion. You should revise your opinion, but you can't process real-world evidence, so you don't see the necessity.
You do know a lot of things that don't happen to be true.
John Larkin certainly posts links to denialist propaganda from time to time .
One could argue with my identification of the destination of the links - so mebody with your intellectual skills probably couldn't distinguish denialis t propaganda from regular news - but there are enough people around who can tell shit from shinola that I can be fairly confident that I'm not dreamin g up the association.
Granting what how little you know about science, what's to stop you?
Heck, if you tell him you're doing research on the readability and content level of various journals -- which you are -- he may enjoy it even more.
Okay, then try it with some back issues of American Scientist.
( I wonder if keybroad dylsexia is created by The Internet, or only communicated by it? Perhaps more important, I wonder whether I can get a multimillion-dollar grant to study the question? )
Frank
--
Intellectual activity in a culture is not a one-way flow between
the great minds and passive recipients; it is a discourse, a
complex marketplace-like conglomeration of intellectual exchanges
involving many participants all trying to manipulate the ideas
available to them in order to explain, justify, lay blame for, or
otherwise make sense of what is happening around them.
-- Gordon S. Wood / The Purpose of the Past
And here I was admiring how eloquently you hold your own.
But you're being too kind, and besides, it doesn't matter. Either something is right, or it isn't--it doesn't matter how clever.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's WRONG." --Richard P. Feynman
A point that you will ignore if climate science is involved. Admittedly the re is only one experiment going on - we keep on burning more fossil carbon, and the global temperature keeps on going up - but you find all kinds of s pecious reasons to deny what's obvious, but - for you - politically unaccep table.
formatting link
does discuss - in passing - how eminent physicists managed to square their right-wing political preferences with their scientific integrity and ignore the science in favour of the political message they liked, so you are in e minent company but not - sadly - good company.
There's plenty of evidence supporting my point of view, but you are too dim to understand it.
Which industry do you have in mind? The industry responsible for anthropoge nic global warming - the fossil carbon extraction business - is thriving on selling stuff that people burn to generate energy. In the short term that generates a lot of happiness, but as CO2 builds up in the atmosphere we get more and more affiliated events that make people miserable.
Historically unprecedented typhoons, spectacular floods (as in Japan recent ly) prolonged droughts (as in California at the moment) and rising sea leve ls - which may rise a lot more rapidly when the ice starts sliding off the ice-sheets in Greenland and Antarctica.
CO2 'builds up'? Do you have any idea what freakingly small part the CO2 occupies in the whole atmosphere? And then adding 1% of _that_ would blow up the whole world? And the outburst of one or two volcanoes would also add an important part? What are we talking about. My plants _love_ CO2.
CO2 currently represents about 400 parts per million of the composition of the atmosphere - up from the 270ppm that was sustained since the end of the last ice age to the start of the industrial revolution.
During the ice it was down to 180ppm and that's a significant part of the r eason it was an ice age.
We've pushed up the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from 315ppm in 1958 (when accurate measurements first started) to about 400ppm now. That's rat her more than 1%. We've had a couple of volcanic eruptions during that peri od, and they haven't made much difference
formatting link
Your plants probably do love CO2, but if you give them more, they will shri nk their stomata to get the same amount of CO2 while losing less water, bec ause water does tend to be harder to get.
Relax. We know you are an idiot. You don't have to keep on reminding us.
It pushes up the effective radiating altitude for a bunch of infra-red absorbtion frequencies, both for CO2 and for water vapour.
It's moderately complicated
formatting link
could educated somebody with a decent attention span and some grasp of physics.
Actually there has - it just hasn't been as fast as it was in the 1990's. More of the extra heat being retained has gone into the oceans than it did then, probably because of the multidecadal Atlantic oscillation
formatting link
which seems to work like a slower and larger version of the El Nino/La Nina alternation in the Pacific.
And therefore extremely difficult to accurately predict. As we al have been able to observe with Al Gore predicting that by now we would be drowning, or something catastrophic like that. Or was it that al the Antarctic ice would have melted by now? Anyway, it was wrong, and the numerical instability in that kind of simulations make it impossible to generate predictable outcomes. Only if you let slip in some politics, like the IPCC does, you 'get' some results.
I don't believe that shit.
In the 1980's I watched a German professor, with two overhead sheets, explaining global warming. One sheet contained a graph of solar activity, the other of global temperature. He put them on top of each other, earth's temperature somewhat delayed, and they magically formed an almost perfect match.
Goodbye CO2 (tax).
And lots more of that kind of uncertainties. That's why the predictions make no sense.
I stick with the German professor. It made perfect sense then, and it will now.
Perfectly correct. But it's important to get some idea of what is going on, so lots of super-computers have been running different models, with subtly different starting points to get a useful bunch of rough estimates, which are quite good enough to tell us that continuing to push CO2 into the atmos phere at the current - ever-increasing rate - is a bad idea.
Al Gore doesn't predict anything - he just quotes people who do.
James Hansen did recently point out that the IPCC was being over-cautious a bout predicting global sea level rises - the Greenland and Antarctic ice sh eets are going to start sliding off into the ocean in large chunks sometime in the next few hundred years - as the Canadian ice sheet did at the end o f the last ice age.
This isn't any kind of claim that "by now we should be drowning" but you ar e dim enough to have got it that wrong.
It's not numerical instability that creates a problem predicting mechanical instability in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, it's the fact that the mechanism is at the bottom of mile-thick ice sheets, and we don't know much about what goes on down there.
The IPCC ewas set up by and is muzzled by politicians which is why they wer e so reluctant to recognise the uncertain risks posed by mechanical instabi lities in the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
Since you are an idiot, what you choose to believe is useflu onlyu in a far as it is a point er to what other idiots believe.
Sure. That was one of the more famous attempts to prove that increasing CO2 levels weren't causing the global warming we were seeing. Sadly, his graph of solar activity was wrong, and his credibility vanished as soon as this became common knowledge.
The denialist propaganda machine still hasn't noticed, and people silly eno ugh to fall for their misinformation are still making fools of themselves i n consequence.
Goodbye Joey Hey's credibility - if he'd had any to say goddbye to.
They aren't perfect, but they don't have to be to tell us what we need to k now.
There are lots of all-embracing simple explanations. Almost all of them are wrong, and this particular one is definitely wrong.
Find that "prediction". Joey Hey isn't a reliable source.
James Hansen recently joined the chorus pointing out that global sea levels are going to rise faster than the IPCC has been predicting - the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets are going to slide off into the oceans sometime i n the next few hundred years - but only Joey Hey could be silly enough to t hink that this means that Manhattan would be under water now.
There was an end-of-the-world movie that used something like that as it's e nd-of-the-world mechanism, but most of us can separate movie and real life.
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.