c_man posted:iwc cant tell the difference between someone lying for personal profit and people learning about a complex, sensitive system from first principles
climate scientists don't get paid?
Ironicwarcriminal posted:c_man posted:iwc cant tell the difference between someone lying for personal profit and people learning about a complex, sensitive system from first principles
climate scientists don't get paid?
but can they achieve orgasm? this is important
HenryKrinkle posted:glad to see this thread is about cumming while on SSRIs and not global warming.
im warming the globe by friction alone
Ironicwarcriminal posted:http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/02/great_lakes_added_11_percent_i.html
Ice continued to build this past week on the Great Lakes due to the cold air and temperatures staying below freezing, and Lake Superior's new record shows it.
The lake is 92 percent frozen, toppling a 20-year-old record of 91 percent set on Feb. 5, 1994. That statistic helped total Great Lakes ice cover soar, and we can expect to see more form in coming days.
The air temperatures this past week averaged around five degrees below normal for the Great Lakes area. This amount of deviation from normal means it was a fairly cold week.
*steps outside in February, in the Northern Hemisphere* *gets cold* "So much for Global Warming, eh?"
Ironicwarcriminal posted:c_man posted:iwc cant tell the difference between someone lying for personal profit and people learning about a complex, sensitive system from first principles
climate scientists don't get paid?
the lord's work is its own reward
Ironicwarcriminal posted:climate scientists don't get paid?
they get paid basically the same as anyone doing geology, earth science, oceanic science, etc. my point is that the people who are making money off of this is not the climate scientists, its the people who bring in press by making "green" or energy-efficient tech. you can generally look up salaries for researchers at public universities and you'll see that this is basically the norm. otoh i dont really expect you to because you obviously aren't interested in critically appraising your preconceptions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
2006:
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change.
Superabound posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
http://www.mlive.com/weather/index.ssf/2014/02/great_lakes_added_11_percent_i.html
Ice continued to build this past week on the Great Lakes due to the cold air and temperatures staying below freezing, and Lake Superior's new record shows it.
The lake is 92 percent frozen, toppling a 20-year-old record of 91 percent set on Feb. 5, 1994. That statistic helped total Great Lakes ice cover soar, and we can expect to see more form in coming days.
The air temperatures this past week averaged around five degrees below normal for the Great Lakes area. This amount of deviation from normal means it was a fairly cold week.
*steps outside in February, in the Northern Hemisphere* *gets cold* "So much for Global Warming, eh?"
and yet when it's hot in Australia in january we can't move for people linking it to 'runaway climate change'
c_man posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
climate scientists don't get paid?
they get paid basically the same as anyone doing geology, earth science, oceanic science, etc. my point is that the people who are making money off of this is not the climate scientists, its the people who bring in press by making "green" or energy-efficient tech. you can generally look up salaries for researchers at public universities and you'll see that this is basically the norm. otoh i dont really expect you to because you obviously aren't interested in critically appraising your preconceptions ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
so climatology as a field doesn't benefit and entrench itself by formulating concern about climate change? just like Christianity doesn't benefit and entrench itself by formenting concern about hopelessness and death?
Ironicwarcriminal posted:2014:
The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
2006:
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change.
The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.
if you think this is sketchy and not the way science is supposed to work i really suggest keeping tabs on some molecular biology. you make models, you test them against data, you find problems with the models, you make better models and repeat
c_man posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
2014:
The strongest trade winds have driven more of the heat from global warming into the oceans; but when those winds slow, that heat will rapidly return to the atmosphere causing an abrupt rise in global average temperatures.
Heat stored in the western Pacific Ocean caused by an unprecedented strengthening of the equatorial trade winds appears to be largely responsible for the hiatus in surface warming observed over the past 13 years.
2006:
The vast loop of winds that drives climate and ocean behavior across the tropical Pacific has weakened by 3.5% since the mid-1800s, and it may weaken another 10% by 2100, according to a study led by University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR) scientist Gabriel Vecchi. The study indicates that the only plausible explanation for the slowdown is human-induced climate change.
The strengthening of the Pacific trade winds began during the 1990s and continues today. Previously, no climate models have incorporated a trade wind strengthening of the magnitude observed, and these models failed to capture the hiatus in warming. Once the trade winds were added by the researchers, the global average temperatures very closely resembled the observations during the hiatus.
if you think this is sketchy and not the way science is supposed to work i really suggest keeping tabs on some molecular biology. you make models, you test them against data, you find problems with the models, you make better models and repeat
and at every step of the way you refuse any public criticism of your model's fallibility
Ironicwarcriminal posted:oh and btw i'm not going to learn climate science to argue against climatology, in the same way that you wouldn't learn about xenu and thetans to argue against scientology.
lmao
Ironicwarcriminal posted:and at every step of the way you refuse any public criticism of your model's fallibility
lol i guess you missed reading comp.
c_man posted:Ironicwarcriminal posted:
and at every step of the way you refuse any public criticism of your model's fallibility
lol i guess you missed reading comp.
lol!
Ironicwarcriminal posted:
.......... 
c_man posted:
...........
Ironicwarcriminal posted:so climatology as a field doesn't benefit and entrench itself by formulating concern about climate change? just like Christianity doesn't benefit and entrench itself by formenting concern about hopelessness and death?
uve got it backwards m8. climatology is fomenting concern about hopelessness and death while the Christians foment concern about climate change
Ironicwarcriminal posted:oh and btw i'm not going to learn climate science to argue against climatology, in the same way that you wouldn't learn about xenu and thetans to argue against scientology.
but i actually did learn about Xenu and thetans to argue against Scientology! you know sometimes i suspect youre not puttin in the same level of effort around here as the rest of us
getfiscal posted:hmm the australian youth work visa for canadians is for up to 30 and i'm turning 33 in a few months. you also need to have $5000 in the bank so you don't become a moocher. no thanks. germany is up to 35 and support funds are $2750. i'll just become fluent in german in a year and a half.
How is this going by the way? Do you spend the last month like, translating Goethe, or with something more concrete like lots of transitive and intransitive verb flashcards?
swampman posted:getfiscal posted:hmm the australian youth work visa for canadians is for up to 30 and i'm turning 33 in a few months. you also need to have $5000 in the bank so you don't become a moocher. no thanks. germany is up to 35 and support funds are $2750. i'll just become fluent in german in a year and a half.
How is this going by the way? Do you spend the last month like, translating Goethe, or with something more concrete like lots of transitive and intransitive verb flashcards?
du bist warm
Ironicwarcriminal posted:roseweird posted:.....your troll is annoying.....
