Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Global Warming...Fact or Fiction?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
    I don't care where the "consensus" is from. Science is about facts, not consensus. A thousand people being wrong doesn't make it right.

    Let me ask you again: do you believe science is about consensus, not facts?
    Just from a investigator point of view. Seems you have an issue with consensus vs. facts. Do you know the difference and how they do interrelate? The science on the harmful effects of smoking was consensual. The science on the Theory of Evolution was consensual. I take it you disagree with both? There was no smoking gun (facts) according to the Tobacco Industry. There is no direct (facts) line to line connection for the Theory of Evolution according to Creationists.

    Consensus is when scientists in a particular field, be it physics, medicine or climate change, gather through conferences, peer review, publications among other avenues compare and discuss their findings. Through this they may discover that they see a consensus in some areas and not in others. Communicating that consensus to those outside the scientific community is the impossible part as evidence by you as you are outside. Those outside like for things to be in nice tidy black and white packages which, unfortunately, is impossible. Being an insider I have no issue with this.

    Now I will further complicate things for you. There is a new word in use today in the community called paradigm shift. Personally I can't stand the word and never use it myself. This is the view that consensus and thoughts about a theory are interconnected by researchers in a field. When enough anomalies in the science presented themselves then the science would go into a crisis mode at which point a new theory would emerge and a new paradigm would replace the old. There is a paradigm shift right now in the thinking of climate and man. There are those who say it is all natural and those who say it is man influenced. This is the crisis mode and in the end I think there will be a almost total, except for a few non-believers, shift to man having a strong influence on climate.

    As to facts I will use this analogy to describe you. In the movie "Jaws" Mayor Vaughn does not want to close down the beaches at the request of Brody. He worries about the loss of money. Hooper tells him there is a giant shark out there and he even found one of it's teeth imbedded in a boat. Mayor Vaughn asks for the tooth as proof and Hooper says he dropped it. Well with no proof, despite all else, Mayor Vaughn basically says there can't be a big shark and the beaches stay open.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
      Let me ask you, if scientists agree on a theory that is based on facts, does that make it wrong and unscientific?
      That depends on if the theory predicts observable facts. If not, the theory is wrong. If so, the theory is right. Very simple. Facts are facts. The real world doesn't change just because you believe it should.

      Bottom line, global warming cult has a very bad track record. Nothing they predicted came true.

      It was believed that the hurricane season of 2005 (year of Katrina) was the shape of things to come. Hurricanes would be far more common and more powerful, leading to massive loss of life and property. The opposite occurred. The next 10 years were some of the most quiet hurricane seasons on record.

      It was declared in 2000 that "our children might not know what snow is" in their life time. Europe was then buried under feet of snow over the next 15 years during unusually cool winters.

      Some idiot wanted to prove the south pole ice cap is shrinking by retracing the route of an explorer in the early 20th century. He was trapped in ice and had to be rescued by an ice breaker. Look up the ship Akademik Shokalskiy. Remember, they were stuck in the summer. The ice was so thick that the Chinese ice breaker couldn't get to the ship. The "scientists" had to be airlifted out.

      The global warming cult postulated that the pause in "global warming" over the last decade was due to the heat "hiding in deep ocean." Then the studies came out showing deep ocean water isn't getting any warmer. Oops...wrong again.

      My favorite question to ask is "if global warming were real, then why are we calling it climate change now?"

      My next question is "since when did the climate NOT change?"
      "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
        I'm not sure how a 2004 article refutes a 2013 IPCC study, and neither do you, hence the dumb response.

        Well, you just did again. I, however, linked to the IPCC report, not known for their skepticism.

        You could say that, but not very honestly, since I just sourced the IPCC itself dumbass. Let me guess... you have no clue who that is.
        Here you go, see here: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

        Conservative nature of IPCC reports

        Some critics have contended that the IPCC reports tend to underestimate dangers, understate risks, and report only the "lowest common denominator" findings.[115]

        On 1 February 2007, the eve of the publication of IPCC's major report on climate, a study was published suggesting that temperatures and sea levels have been rising at or above the maximum rates proposed during the last IPCC report in 2001.[116] The study compared IPCC 2001 projections on temperature and sea level change with observations. Over the six years studied, the actual temperature rise was near the top end of the range given by IPCC's 2001 projection, and the actual sea level rise was above the top of the range of the IPCC projection.

        Another example of scientific research which suggests that previous estimates by the IPCC, far from overstating dangers and risks, have actually understated them is a study on projected rises in sea levels. When the researchers' analysis was "applied to the possible scenarios outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the researchers found that in 2100 sea levels would be 0.5–1.4 m [50–140 cm] above 1990 levels. These values are much greater than the 9–88 cm as projected by the IPCC itself in its Third Assessment Report, published in 2001". This may have been due, in part, to the expanding human understanding of climate.[117][118]

        In reporting criticism by some scientists that IPCC's then-impending January 2007 report understates certain risks, particularly sea level rises, an AP story quoted Stefan Rahmstorf, professor of physics and oceanography at Potsdam University as saying "In a way, it is one of the strengths of the IPCC to be very conservative and cautious and not overstate any climate change risk".[119]

        In his December 2006 book, Hell and High Water: Global Warming, and in an interview on Fox News on 31 January 2007, energy expert Joseph Romm noted that the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report is already out of date and omits recent observations and factors contributing to global warming, such as the release of greenhouse gases from thawing tundra.[120]

        Political influence on the IPCC has been documented by the release of a memo by ExxonMobil to the Bush administration, and its effects on the IPCC's leadership. The memo led to strong Bush administration lobbying, evidently at the behest of ExxonMobil, to oust Robert Watson, a climate scientist, from the IPCC chairmanship, and to have him replaced by Pachauri, who was seen at the time as more mild-mannered and industry-friendly

        They were proven wrong because they understated the numbers and dangers. The evidence of ExxonMobil's influence can be telling given the ouster of Robert Watson.

        Try a reading comprehension manual.

        http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j...89947451,d.b2w

        I asked what you thought and was greeted with how I'm a dirty denier. Selective memory?
        No you didn't. You pretty much just attacked me for not agreeing with your posts and for going along with the consensus that global warming is real and manmade. You just posted rhetorical questions and strawman arguments.

        Reading news articles is one thing. Coming in here challenging others armed with nothing but news article hype is another.
        Posting articles that says otherwise but launching ad hominem attacks armed with nothing but biased articles and slanted pieces is another.



        Every time you respond you are proving it. When you challenge "deniers" about their claims of "growing ice shelves" you prove it. When you try to refute a study with a 10 year old article that doesn't actually refute the study you prove it. When you claim my linking to the IPCC is "biased" you prove it (and quite humorously so). When you spout the same spoonfed, ignorant nonsense I've been hearing for the last 8 years on this thread you prove it. You're just too ignorant to know it, which also proves it.
        See here: http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astro..._ice_loss.html

        and here:
        http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...ea-ice-record/

        NOAA said in a news release Tuesday that “as counterintuitive as expanding winter Antarctic sea ice may appear on a warming planet, it may actually be a manifestation of recent warming.
        Wanna try again??
        Last edited by Blademaster; 06 Apr 15,, 21:14.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
          Just from a investigator point of view. Seems you have an issue with consensus vs. facts. Do you know the difference and how they do interrelate? The science on the harmful effects of smoking was consensual. The science on the Theory of Evolution was consensual. I take it you disagree with both? There was no smoking gun (facts) according to the Tobacco Industry. There is no direct (facts) line to line connection for the Theory of Evolution according to Creationists.
          I don't disagree with "consensus" per se. What do the facts say?

          Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
          Consensus is when scientists in a particular field, be it physics, medicine or climate change, gather through conferences, peer review, publications among other avenues compare and discuss their findings. Through this they may discover that they see a consensus in some areas and not in others. Communicating that consensus to those outside the scientific community is the impossible part as evidence by you as you are outside. Those outside like for things to be in nice tidy black and white packages which, unfortunately, is impossible. Being an insider I have no issue with this.
          Do global warming climate change "scientists" discuss their theory with those whom they disagree? Or are the non-popular opinion and theory ridiculed?

          Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
          Now I will further complicate things for you. There is a new word in use today in the community called paradigm shift. Personally I can't stand the word and never use it myself. This is the view that consensus and thoughts about a theory are interconnected by researchers in a field. When enough anomalies in the science presented themselves then the science would go into a crisis mode at which point a new theory would emerge and a new paradigm would replace the old. There is a paradigm shift right now in the thinking of climate and man. There are those who say it is all natural and those who say it is man influenced. This is the crisis mode and in the end I think there will be a almost total, except for a few non-believers, shift to man having a strong influence on climate.
          Could the opposite be true?

          Originally posted by tbm3fan View Post
          As to facts I will use this analogy to describe you. In the movie "Jaws" Mayor Vaughn does not want to close down the beaches at the request of Brody. He worries about the loss of money. Hooper tells him there is a giant shark out there and he even found one of it's teeth imbedded in a boat. Mayor Vaughn asks for the tooth as proof and Hooper says he dropped it. Well with no proof, despite all else, Mayor Vaughn basically says there can't be a big shark and the beaches stay open.
          I took a picture of big foot in the outback of Australia. I lost the photo. Australian big foot is real, I swear.
          "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
            That depends on if the theory predicts observable facts. If not, the theory is wrong. If so, the theory is right. Very simple. Facts are facts. The real world doesn't change just because you believe it should.

            Bottom line, global warming cult has a very bad track record. Nothing they predicted came true.
            Then explain the loss of height in land ice in Antarctica. Global warming: Cryosat observations show rapid Greenland, Antarctic ice loss

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              So your response to my 2013 IPCC sea level rise report is to post a wiki about a report from 2001 being too conservative. Brilliant! See? You've proven it yet again.


              No you didn't. You pretty much just attacked me for not agreeing with your posts and for going along with the consensus that global warming is real and manmade. You just posted rhetorical questions and strawman arguments.
              Once again, selective memory you have there. Behold...

              Quote Originally Posted by Blademaster View Post
              What do the climate change deniers have to say about the Antarctica?

              Antarctica’s floating ice is melting

              https://independentaustralia.net/env...celerates,7536

              Antarctica's Ice Shelves Thin, Threaten Significant Sea Level Rise - Scientific American
              Originally posted by Wooglin
              I couldn't tell you. What do YOU have to say about what you posted?
              Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
              I just did. Now what do YOU have to say about your denial of climate change?

              See here:The new season of "VICE" kicks off with ice calving off of Antarctica

              Watch that documentary. It puts rubbish to your biggest champion of anti -climate change's denials and fantastical claims about Antarctica's ice shelves growing.
              Last edited by Wooglin; 06 Apr 15,, 21:32.

              Comment


              • Try what again exactly? Do you have a point?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                  Then explain the loss of height in land ice in Antarctica. Global warming: Cryosat observations show rapid Greenland, Antarctic ice loss
                  Cryosat-2 was launched in 2010.

                  The "scientists" are now comparing data gathered using 2 types of different methods. Does that sound scientific to you?
                  "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                    So your response to my 2013 IPCC sea level rise report is to post a wiki about a report from 2001 years earlier being too conservative. Brilliant! See? You've proven it yet again.
                    *sighs* Again refer to the reading comprehension manual. Check the dates. In 2007, they proved that the 2001 data were understated. Again, refer to how IPCC were influenced by the Bush administration to post more moderate numbers and each time, those numbers were proven to be understated.

                    Contrast with other journals and articles that are way less conservative and more apt to be proven correct.

                    Once again, selective memory you have there. Behold...
                    Look who's talking.

                    I am constantly amazed at your depth of reading comprehension. The articles I have posted are consistently in line what I have been saying and agreeing with, there is decrease in land ice which contributes, counterintuitively, to the increase of sea ice. That makes sense because it is not rocket science. As water flows from the land ice to sea ice, it will encounter temperature changes and be back into ice for a period of time but the point remains is that that volume of ice just moved from the land where it had been there for thousands of years maybe millions of years into the free moving free flowing body of water and changing the depth of that body.

                    You just don't want to apply deductive or analytic reasoning but the sort of logic thinking employed by the types of Glenn Beck and Rush Lumbaugh. So typical.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                      Cryosat-2 was launched in 2010.

                      The "scientists" are now comparing data gathered using 2 types of different methods. Does that sound scientific to you?
                      The prior set of data was obtained by using a plane with laser firing over the land since the 90s and has been done every year since. With the cryosat-2, that set of data has been corroborated by another set of data, namely the Cryosat-2. So there is nothing unscientific about the methods being used.

                      You want to prove that the set of data you obtained by using one type of method can be obtained by another type of method to avoid the possibility of the data being contaminated by the method itself. If your set of data is corroborated by another set of data using different kind of method, you just proved that your set of data was uninfluenced by the method itself.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                        *sighs* Again refer to the reading comprehension manual. Check the dates. In 2007, they proved that the 2001 data were understated. Again, refer to how IPCC were influenced by the Bush administration to post more moderate numbers and each time, those numbers were proven to be understated.

                        Contrast with other journals and articles that are way less conservative and more apt to be proven correct.
                        Still wondering what anything your babbling about has to do with a 2013 report. Keep trying.

                        Also wondering about that consensus you've just lectured us about. Seems it's only important to you when you think it supports what you think. How quickly it's thrown out the window when it disagrees with you. ;)

                        I am constantly amazed at your depth of reading comprehension. The articles I have posted are consistently in line what I have been saying and agreeing with, there is decrease in land ice which contributes, counterintuitively, to the increase of sea ice. That makes sense because it is not rocket science. As water flows from the land ice to sea ice, it will encounter temperature changes and be back into ice for a period of time but the point remains is that that volume of ice just moved from the land where it had been there for thousands of years maybe millions of years into the free moving free flowing body of water and changing the depth of that body.

                        You just don't want to apply deductive or analytic reasoning but the sort of logic thinking employed by the types of Glenn Beck and Rush Lumbaugh. So typical.
                        It may as well be rocket science to you.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Wooglin View Post
                          Still wondering what anything your babbling about has to do with a 2013 report. Keep trying.
                          http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...h-ipcc-report/

                          It shows that even without Greenland or Antarctica land ice melting, it is projecting that sea level rise up to 98 cm, close to one meter. Throw in the land ice of Greenland and Antarctica, the estimates change. Try again, Sherlock Holmes.

                          Also wondering about that consensus you've just lectured us about. Seems it's only important to you when you think it supports what you think. How quickly it's thrown out the window when it disagrees with you. ;)
                          Another sterling example of circular argument...


                          It may as well be rocket science to you.
                          Now who's being clueless? It ain't rocket science. To you, it is rocket science and star trek physics.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                            The prior set of data was obtained by using a plane with laser firing over the land since the 90s and has been done every year since. With the cryosat-2, that set of data has been corroborated by another set of data, namely the Cryosat-2. So there is nothing unscientific about the methods being used.

                            You want to prove that the set of data you obtained by using one type of method can be obtained by another type of method to avoid the possibility of the data being contaminated by the method itself. If your set of data is corroborated by another set of data using different kind of method, you just proved that your set of data was uninfluenced by the method itself.
                            I'm not questioning the method of observation. I question comparing data gathered using one method (2003-2009) to data gather using a different method (post 2010).

                            There was a car in the US market during the late 1980s, early 1990s called Honda CR-X HF. The HF stands for high fuel efficiency. This little car could achieve 52 MPG on the highway, according to EPA numbers. Another little car called Geo Metro (Suzuki Swift...I believe, in other parts of the world) achieved 53 MPG to 55 MPG on the highway, according to EPA's numbers.

                            Fast forward to today, the Smart Car gets 38 MPG on the highway. Scion iQ gets 37 MPG on the highway. What gives? Why not just bring back the old CR-X HF and the Metro if we want to save gas?

                            Turns out EPA changed the way it tests cars to arrive at the MPG number in 2006, effective on 2008 model year.

                            Basic Information | Fuel Economy | US EPA

                            Does that mean the numbers before 2006 were all wrong? No. Is it fair to compare one number with the other? No. The method of observation changed. Comparison is not valid.
                            "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by gunnut View Post
                              I'm not questioning the method of observation. I question comparing data gathered using one method (2003-2009) to data gather using a different method (post 2010).

                              There was a car in the US market during the late 1980s, early 1990s called Honda CR-X HF. The HF stands for high fuel efficiency. This little car could achieve 52 MPG on the highway, according to EPA numbers. Another little car called Geo Metro (Suzuki Swift...I believe, in other parts of the world) achieved 53 MPG to 55 MPG on the highway, according to EPA's numbers.

                              Fast forward to today, the Smart Car gets 38 MPG on the highway. Scion iQ gets 37 MPG on the highway. What gives? Why not just bring back the old CR-X HF and the Metro if we want to save gas?

                              Turns out EPA changed the way it tests cars to arrive at the MPG number in 2006, effective on 2008 model year.

                              Basic Information | Fuel Economy | US EPA

                              Does that mean the numbers before 2006 were all wrong? No. Is it fair to compare one number with the other? No. The method of observation changed. Comparison is not valid.
                              The method of calculation changed, not the method of observation. A huge difference, thus apples and oranges.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Blademaster View Post
                                The method of calculation changed, not the method of observation. A huge difference, thus apples and oranges.
                                There you go. Comparing numbers derived with one method to another is not valid.

                                I want to see the numbers observed by Cryosat-2 from 2003 to 2009, and compare those numbers to after it was launched in 2010.

                                Or I want to see the numbers observed by the same method post 2010 compared to the numbers from 2003 to 2009.

                                Those would be valid comparisons.
                                "Only Nixon can go to China." -- Old Vulcan proverb.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X