Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports

October 31, 2015 by Maria-José Viñas, NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center
A new NASA study says that Antarctica is overall accumulating ice. Still, areas of the continent, like the Antarctic Peninsula photographed above, have increased their mass loss in the last decades. Credit: NASA's Operation IceBridge

A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

According to the new analysis of satellite data, the Antarctic ice sheet showed a net gain of 112 billion tons of ice a year from 1992 to 2001. That net gain slowed to 82 billion tons of ice per year between 2003 and 2008.

"We're essentially in agreement with other studies that show an increase in ice discharge in the Antarctic Peninsula and the Thwaites and Pine Island region of West Antarctica," said Jay Zwally, a glaciologist with NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, and lead author of the study, which was published on Oct. 30 in the Journal of Glaciology. "Our main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica - there, we see an ice gain that exceeds the losses in the other areas." Zwally added that his team "measured small height changes over large areas, as well as the large changes observed over smaller areas."

Scientists calculate how much the ice sheet is growing or shrinking from the changes in surface height that are measured by the satellite altimeters. In locations where the amount of new snowfall accumulating on an ice sheet is not equal to the ice flow downward and outward to the ocean, the surface height changes and the ice-sheet mass grows or shrinks.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally. "If the losses of the Antarctic Peninsula and parts of West Antarctica continue to increase at the same rate they've been increasing for the last two decades, the losses will catch up with the long-term gain in East Antarctica in 20 or 30 years—I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses."

Map showing the rates of mass changes from ICESat 2003-2008 over Antarctica. Sums are for all of Antarctica: East Antarctica (EA, 2-17); interior West Antarctica (WA2, 1, 18, 19, and 23); coastal West Antarctica (WA1, 20-21); and the Antarctic Peninsula (24-27). A gigaton (Gt) corresponds to a billion metric tons, or 1.1 billion U.S. tons. Credit: Jay Zwally/ Journal of Glaciology

The study analyzed changes in the surface height of the Antarctic ice sheet measured by radar altimeters on two European Space Agency European Remote Sensing (ERS) satellites, spanning from 1992 to 2001, and by the laser altimeter on NASA's Ice, Cloud, and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) from 2003 to 2008.

Zwally said that while other scientists have assumed that the gains in elevation seen in East Antarctica are due to recent increases in snow accumulation, his team used meteorological data beginning in 1979 to show that the snowfall in East Antarctica actually decreased by 11 billion tons per year during both the ERS and ICESat periods. They also used information on snow accumulation for tens of thousands of years, derived by other scientists from ice cores, to conclude that East Antarctica has been thickening for a very long time.

"At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet," Zwally said.

The extra snowfall that began 10,000 years ago has been slowly accumulating on the ice sheet and compacting into solid ice over millennia, thickening the ice in East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica by an average of 0.7 inches (1.7 centimeters) per year. This small thickening, sustained over thousands of years and spread over the vast expanse of these sectors of Antarctica, corresponds to a very large gain of ice - enough to outweigh the losses from fast-flowing glaciers in other parts of the continent and reduce global .

Zwally's team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.

"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

"The new study highlights the difficulties of measuring the small changes in ice height happening in East Antarctica," said Ben Smith, a glaciologist with the University of Washington in Seattle who was not involved in Zwally's study.

"Doing altimetry accurately for very large areas is extraordinarily difficult, and there are measurements of that need to be done independently to understand what's happening in these places," Smith said.

To help accurately measure changes in Antarctica, NASA is developing the successor to the ICESat mission, ICESat-2, which is scheduled to launch in 2018. "ICESat-2 will measure changes in the within the thickness of a No. 2 pencil," said Tom Neumann, a glaciologist at Goddard and deputy project scientist for ICESat-2. "It will contribute to solving the problem of Antarctica's mass balance by providing a long-term record of elevation changes."

Explore further: Image: Glaciers and mountains in West Antarctica

Related Stories

Study sees powerful winds carving away Antarctic snow

October 13, 2015

A new study has found that powerful winds are removing massive amounts of snow from parts of Antarctica, potentially boosting estimates of how much the continent might contribute to sea level. Up to now, scientists had thought ...

West Antarctic ice sheet formed earlier than thought

October 9, 2013

About 34 million years ago, Earth transitioned from a warm "greenhouse" climate to a cold "icehouse" climate, marking the transition between the Eocene and Oligocene epochs. This transition has been associated with the formation ...

Recommended for you

Light-based production of drug-discovery molecules

February 18, 2019

Photoelectrochemical (PEC) cells are widely studied for the conversion of solar energy into chemical fuels. They use photocathodes and photoanodes to "split" water into hydrogen and oxygen respectively. PEC cells can work ...

381 comments

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

dogbert
3 / 5 (28) Oct 31, 2015
If you worry about sea level rise from melting ice, this report should be good news. But it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. There has to be a caveat to any published work to negate the positive.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally.


"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."
dogbert
3.4 / 5 (23) Oct 31, 2015
Everything is not a conspiracy - despite your need to make it so.


I did not say there was a conspiracy involved. I said that it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. The fact that people studying climate change see everything in the worst light is not a conspiracy. It is sad that people generally find what they want to find and when they don't find what they want to find, they rationalize the results toward what they want to find.

Human nature can be a bitch.
bluehigh
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.
emale
2.8 / 5 (24) Oct 31, 2015
greenonions

"but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source."

Could you suggest a different source of water to make sea levels rise, as I am at a loss to think of one.

Perhaps the only explanation is the simple one, that sea levels aren't rising.
MR166
2.3 / 5 (22) Oct 31, 2015
http://iceagenow....in-1910/

It seems that even NASA has a limit to their lies. Eventually the data wins and all the fudging in the world cannot hide the truth.
bluehigh
2.5 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2015
Cognitive Dissonance overwhelming you greenonions?

Any excuse?
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (16) Oct 31, 2015
greenonions,
I did not say there was a conspiracy involved


I certainly see that implication in this statement " it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. There has to be a caveat to any published work to negate the positive."


I can't help it that you see conspiracy everywhere. Just don't try to blame me for your insecurities.
SamB
2.9 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2015
OK, so long story short is that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining and not losing. Therefore, the question is where is the 'dramatically rising sea levels' getting all those trillions and trillions of tons of water from? or is the earth bulging under the seas therefor raising the sea levels?
jeffensley
3.4 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2015
OK, so long story short is that the Antarctic Ice Sheet is gaining and not losing. Therefore, the question is where is the 'dramatically rising sea levels' getting all those trillions and trillions of tons of water from? or is the earth bulging under the seas therefor raising the sea levels?


It seems to me much of the supposed "rise" that we've been experiencing has been based more on calculations than actual measurements. They calculate the volume of ice/water lost based on satellite observations and spread it over the surface area of the ocean. There's another study posted today about how the measured Greenland Ice sheet albedo decrease (and an assumed increase in melting) was likely caused by degrading satellite sensors. These two studies highlight the importance of paying attention to political paradigms and how they influence people and thus science.
jeffensley
4.8 / 5 (10) Oct 31, 2015
Also note - this article does not say that Antarctica is "gaining" - just that the loss from the melting ice sheets - is being offset by snow accumulation.


It says it's gaining mass... meaning more water is landing on Antarctica as frozen precipitation than is melting into the ocean.

Bongstar420
4 / 5 (4) Oct 31, 2015
You can double the temps at the poles and have increasing ice if precipitation increases nominally.

Its not like they aren't cold dessert climates
jeffensley
4.6 / 5 (9) Oct 31, 2015
jeffensley

It says it's gaining mass


I was wrong - I was going off this statement "an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers." But the overall message is that Antarctica is currently gaining ice. Apologies.


No apology necessary though I appreciate your post. It's important to note this is one study. My take from this (and the attitude I try to maintain in general) is that we have a long ways to go. We're trying very hard to understand things that are bigger than the capacity of our brains to process. I just hate us politicizing and overreacting to things we don't have a good grasp on yet.
MR166
2.2 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2015
"dogbert - these researchers are simply explaining the complexity of the climate system."

Oh wait, I thought that the "science was settled", that the models were correct when predicting that the poles were melting and the floods were imminent!
Whydening Gyre
4.3 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2015
http://iceagenow.info/2015/10/co2-levels-today-the-same-as-in-1910/

It seems that even NASA has a limit to their lies. Eventually the data wins and all the fudging in the world cannot hide the truth.

NASA lies? Isn't this a report FROM NASA?
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (18) Oct 31, 2015
Oh, the poor AGW Cult, the only place in Antarctica they can find their beloved GloBULL warming is where there is extensive geothermal activity.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

One more nail, in the AGW Cult's CO2 filled coffin of LIES.
dogbert
3.2 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2015
greenonions,
Here is what you said "good news about climate change has to be down played".


I did say that. I did not claim that there was a conspiracy among scientists.

Yes - your comment is conspiratorial.


So, you are very good at lying by misinterpreting.

Misinterpreting is not a good trait. Lying is worse.

It is unfortunate that you spend your time denigrating others instead of commenting on the article.
freeiam
2.5 / 5 (11) Oct 31, 2015
Oh, the poor AGW Cult, the only place in Antarctica they can find their beloved GloBULL warming is where there is extensive geothermal activity.

The research challenges the conclusions of other studies, including the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's (IPCC) 2013 report, which says that Antarctica is overall losing land ice.

One more nail, in the AGW Cult's CO2 filled coffin of LIES.


IPCC is a Political movement and as such bend the truth by definition.
I liked it the most when a satellite launch to (possibly) confirm their political ideology nearly hit them when it crashed down near the Antarctic.
How cynical can it get.
Caliban
3.4 / 5 (15) Oct 31, 2015
What seems most likely is that these findings will be --if not refuted outright-- at least re-focused, in terms of implication.

PAST accumulation of snow in bygone millennia has exactly zero to to with the current mass balance of the AIS. What we are presently concerned with is the current, ongoing and accelerating loss of ice/shedding of water vs annual snowfall accumulation over the interior. And, --as we all know-- if the net of annual snowfall vs melt is positive, then there is no AIS contribution to sea level increase --but if it is negative, then, of course, there is a contribution to that increase.

Zwally is directly contradicting previous findings --many of which are based upon the same data. How, then, the totally different conclusion? And what of the discovery of the increase in interior ablation of the ice sheet due to increased wind scouring?

One suspects that Zwally will soon face the unenviable task of supporting his conclusions.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2015
PAST accumulation of snow in bygone millennia....

Whatcha talkin bout Willis!!

Zwally's team calculated that the mass gain from the thickening of East Antarctica remained steady from 1992 to 2008 at 200 billion tons per year, while the ice losses from the coastal regions of West Antarctica and the Antarctic Peninsula increased by 65 billion tons per year.
antonima
1.5 / 5 (8) Oct 31, 2015
UH OH - shadow corpos now appear to be bankrolling NASA research!
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (18) Oct 31, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

When one thinks it through calmly, without 'politics etc', one will see there's NO 'good' news to 'downplay'. The main factor which increases atmospheric moisture./precipitation on Antarctica is increased anthropogenic global/regional warming. That warming is NOT 'good news'. Also the only reason TRANSIENT increased snow deposition inland is made possible at present is increased instability in polar vortex which usually limits amount of moisture laden atmosphere from lower latitudes that makes it across polar vortex 'walls'. Once the 'new' climate/circulation' patterns caused by 'new' global/regional temperature profiles establish/stabilize once more, moisture laden wind ingress will slow again.

Ie, global/regional warming is the PERSISTENT problem; all transient factors/hiatuses are overwhelmed longterm; as more warming, then more coastal/peninsula melt; less 'braking' for transiently increased inland glaciers will again increase discharge rate/ sea level.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Oct 31, 2015
warming is NOT 'good news'


"At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet," Zwally said.

Yep, the end of the Ice Age is bad news.
AntonKole
1.8 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2015
Here's a short video of Jay Zwally talking about the Arctic ice (in case anyone was interested).

He did say, "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

http://www.thetip...y-zally/
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (17) Oct 31, 2015
Yep, and the truly bad news is that the IPCC chose to fabricate their "science" just to propagate their dogma, instead of seeking the truth. This is just the tip of the iceberg of IPCC lies.
casualjoe
2.6 / 5 (7) Oct 31, 2015
This is just the tip of the iceberg of IPCC lies.


You may be an insult to the entire Hindu faith, and people in general, but that was actually quite funny.
Caliban
3.2 / 5 (13) Oct 31, 2015
PAST accumulation of snow in bygone millennia....

Whatcha talkin bout Willis!!


Why, this right here, Auntie Griselda:

"At the end of the last Ice Age, the air became warmer and carried more moisture across the continent, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet," Zwally said.


Which has exactly zero to do with the here and now, as I pointed out. So why is it even mentioned in the context of present conditions?

That would be like saying that your having soiled 10,000 diapers in the past has anything to do with the load residing in the one you are wearing right now...

Maybe if you offer to share your meds with him, Professor Zwally will consent to changing your diaper and give Nursie a well-deserved rest.

antigoracle
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 01, 2015
That would be like saying that your having soiled 10,000 diapers in the past has anything to do with the load residing in the one you are wearing right now.

Especially since that load has more intelligence than you...ie. the one yuh momma crapped out and forgot to flush and is too dumb to realize he was explaining the process by which the ice has been increasing.
Shootist
1.7 / 5 (18) Nov 01, 2015
Listen to Dyson, boys: Anthropomorphic climate change is a fraud perpetuated by left wing politicians, their lackey court mages (scientists) and young researchers desperate to publish.

RealityCheck
2.8 / 5 (22) Nov 01, 2015
Hi Shootist. :)
Listen to Dyson, boys: Anthropomorphic climate change is a fraud ...
Regarding Freeman Dyson's ACTUAL stance on climate:

https://en.wikipe..._warming

Excerpt from wiki:
Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[55] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:
Pity your usual misleading spamming of 'Dyson quotes' does not include the above excerpt/quote. See? Dyson's quibble is with climate 'modeling' reliability only, and NOT with anthropogenic climate change fact/causes per se. So, Shootist; you misrepresent and disrespect Dyson badly. :)
Egleton
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 01, 2015
Hey gang,
let's drop the whole charade of science. Close down NASA. Imagine the money we could save for the Pentagon to buy shit with to blow up wedding parties! That would be ever so much fun, wouldn't it you clever psychopaths?

Did you think that the MIC was just going to leave the money just lying there?
Or did you think, perhaps deepdown, that it was going to end up in your wallet so that you could buy more beer?
Not on your life. It is a rich club and you are not in it.
Bongstar420
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 01, 2015
No apology necessary though I appreciate your post. It's important to note this is one study. My take from this (and the attitude I try to maintain in general) is that we have a long ways to go. We're trying very hard to understand things that are bigger than the capacity of our brains to process. I just hate us politicizing and overreacting to things we don't have a good grasp on yet.


Its pretty clear cut:

You can double the temps at the poles and have increasing ice if precipitation increases nominally.

Its not like they aren't cold dessert climates. The Ice you see there is usually not from "annual" precipitation to a large extent.

Its from decades and centuries.

MR166
2 / 5 (16) Nov 01, 2015
Just a few short months ago 97% of climate scientists agreed that the poles were melting just as all the models predicted. As for as worrying about the 2.7 MM/year sea level rise goes, that is all part of a natural cycle and the seas have risen about 120 meters since the last ice age. All of this is much ado about nothing.
danakil434
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 01, 2015
Do these measurements take into account - (a) that the loss of ice is compacted, but the gain is loose snowfall, and (b) variations in the height of the land (due to continental rise or fall)?
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
piss off with your childishness - calling others liars.


When you lie about me, I will point out to others that you are a liar.

Your childishness is that you expect to lie and get away with it.
my2cts
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
Here is what you said "good news about climate change has to be down played".


I did say that. I did not claim that there was a conspiracy among scientists.

Yes - your comment is conspiratorial.


So, you are very good at lying by misinterpreting.

Misinterpreting is not a good trait. Lying is worse.

It is unfortunate that you spend your time denigrating others instead of commenting on the article.

Your comment does suggest a conspiracy.
It may be unintended or perhaps some dark secret is lurking behind your alias.
I'm not suggesting a conspiracy though.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (18) Nov 01, 2015
So, here's news that the sky ain't falling and what's the reaction from the AGW Cult's flock of ignoramuses, disbelief and anger; true to the Chicken Littles they are.
dogbert
3 / 5 (16) Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
If I were discussing a conspiracy, I would use the word conspiracy. When I say I was not talking about a conspiracy, you choose to continue to say I am talking about a conspiracy.

People who have spent their life promoting a concept are often unable to stop even in the face of new evidence. When I say that they have to add a caveat to their published work when the published work is opposed to their position, I am not proposing a conspiracy. I am commenting on human nature.

Why do you continue to say I said something which I plainly did not say? What do you gain by denigrating me?
Eddy Courant
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2015
Instead of Paris, could we please hold the climate talks in Antarctica?
sdrfz
2.7 / 5 (18) Nov 01, 2015
Dogbert
So, you are very good at lying by misinterpreting.


Piss off with your childishness - I have not lied anywhere. I interpret your comment "good news about climate change has to be down played" as conspiratorial. I can defend that interpretation.


You need to apologize to dogbert for assigning claims to him that he did not make.
cjones1
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 01, 2015
No mention of volcanic in West Antarctica contributing to ice decreases.
Maybe sea level rises are caused by a number of geological processes. Sediment runoff from human activity may increase coastal effects, but I don't know if any research is funded to measure such a thing.
antigoracle
2 / 5 (16) Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
piss off with your childishness - calling others liars.


When you lie about me, I will point out to others that you are a liar.

Your childishness is that you expect to lie and get away with it.

Onions is a liar and a fraud with that same rabid response, every time he's caught.
I'm still waiting for him to explain, how a warming ocean absorbs more CO2.
sdrfz
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 01, 2015
So, here's news that the sky ain't falling and what's the reaction from the AGW Cult's flock of ignoramuses, disbelief and anger; true to the Chicken Littles they are.


This article is exactly the reason why more study is needed instead of implementing draconian energy policies on the basis of incomplete science.
Eddy Courant
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 01, 2015
"Children in Antarctica just aren't going to know what snow is."
plasmasrevenge
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 01, 2015
Re: "It seems to me that scientists study what is - and try to report on their findings - letting the chips fall where they may. Then there is always the conspiracy mongers (read - anti science crowd) - ready to attack the information that is being studied."

For the record, the act of questioning science is not the same as claiming that scientists conspire to deceive the public. These are two -- OBVIOUSLY -- very different things. And anybody who does not understand this should take some time to learn about North American physics' largest freedom-of-expression case ...

https://plus.goog...rj2f3zKs
plasmasrevenge
2.9 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2015
Re: "Just a few short months ago 97% of climate scientists agreed that the poles were melting just as all the models predicted."

This is well stated.
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2015
Hi dogbert. :)

Methinks thou protests too much re greenonions perfectly defendable interpretation of your comment...
But it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. There has to be a caveat to any published work to negate the positive.


...which unambiguously implied some sort of campaign/conspiracy covering "any published work" on climate change scientific observations/reports.

Perhaps, to clear the air, you, instead of attacking greenonions' perfectly plausible interpretation of what you said, might want to exp-lain exactly what you meant/implied by such a general accusation against "any" scientific climate change publications. It would forestall further misunderstanding-based exchanges between you, and would be appreciated by all readers here, including especially myself, who is more interested in the science than the 'personal' argy-bargy.

Thanks dogbert, greenonions, everyone, for your polite and thoughtful discourse contributions. :)
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
When I say I was not talking about a conspiracy, you choose to continue to say I am talking about a conspiracy.


(S)He has a history of doing that. It's not the facts that matter, it's the severity of the accusation, that matters to greenonions. S(he) feels entitled to decide what you mean.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (16) Nov 01, 2015
It is quiet reasonable to interpret dogbert's comments the way I have.

It may be reasonable to misapprehend his post,.. but once he corrects that misapprehension,... it is no longer reasonable to continue your false narrative.
thermodynamics
4.1 / 5 (14) Nov 01, 2015
Anti said:
I'm still waiting for him to explain, how a warming ocean absorbs more CO2.


This shows how disingenuous Anti is. I have, personally, explained this at length twice. I know others have also. It has to do with the partial pressure of CO2 increasing faster than temperature. He has no comprehension of the gas laws which means he will never be able to understand the answer. Don't waste your time with him. When I explained it, at length, last time, he just headed to another thread and never replied.

Anti, please explain why you think that the rate of rise of partial pressure is less important than the rate of rise of temperature? I predict you will just scream: "lies, lies, lies, conspiracy!" instead of actually trying to address the technical details.
dogbert
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2015
RealityCheck,
Perhaps, to clear the air, you, instead of attacking greenonions' perfectly plausible interpretation of what you said, might want to exp-lain exactly what you meant/implied by such a general accusation against "any" scientific climate change publications.


1) I did not attack greenonions. I pointed out that he was a liar when he continued to state that I was talking about a conspiracy when I repeatedly told him I was not.

2) I did tell provide him with an explanation, though he did not deserve one and ignored it. I will quote what I told him:

People who have spent their life promoting a concept are often unable to stop even in the face of new evidence. When I say that they have to add a caveat to their published work when the published work is opposed to their position, I am not proposing a conspiracy. I am commenting on human nature.


dogbert
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 01, 2015
greenonions,
your explanation came after you had called me a liar. I am not a liar - and I think appropriately respond to said insult - by telling you to piss off.


No. I repeatedly told you I was not talking about a conspiracy. After you continued to to say I was talking about a conspiracy, despite my protestations that I was not, I did point out that you were lying about what I said.

You are still doing it. So if you don't want to be called a liar, stop doing it.
Caliban
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2015
That would be like saying that your having soiled 10,000 diapers in the past has anything to do with the load residing in the one you are wearing right now.

Especially since that load has more intelligence than you...ie. the one yuh momma crapped out and forgot to flush and is too dumb to realize he was explaining the process by which the ice has been increasing.


Hmm....apparently it is no longer possible to change your diaper frequently enough to prevent the stuff being excreted from your slack-lipped mouth.

Much like the claimed accumulation of snow in E Antarctica outstripping the ice loss elsewhere.

Only difference being that this supposed gain in Antarctic ice mass is yet to be definitively proved.

Porgie
1.9 / 5 (13) Nov 01, 2015
Liberal's across the country are slashing their wrists. In 2014 the polar ice caps gained 155,000 square miles. In 2015 they continued gains. Japan even changed where it was measuring it s "global" temperature because it showed a decrease. Asian glaciers were growing for 5 years in a row. The left is in a panic. Call AL Gore immediately and find out what to say.
dogbert
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2015
greenonions,
So I again say - if you don't want to piss people off - don't insult them. If you choose to insult them - don't be surprised when they come back at you.


You insulted me repeatedly when you persisted in saying I was presenting a conspiracy when I was not and when I repeatedly informed you I was not doing that. Your persistence in continuing that presentation was a lie.

You did not "come back at me" for insulting you. You lied about what I was saying and took offense when I pointed out your lie.

It is obvious you will not stop. It is not appropriate to use this site for attacks on personalities, but go ahead. You will anyway.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (18) Nov 02, 2015
The United Nations is setting up an 'international court' to prosecute for 'climate justice', as a component of a proposed climate treaty. Their lack of political inclusiveness and emotional over-reaching is what prevents international agreement for action.

Are they going to prosecute and arrest Nature? Putin says 'climate change' is a fraud. Will they start with him?

They can't stop ISIS from slaughtering hundreds of people and causing the greatest human migration in modern times,..... but these same incompetent morons think they can control the global climate?! A fraud at its premise.

But it's even worse than this. Bill Gates recently stated that socialism is the only way to defeat climate change, (despite that his billions invested into climate change came from capitalism). So not only do 'we' have to control the climate, but change the form of governments that operates counter to human nature?

.....
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (18) Nov 02, 2015
..... The true underlying agenda is no more than a leftest-political hi-jacking of seeking global economic justice,.... all built upon a foundation of anti-capitalism, emotional immaturity and stupidity wrt reality.

"Are they going to prosecute and arrest Nature" - stated because sometimes Nature acts counter to the AGW narrative,.... but yet 'they' actively "fix" data, rather than change their narrative,... i.e. the recent "studies" defuncting the 18 year pause (despite that the IPCC had acknowledged it previously).

[for greenonions and troll-raters generally - this does not mean that I'm saying AGW is invented for the above purpose, as I don't believe that,.... rather only that the above referenced mentality is effectively ensuring opposition, as opposed to finding Rational solutions within Existing economic realities]
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2015
It is effectively way too much to accept,... that AGW is an imminent threat to humanity; alarmist claims of knowledge of future that border on fraud,..... that one could trust an international governing entity; that has never proven itself capable even in relatively simple cases,.... that capitalism should be replaced or regulated via socialistic principals; despite the economic reality of capitalism being purely a natural consequence of human instinct AND despite that capitalism has proven itself as the greatest force for economic progress and the human condition, in recorded history.

The Solution will be, despite the fraud, resonable measures within present economic system, natural migration and adaptation.

EDIT: "...but change the form of governments [to] that [which] operates counter to human nature".

Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2015
@greenonions,.... it's not the first time that you have doubled the length of a thread by your accusation-style argument of INSISTING that a poster meant what you had originally misapprehended. When that insistence extends beyond that posters efforts to correct that misapprehension, you enter into dishonesty.

Indeed, you seem to be precisely the type of neophyte that is naïvely ripe for accepting and working to promote the AGW-Alarmism narrative, even to the extent of allowing the government to come into your home to rape your dog.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2015
The political far left can't sell their idealology on its own intrinsic merit,... primarily because it operates counter to human nature and the evidence for the positive effect on humanity of their anti-thesis, capitalism in an areana of libert, is orders of magnitude greater than what the deniers of AGW have to deny , ....so they hide it as a trogon-horse within a what otherwise is a legitimate issue.

bluehigh
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2015
@greenonions

You can't win with a losing hand.

Maybe bluff but you've been called out.

Fold.

Gimp
3.4 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2015
This is as entertaining as reading the STAR magazine in line at the grocery store, so many funny opinions and pseudo experts, I'm waiting for the next Headline, Elvis and Aliens debunk Darwin, apes evolved from lower primate homo sapiens.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (15) Nov 02, 2015
Indeed, you seem to be precisely the type of neophyte that is naïvely ripe for accepting and working to promote the AGW-Alarmism narrative, even to the extent of allowing the government to come into your home to rape your dog.


I will happily ignore your nonsense from this point on ...


Does this mean the troll rating will stop? They were the only means of me knowing you were voluntarily enjoying such gems.

Bulbuzor
2.5 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2015
But it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played.


This is actually very bad news for climate change, while it does mean that Antarctica isn't melting as we thought it did, but rather keep our water out of oceans, this is only temporary and can only buy us some time, 20 to 30 years if they are right. Hence, as soon as that cap is passed, and Antarctica starts to contribute to sea level rise, there come the problems. Sea level is rising as of right now, and while we thought this was due to Antarctica, if it actually ISN'T, we underestimated sea level rises on 50-100 years scale. If their numbers are right, instead of 0,27mm/year, when Antarctica nets a 0 gain, this will jump up to 0,50mm/year and keep increasing. And we didn't talk about Groenland's huge interior ice mass that could very well slip into the Atlantic. Guess it's time to change our lifestyles and energy sources.
jeffensley
3 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2015
This is actually very bad news for climate change, while it does mean that Antarctica isn't melting as we thought it did, but rather keep our water out of oceans, this is only temporary and can only buy us some time, 20 to 30 years if they are right.


I'm shocked someone would take that stance ;) Also, assigning brief observations a linear trend borders on the ludicrous. It will be what it will be and it will likely have nothing to do with our projections.
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2015
"if", "we thought", "could very well", "underestimated", two examples of circular reasoning.
Typical GW defense mechanisms at play here.


I used those terms because I didn't read thru the actual paper and didn't check their data for myself. Also because it is somewhat contreversial to, out of the bloom, say Antarctica is currently stocking water.

But since you seem to be a "climato-skeptic" from what I read in your other comments, I guess you never actually read a climate peer-reviewed paper and therefore, debating with you is pointless. GW is not a "theory" at this point, the Earth IS warming, data does not lie. The questions that remain are what will be its side-effects (specifically), what did we not foresee, can we stop it, etc.

Now, I guess one of your arguments is that the Earth has already been warmer and that is absolutely true. The difference is, when those warm periods happened, the warming was very, very slow, gradual. -- continued below --
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (24) Nov 02, 2015
-- continued -- Right now, it is a phenomenal warming rate. 2 to 5 degrees, depending on the study and if the changes we may bring to our energy dependencies, in under 100/150 years is unprecedented.
The point here isn't about life on Earth, it is a very, very anthropocentric problem. Life doesn't care. We could nuke the whole Earth, eradicate 99% of the species, and in a million years, Earth would look like it did today but with new species. The concern here is about our survival. Sustaining ourselves in a heated-up and debalanced Earth would be a harsh challenge, and I am not (tho I am now) mentioning side-effects like sea level rise (which will flood most of big cities), increased climatic disasters (hurricanes per se), unpredictable climate (hence possibly terrible crops, which is currently happening), etc.
runrig
4.3 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2015
-- continued -- Right now, it is a phenomenal warming rate. 2 to 5 degrees, depending on the study and if the changes we may bring to our energy dependencies, in under 100/150 years is unprecedented.
The point here isn't about life on Earth, it is a very, very anthropocentric problem. Life doesn't care. We could nuke the whole Earth, eradicate 99% of the species, and in a million years, Earth would look like it did today but with new species. The concern here is about our survival. Sustaining ourselves in a heated-up and debalanced Earth would be a harsh challenge, and I am not (tho I am now) mentioning side-effects like sea level rise (which will flood most of big cities), increased climatic disasters (hurricanes per se), unpredictable climate (hence possibly terrible crops, which is currently happening), etc.

Good post Bulbuzor
Bulbuzor
2.5 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2015
Rising sea level bad, not rising sea level good


This depends on the point of view you take.

From a planetary/geological point of view, Earth and even flora/fauna doesn't care, it's neither good, neither bad.

From an anthropic point of view, it is very, very bad. Do you care about human lives and health? If you do, you should care about sea level rise. We often talk about USA's coasts, yeah, people will have to move inland, it will cause quite an economic crisis, but it the end, the US has a lot of space far from the coast where people can go. Now, think about the Maldives, the Philippines, the islands of Thailand and many, many other Asian islands. Most of those islands are extremely low in altitudes and sea level rises, even one that seems negligible, will make those islands disappear. Where will these guys go? How will they move out? Who will move them out? Because after all, moving out houndreds of thousands of people is a very expensive and -- continued below --
Bulbuzor
2.5 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2015
-- continued --
difficult task, while many of these countries are limited in material and money.

If you think the current refugee crisis is problematic, just wait for sea level rise, you won't be disappointed.
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (22) Nov 02, 2015
This is actually very bad news for climate change, while it does mean that Antarctica isn't melting as we thought it did, but rather keep our water out of oceans, this is only temporary and can only buy us some time, 20 to 30 years if they are right.


I'm shocked someone would take that stance ;) Also, assigning brief observations a linear trend borders on the ludicrous. It will be what it will be and it will likely have nothing to do with our projections.


If you really believe that this article is based on a plain linear model, I invite you to read the 4th section of this article, freely available at: http://dx.doi.org...oG15J071

And while our predictions are not perfect and they have error margins, we are getting pretty darn good at it.
runrig
5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf
Bulbuzor
2.4 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf


You are making a good point there, I wonder if their model (based on elevation) takes compaction into account.
Bulbuzor
2.4 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf


You are making a good point there, I wonder if their model (based on elevation) takes compaction into account.


I glanced at the article (Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses), it seems like they considered compaction in their model if you search the paper for "compaction", tho I do not understand much of the math going on in the paper, if you are more knowledgeable then I in glaciology, you could perhaps enlight us on this regard.
antigoracle
1.9 / 5 (14) Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Oh, runrig the "optimist" forever holding out for the grey lining.
Tell me runrig, in that GRACE study, how did they account for the variation in the gravity of the land mass under all the ice?
Bulbuzor
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Oh, runrig the "optimist" forever holding out for the grey lining.
Tell me runrig, in that GRACE study, how did they account for the variation in the gravity of the land mass under all the ice?


Read the methodology he gave the paper's link. For the record tho, the paper of this phys's post seems more complete and sustained to my amateur's eyes
jeffensley
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Oh, runrig the "optimist" forever holding out for the grey lining.


Yeah I'm not sure if some of these folks are even aware that they are pulling for the worst-case scenario.... so much so that when information comes along that doesn't support the notion that climate change = imminent catastrophe, they are actually disappointed and become skeptical of the data. Questioning science? What's that? It's truly bizarre.
Bulbuzor
1.8 / 5 (16) Nov 02, 2015
Supported*
Joglea
3 / 5 (6) Nov 02, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Antarctica is gaining ice but the Arctic is losing ice at a faster pace than Antarctica is gaining it. I don't know why that person said we have to look for another source since we are already very well aware of that source.
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (22) Nov 02, 2015
@jeffensley

Yeah I'm not sure if some of these folks are even aware that they are pulling for the worst-case scenario.... so much so that when information comes along that doesn't support the notion that climate change = imminent catastrophe, they are actually disappointed and become skeptical of the data. Questioning science? What's that? It's truly bizarre.


Funny thing is, this article does support climate change and you indirectly approved it by saying what you just did; even tho you personally refuse to "believe" in CC. If you read carefully, you will see that these authors claim that snow gain rate is decreasing in Antarctica and soon, the losses will catch up with the gain. Nothing in here is inconsistent with global warming.

Now let's see if you will be consistent in your belief and keep cherishing this paper once you realize it supports global warming.
Joglea
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2015
NASA has already stated that the Arctic is losing ice faster then Antarctica is gaining it.

"There's been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic," said lead author Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "However, this growth rate is not nearly as large as the decrease in the Arctic."
jeffensley
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Antarctica is gaining ice but the Arctic is losing ice at a faster pace than Antarctica is gaining it. I don't know why that person said we have to look for another source since we are already very well aware of that source.


Just out of curiosity, where is there a melting rate estimate for the land-locked arctic ice?
jeffensley
2 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2015
Now let's see if you will be consistent in your belief and keep cherishing this paper once you realize it supports global warming.


So a study suggests the entire time we've been in a panic about the sea level rise due to Antarctic ice melting, it's actually been gaining ice and your take from it is "Well yeah but it's slowing down" and based on nothing besides a statement by the researchers, assume that this trend will continue? You see what you want to see. I don't refuse to believe in climate change... I simply believe in staying in touch with reality.
Joglea
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 02, 2015
We've known for years that Antarctica has been gaining ice.

We've also known for years that on the opposite side of the earth the Arctic is losing ice far faster than Antarctica is gaining it.

A lot of commenters on here seem to think that Antarctica include both poles.

The climate is changing and as a result one side of the earth is gaining ice and the other side is quickly losing it.

A quick search and you can find articles by NASA from 2012 that talk about Antarctica gaining ice and the Arctic losing ice.
jeffensley
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2015
We've known for years that Antarctica has been gaining ice.


Well apparently the IPCC missed the boat on this really old news too since their 2013 report stated Antarctica was losing land ice faster than it was gaining it according to the above article.
Bulbuzor
2.5 / 5 (21) Nov 02, 2015
Then explain this without referring to global warming or increase in atmospheric CO2: http://climate.na...rces/28/

The current article questions the source of the on-going sea level rise (0,27mm/year), not GW. It states clearly that snow fall in Antarctica is a result of the last Ice Age ending, causing the air to carry more moisture, doubling the amount of snow dropped on the ice sheet. It states clearly that this snow gain in Antarctica is slowing down. It states clearly that current snow loss in coastal Antarctica is estimated at 65 Gt/year and will outgrow gain in 20 to 30 years. Find a single, specific sentence in this paper that refutes global warming.

Your argument is biased by how selective you are in the articles you "agree" or "disagree" with and your opinion, which is irrelevant when talking data. If you believe data supports the no-global warming belief, link in here a selection of credible, peer-reviewed papers with a lot of data.
Bulbuzor
2.4 / 5 (20) Nov 02, 2015
Furthermore, debating global warming is useless. If you believe that the scientific method is erroneous and somehow related to a conspiracy theory, there is no point for you to debate on a science website, especially if the article doesn't even talk about global warming directly.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2015
Tell me runrig, in that GRACE study, how did they account for the variation in the gravity of the land mass under all the ice?


Oh, and just a stab in the dark here ... perhaps by comparing it with previous gravitic maps??

runrig
5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2015
I note that this paper is for data up to 2008. So the last 6 years not included.
Also, I'd suggest that the GRACE data is more likely to be correct as it accounts for (any) ground movement and compaction of snow, due it measuring gravitic changes.
See this paper...

http://www.prince...015a.pdf

Oh, runrig the "optimist" forever holding out for the grey lining.


Yeah I'm not sure if some of these folks are even aware that they are pulling for the worst-case scenario.... so much so that when information comes along that doesn't support the notion that climate change = imminent catastrophe, they are actually disappointed and become skeptical of the data. Questioning science? What's that? It's truly bizarre.

No just comparing two incompatible studies and also with the fact that measured SL behaviour does not match up. Science doesn't just throw studies away - it needs to find which one is correct.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Antarctica is gaining ice but the Arctic is losing ice at a faster pace than Antarctica is gaining it. I don't know why that person said we have to look for another source since we are already very well aware of that source.

The Arctic is sea-ice my friend. It's floating.
Unless you mean Greenland's ice.
Bulbuzor
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2015
A quick search and you can find articles by NASA from 2012 that talk about Antarctica gaining ice and the Arctic losing ice.


Can you refer some of those, concerning Antarctica's ice gain? Thanks :)
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2015
NASA has already stated that the Arctic is losing ice faster then Antarctica is gaining it.

"There's been an overall increase in the sea ice cover in the Antarctic, which is the opposite of what is happening in the Arctic," said lead author Claire Parkinson, a climate scientist with NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, Greenbelt, Md. "However, this growth rate is not nearly as large as the decrease in the Arctic."

As I said - this article/paper is about the AIS and not sea ice.
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2015
.. that rise was coming from Antarctica - but now we know it is not - then we have to look elsewhere for the source.


We?

Actually, YOU need to suggest other sources.

You can't win with a losing hand.

Antarctica is gaining ice but the Arctic is losing ice at a faster pace than Antarctica is gaining it. I don't know why that person said we have to look for another source since we are already very well aware of that source.


Just out of curiosity, where is there a melting rate estimate for the land-locked arctic ice?

https://www.aber....ce.shtml
http://www.arctic...eet.html
runrig
4.6 / 5 (9) Nov 02, 2015
... I simply believe in staying in touch with reality.


I would suggest you simply stay in touch with those studies that support your world-view - I say this because you seem to be ignoring the obvious inconsistencies with other studies and the fact that it lacks the last 6 years of data.
BTW: Antarctica is massive and at an average height of ~8000ft it's my guess that it will be gaining ice for decades/centuries to come ... it will be a tussle between ablation of grounded sheets along the coast to build up over the interior.... because AGW will increase snowfall. Saturated air at 0C holds more that twice the water than at -10C.
Greenland is the one we need to worry about.
Joglea
1 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2015
A quick search and you can find articles by NASA from 2012 that talk about Antarctica gaining ice and the Arctic losing ice.


Can you refer some of those, concerning Antarctica's ice gain? Thanks :)

Article titled "Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows" Search for it should be first result.
jeffensley
2.6 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2015
Then explain this without referring to global warming or increase in atmospheric CO2: http://climate.na...rces/28/


Where did that come from? We were just discussing Antarctic Ice gains and ocean levels. Just because you've been operating from what appears to be a fallacy regarding Antarctic Ice doesn't mean I'm suggesting climate change doesn't exist. I continue to question our methods however (for good reason obviously) as well as how seriously some seem to take projections.

jeffensley
3 / 5 (4) Nov 02, 2015
https://www.aber.ac.uk/greenland/Massbalance.shtml


Does the white GRACE graph show Greenland gaining ice through 2006?
Bulbuzor
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2015
Antarctica is massive and at an average height of ~8000ft it's my guess that it will be gaining ice for decades/centuries to come ...


1992-2001 : AIS's net gain: 112 Bt/year
2003-2008: AIS's net gain: 82 Bt/year
At this rate I doubt it's a question of centuries. If it stays linear (atm. CO2 won't go from 400ppm to saturation in a few decades), the 20-30 years they stated seem even conservative given there's almost been another decade since their most recent data.

"Opposite Behaviors? Arctic Sea Ice Shrinks, Antarctic Grows"

I can't seem to find a peer-reviewed paper about this, only the post on NASA's website. Tho, that one concerns AIS superficial (square meters) gain, while the current one is about mass gain. I'd say they rather complement each other, and that the current one is indeed "new news" for it's quantifying aspect.
Joglea
1 / 5 (5) Nov 02, 2015
"The Arctic is sea-ice my friend. It's floating.
Unless you mean Greenland's ice."

Greenland's ice sheet are certainly a source but melting Arctic sea ice causes rising ocean levels because the ice pushes the salt out when it forms. When fresh water ice floating in salt water melts it causes water levels to rise because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater thus floating ice displaces less volume than it contributed once it melted. You can see this for yourself by comparing melting fresh water ice in salt water versus freshwater ice in freshwater.

Combine this with thermal expansion (water expands as it heats up)which has caused almost half of all sea level rise in the past century and tada! sea level rise accounted for.
Bulbuzor
1.9 / 5 (17) Nov 02, 2015
Where did that come from?


Here:

So a study suggests the entire time we've been in a panic about the sea level rise due to Antarctic ice melting, it's actually been gaining ice and your take from it is "Well yeah but it's slowing down" and based on nothing besides a statement by the researchers, assume that this trend will continue? You see what you want to see. I don't refuse to believe in climate change... I simply believe in staying in touch with reality.


That sounded quite like it to me, but I may have simply misunderstood your statement. If so, I am sorry about it.

As for questioning methods, while I can only agree that it is important, I do not think it is a valid argument to reject articles that are counter-intuitive, unless, of course, you are an actual glaciologist who understands these maths. If not, I believe that using the method's argument, especially for this kind of complex issue, is subjective and based solely on what one wants to believe.
Joglea
1 / 5 (3) Nov 02, 2015

The Arctic is sea-ice my friend. It's floating.
Unless you mean Greenland's ice.

Greenland's ice sheet are certainly a source but melting Arctic sea ice causes rising ocean levels because the ice pushes the salt out when it forms. When fresh water ice floating in salt water melts it causes water levels to rise because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater thus floating ice displaces less volume than it contributed once it melted. You can see this for yourself by comparing melting fresh water ice in salt water versus freshwater ice in freshwater.

Combine this with thermal expansion (water expands as it heats up)which has caused almost half of all sea level rise in the past century and tada! sea level rise accounted for.
runrig
5 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2015
"The Arctic is sea-ice my friend. It's floating.
Unless you mean Greenland's ice."

Greenland's ice sheet are certainly a source but melting Arctic sea ice causes rising ocean levels because the ice pushes the salt out when it forms. When fresh water ice floating in salt water melts it causes water levels to rise because freshwater is not as dense as saltwater thus floating ice displaces less volume than it contributed

My apologies - I did not know of this effect.
However I see that it is tiny (~1.6%).
http://www.skepti...ice.html
http://onlinelibr...496/full

Joglea
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 02, 2015

My apologies - I did not know of this effect.
However I see that it is tiny (~1.6%).
http://www.skepti...ice.html


My apologies also; I didn't realize its contribution was so tiny.

It seems however that the Arctic contains quite a lot of land ice; from what I can gather the land ice from the Canadian Arctic Archipelago and Greenland combined with thermal expansion accounts for most of known sea level rise.

"[N]early half of the ice volume currently being lost to the ocean is actually coming from other mountain glaciers and ice caps. Ice loss from a group of islands in northern Canada accounts for much of that volume."

http://earthobser...id=50726
RealityCheck
1.6 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015
Hi all. Still very busy so mostly just reading-through PO again today. However, this is very interesting, as it shows how simplistic modeling does not always explain what is happening in the dynamical hydrologic cycling through ice sheets as well as other surface/underground/atmospheric old/new, persistent/transient ' intermediate reservoirs' of the water. Consider some of the factors I have long been pointing out which may affect sea level:

- West Antarctic Ice Sheets are 'grounded' in inland 'basins'; hence there was always melted water 'lakes' beneath ice sheets; these 'lakes may be 'growing/rising' as warmed ice melts more due to pressure at bottom; and it may be this under-ice lake rise which gives the 'higher ice surface readings; so it may be that the 'ice sheet increase is not there, only underwater molten lakes pushing the ice sheets up; such lakes will eventually 'overflow' their 'basin brims' as erosion/meltwater increases and flood into antarctic ocean.

[cont...]
RealityCheck
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 02, 2015
[...cont]

Re current sea level rise:

- accelerated cycling/draining rates into ocean due to shortened 'dwell time' of water cycling via atmosphere, land, underground and mountain masses which current warming causes...

- melting land-permafrosts round arctic rim, tips of africa, south america etc, plus islands in previously stable cold climates now destabilized by warming;

- mountain ranges previously holding more ice as glaciers, seasonal ice-caps and interior-mass permafrost, now holding less water-ice for less time (eg, some mountain road/rail tunnels in Alps are being already compromised as the ice previously locked up in the rock/fissures now melting and causing landslides/rockfalls inside tunnels and on slopes);

- drought-ridden lands due to warming means less water 'dwell time' on land surfaces/acquifers as it quickly evaporates into atmosphere, drain into rivers/oceans;

- more extreme rain events, more quickly atmos water returned to ocean.

Complicated. :)
mlhotz
2 / 5 (8) Nov 02, 2015
Or, NASA has caught the IPCC lying and exaggerating. Hmmm. $700-trillion potential carbon-tax dollars at stake...why would they lie and exaggerate? LOL.

If you worry about sea level rise from melting ice, this report should be good news. But it seems that good news about climate change has to be down played. There has to be a caveat to any published work to negate the positive.

But it might only take a few decades for Antarctica's growth to reverse, according to Zwally.


"The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," Zwally said. "But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for."

Benni
3.5 / 5 (13) Nov 02, 2015
Would someone please do this math again for me? It's so simple that it's almost scary to me that I must be seeing something odd about these numbers:

Ice Volume in Antarctica: 27 million cubic kilometers
Ice Volume in the Arctic: 12- 28,000 cubic kilometers (seasonal variation)

28000/27000000= 0.00104

What am I seeing here?

When I do the math on a comparative basis of ice loss in the Arctic occurring faster than is being gained in the Antarctic based on the comparative volumes of the two, I almost have say to myself, "So what?"
Joglea
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 02, 2015
Would someone please do this math again for me? It's so simple that it's almost scary to me that I must be seeing something odd about these numbers:

Ice Volume in Antarctica: 27 million cubic kilometers
Ice Volume in the Arctic: 12- 28,000 cubic kilometers (seasonal variation)

28000/27000000= 0.00104

What am I seeing here?

When I do the math on a comparative basis of ice loss in the Arctic occurring faster than is being gained in the Antarctic based on the comparative volumes of the two, I almost have say to myself, "So what?"

That's just the sea ice volume; Greenland alone has 2.85 million cubic kilometers of ice volume. The Alaskan glaciers are shedding 65 billion tons of water every year and Greenland is losing around 140 billion tons of ice per year. The article says that the Antarctic ice sheets showed a net gain of 112 billion which has slowed to 82 billion a year; just Alaska and Greenland alone are shedding far more than Antarctica is gaining.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2015
debating global warming is useless. If you believe that the scientific method is erroneous ....

The scientific method requires constant debate and skepticism. AGW is actually unique in that it people lose their careers for questioning the speculative parts.

And while our predictions are not perfect and they have error margins, we are getting pretty darn good at it.

Error bars in predictive models are not indicative of that models accuracy, only retrodictively. Furthermore, if the model is constantly dynamic wrt its development, it can never be validated in terms of predictive power,.... only retrodictively. IOW, if one has a data set, it is in principle possible to match that data set to a model, without a full understanding of all the variables or actual scenarios involved. It's way you stated above "depending on the model"

Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2015
If you think the current refugee crisis is problematic, just wait for sea level rise, you won't be disappointed.


Sea level rise is not going to happen abruptly at 2:45pm next tuesday, but the refugee crisis did occur abruptly on account of the ISIS savages, .... and the UN failed to even handle that relatively simple threat. So how to control the global climate through global agreement? The sea level rise will cause migration gradually, .... people may not even notice it,... property values will depreciate etc,..

GW is not a "theory" at this point, the Earth IS warming,

All AGW models are theories,... it's better to say they're not a "hypothesis" any longer, but a legitimate theory. Keep in mind that correlation does not imply causation.

...data does not lie.

That would be true had raw data been used,..but much of the data on which AGW is based has been "adjusted" and this indeed introduces potentially arbitrary bias.

Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2015
.... I referenced a clear example of this above, where climatologists motivation was to deny that the data (which according to you, "does not lie"), showed a pause in global warming for the prior 18 years,... despite that the IPCC had already acknowledged that fact and despite that AGW does not even make short term predictions. The way the climatologists made their argument was based on 'reinterpreting' (adjusting) buoy raw data based on ship data. It is even common for NOAA to "adjust" data. The land data is not raw but is manipulated in practice.

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 03, 2015
And while our predictions are not perfect and they have error margins, we are getting pretty darn good at it.


The AGW industry likes to encourage misapprehension wrt error margins. Even raw data has expected errors. In a model like in AGW, the errors bars are not about that models accuracy with actual reality, but is rather intrinsic to the mechanics of the models itself,..i.e. it's capacity to make predictions is effected by the data uncertainty, the assumptions made, the scenario being modeled, the statistical nature of long term trends, etc. At present its a valid model retrodictively speaking and assuming the data manipulation has not adversely effected long term expectations,.... Again, ask yourself why your-error-margins don't span all the models.
Benni
3.1 / 5 (15) Nov 03, 2015
Ice Volume in Antarctica: 27 million cubic kilometers
Ice Volume in the Arctic: 12- 28,000 cubic kilometers (seasonal variation)

28000/27000000= 0.00104

What am I seeing here?

When I do the math on a comparative basis of ice loss in the Arctic occurring faster than is being gained in the Antarctic based on the comparative volumes of the two, I almost have say to myself, "So what?"

That's just the sea ice volume; Greenland alone has 2.85 million cubic kilometers of ice volume. The Alaskan glaciers are shedding 65 billion tons of water every year and Greenland is losing around 140 billion tons of ice per year. The article says that the Antarctic ice sheets showed a net gain of 112 billion which has slowed to 82 billion a year; just Alaska and Greenland alone are shedding far more than Antarctica is gaining.


60 +140= 200 bt loss + 82 bt gain is net recent loss of 118 bt. Now calculate the new ocean rise which could be measured within 1300 hours of melt.
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (18) Nov 03, 2015
@Noumenon

The scientific method requires constant debate and skepticism. AGW is actually unique in that it people lose their careers for questioning the speculative parts.


In Canada, while Harper was reigning for 10 years, lots of scientists lost their jobs for studying GW and CC, how dare they question our bituminous industry so I'd say it's the other way around.
And yes, science requires re-verifications, skepticism, criticism, but to claim that GW is a mere theory is being delusional. CO2 – GW has been proven to be a cause-effect relation, not a mere correlation. CO2 has been proven to be increasing, dramatically, since the industrial revolution. Actually, Earth has already slightly heated since the late 1800's, by a factual 0,8°C. The most optimistic global temperature studies are indicating 2°C by the end of the century, the most pessimistic, 5°C. We have a fairly good understanding already of our climate system on a global scale. --cont.--
Bulbuzor
2.4 / 5 (17) Nov 03, 2015
Sea level rise is not going to happen abruptly at 2:45pm

Indeed, it will not be overnight luckily. But the amount of people who will be concerned by this will be astronomical. Plus you add the fact that countries will have to take care of their own coastal "refugees", I doubt it will be a calm and peaceful period, especially looking how today people in Europe and Canada respond to the migrant wave (read: like racist c*nts). But we are in the realm of opinions here and not facts, so what I'm saying is inherently subjective.

much of the data on which AGW is based has been "adjusted"

Indeed, you can make your data "say" one thing or another depending of how you model it, but to me, it sounds rather conspiracist to say that all climatologist are currently tweeking their data to predict GW. If you have something specific in mind on this regard, could you please tell us about it? Until then it is blind skepticism. --cont.--
Bulbuzor
2.5 / 5 (18) Nov 03, 2015
showed a pause in global warming for the prior 18 years

If my memory serves me right, this has been disputed my most climatologists.
The AGW industry

Please enlighten me, what exactly is the AGW industry? A few hundreds climatologists conspiring about GW to keep their labs running? I know of a good AGW-related industry, it's called the oil industry. Actually, many papers denying AGW are financed by oil companies and for an obvious reason, this industry is the, or at least top 2 as coal is still a big player in some countries, causing AGW. All of the gasoline we are burning up has been CO2 that was underground for M of years only to be thrown back into the system, massively, in slightly over a century. Which brings me back to an earlier point of the conversation, what do you make of atm. CO2? If AGW is a lie, how do you explain CO2 and temperature being systematically correlated, and how do you reconcile our current atm. CO2 with "no warming ahead?"
Cheers :)
Benni
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
Sea level rise is not going to happen abruptly at 2:45pm


Indeed, it will not be overnight luckily


The slowest wave action in the worlds oceans is 10 mph. Within 1300 hours of new water, the ocean level will change for half the world. From pole to pole it will be about double that.

If there is all this ice melt going on to the tune of 118 bt/yr loss, and it has been going on for over 20 years, would someone please do the calculation of additional ocean rise we get from water from this loss of ice. Include your equations with the calculation.

Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2015
but to claim that GW is a mere theory is being delusional


Well, I said "AGW models" are theories (which they are, as say general relativity is).... and did not mean to imply it in the derogatory. However, I reread your post and see you stated "GW" and not "AGW", so this may mean only that the global climate temp is increasingly without reference to why,... which I would then agree, as in principal that is just a measurement independent of theory.

countries will have to take care of their own coastal "refugees", I doubt it will be a calm and peaceful period, especially looking how today people in Europe and Canada respond to the migrant wave (read: like racist c*nts).

Wow, that was an unfair statement. It is not racist to desire to maintain your own cultural identity. I can god-damn guarantee you that those islamic refugees will protect their culture,.... their koran even inciting them to kill to do so. That is a threat to western culture.
Bulbuzor
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
The slowest wave action in the worlds oceans is 10 mph. Within 1300 hours of new water, the ocean level will change for half the world. From pole to pole it will be about double that.


I'm not sure what that 1300 hours and 10 mph are for...? Double what? The wave speed? How?

If there is all this ice melt going on to the tune of 118 bt/yr loss, and it has been going on for over 20 years, would someone please do the calculation of additional ocean rise we get from water from this loss of ice. Include your equations with the calculation.


I have no idea how to calculate this, but in this article it is stated that IPCC attributed 0,27mm/y to Antarctica, if someone finds their estimation for Antarctica's yearly ice loss for that period, we'd have an easy way to math it out.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2015
how dare they question our bituminous industry

Yep, so here is a question for you.
What was the date you stopped using the products of our bituminous industry?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2015
much of the data on which AGW is based has been "adjusted"


Indeed, you can make your data "say" one thing or another depending of how you model it, but to me, it sounds rather conspiracist to say that all climatologist are currently tweeking their data to predict GW.


"All climatologists" wouldn't have to do so,.... only the ones finding reasons to manipulate and supply the data. But, I don't mean the above in a conspiratorial sense. I just wanted to point out in response to your "data does not lie" that that would only be true if raw data was obtained from calibrated sensors,.... not data that has been filtered through possibly unconsciously bias decisions regarding their results.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2015
showed a pause in global warming for the prior 18 years

If my memory serves me right, this has been disputed my most climatologists.

You missed the point,... the 18 year pause was the data at one time acknowledged by even the IPCC. Only when skeptics made of it a point did climatologists work to reinterpret the temperature pause so that it never happened. If "data does not lie" than who is lying now?
The AGW industry

Please enlighten me, what exactly is the AGW industry?

Every entity that works to advance, promote, or make use of, that scientific finding.

If AGW is a lie, how do you explain CO2 and temperature being systematically correlated,

Since I never said AGW is a lie, I feel no reason to respond to this. Because I'm skeptical of alarmist claims of imminent doom and the political hi-jacking of the issue,.... does not mean that I think the basic physics is wrong.

paaaablo
3 / 5 (2) Nov 03, 2015
Apologies if someone has addressed this already. I must be missing something simple. Why does excess snow compacting to ice thicken the sheet? Compaction generally leads to decrease in volume, and snow --> ice is no different.
Bulbuzor
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
how dare they question our bituminous industry

Yep, so here is a question for you.
What was the date you stopped using the products of our bituminous industry?


I didn't, and while I do recognize the oil industry will never stop as long as we keep using it's products, I believe it is vital that we continue to study it's repercussions.
And for the sake of the question, I only use a car to get out of town otherwise I do my things on bike (and I live around 10kms from uni, work and downtown). But I do not believe it's little things like this that change anything, it would need everyone to do so and we know this is no where near to happen. The oil industry will fall down either when we run out of oil, or when we find a more cost-effective energy source.
Bulbuzor
2.7 / 5 (14) Nov 03, 2015
"All climatologists" wouldn't have to do so,.... only the ones finding reasons to manipulate and supply the data. But, I don't mean the above in a conspiratorial sense. I just wanted to point out in response to your "data does not lie" that that would only be true if raw data was obtained from calibrated sensors,.... not data that has been filtered through possibly unconsciously bias decisions regarding their results.


Atmospheric CO2 is pretty much raw data, global temperature is almost so (except you have to ponderate and globalize it)

Every entity that works to advance, promote, or make use of, that scientific finding.


That is very vague and doesn't say what is the AGW industry.

However, I reread your post and see you stated "GW" and not "AGW"


I figured AGW is atmospheric global warming, by GW I meant the same thing sorry for the confusion.
Bulbuzor
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
Wow, that was an unfair statement. It is not racist to desire to maintain your own cultural identity. I can god-damn guarantee you that those islamic refugees will protect their culture,.... their koran even inciting them to kill to do so. That is a threat to western culture.


Would you say the say if they were Hindus, Buddhists or something else? What if ISIS was coming from Thailand, would we blame all Buddhist as we are doing Islam right now?

It is hard to not realize western culture has racism anchored deep down, especially with Middle East culture.
Stevepidge
1 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2015
emale
Perhaps the only explanation is the simple one, that sea levels aren't rising.
But they are rising - so your comment is nonsense. https://en.wikipe...vel_rise


Then water is being created "ex nihilo" and earth may be growing or preparing for a growth phase.
matt_farkas
2 / 5 (4) Nov 03, 2015
in terms of -23mm -a sea level, did they take into consideration the increased water vapor in the atmosphere? i.e., couldn't you have increased precipitation on antarctica without it taking water out of the oceans?
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2015
The scientific method requires constant debate and skepticism.
True
AGW is actually unique in that it people lose their careers for questioning the speculative parts.
Nonsense. Utterly preposterous claptrap from the conservaloon handbook.

Error bars in predictive models are not indicative of that models accuracy, only retrodictively. Furthermore, if the model is constantly dynamic wrt its development, it can never be validated in terms of predictive power,.... only retrodictively. IOW, if one has a data set, it is in principle possible to match that data set to a model, without a full understanding of all the variables or actual scenarios involved. It's way you stated above "depending on the model"
This is also true. Which leads me to ask; given your understanding of the limitations of modelling, why do you not also acknowledge the benefits?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 03, 2015
However, I reread your post and see you stated "GW" and not "AGW"


I figured AGW is atmospheric global warming, by GW I meant the same thing sorry for the confusion.

Oh, sorry, anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

It is not racist to desire to maintain your own cultural identity. I can god-damn guarantee you that those islamic refugees will protect their culture,.... their koran even inciting them to kill to do so. That is a threat to western culture.


Would you say the say if they were Hindus, Buddhists or something else?

If there was an extremist element in those culture, yes. Culture is not race.

RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)
What was the date you stopped using the products of our bituminous industry?
It's not about completely 'stopping' use, but 'minimizing' use. The point is to reduce Anthropogenic CO2 emissions to levels which would maintain pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 so climate would settle down again to predictable/manageable 'prevailing patterns' to which our agriculture, health, communications, transportation etc systems were adapted. It's the increasing AGW caused destabilising/extremes in previously settled patterns which is the problem. Not only sea level 'swings', but unseasonal/extreme storms, floods, droughts, disease-vector severity/infestation spreading north/south etc.

As for AGW per se, just ask Shootist &dogbert (and their much-quoted 'hero' Freeman Dyson; my latest exchanges with Shootist/dogbert demonstrated Freeman Dyson actually ACKNOWLEDGES AGW as fact but is unsure about modeling/action needed).

Time to help solve/act, not hinder. :)
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

Everything you have raised re religions is the perfect example why we should sooner-than-later transition away from ALL such prehistoric culture/superstition/ignorance/hatred based systems of social/ruling which only complicate the problems we modern humanity are facing as we transition away from superstition-laden chaos and ignorance towards reality-informed sanity and reason as a GLOBAL species (which we now in effect have become due to internet communications and high-speed transportation etc).

Thanks for bringing up all those nasty side-effects of religious/cultist/ignorance-caused problems which we now have to quickly eliminate if we want to tackle the global problems which we ALL face; and which we no longer have the luxury of accommodating all those old stupidities which accompany all those old religious/cultural/tribal hatreds/feuds.

The sooner we tackle those things, the sooner we can start co-operating against AGW. Good luck to us all. :)
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
AGW is actually unique in that it people lose their careers for questioning the speculative parts.

Nonsense. Utterly preposterous claptrap from the conservaloon handbook.

Recently a french meteorologist was fired very publicly for being skeptical about climate change.

Al Gore, the climate change poster-boy, has recently called for climate change deniers to be punished, and that politicians should be made to pay a price for rejecting "accepted science".

The UN is planning an international tribunal of climate justice.

Recently a letter was drafted by a dozen or so climatologists and sent to POTUS Obama, to call for the prosecution of those responsible for anti-AGW propaganda.

...given your understanding of the limitations of modelling, why do you not also acknowledge the benefits?

I was only correcting a misapprehension of error-bars that is made frequently here,.... a correction that for some reason isn't made by more knowledgeable posters?

RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
Hi again, Noumenon. :)
Recently a french meteorologist was fired very publicly for being skeptical about climate change
It appears he broke company rules against politicizing his position/climate as a company-paid meteorologist whose job was to deliver the weather forecasts and not political/personal commentary. It could also be viewed as him writing a book and causing such a conflict-of-interest situation designed to garner publicity for the book he was pushing. In doing all these things he did exactly what some here have accused some climate scientists of doing! Rather hypocritical, don't you think? The proof of the pudding is whether his 'book/actions' have merit based in fact rather than just in his own personal/political (and mercenary...re his 'book' sales/publicity) motives.

Noumenon, let's stop all these political/personal/religious 'tactics' and distractionjs. The time/luxury for such things is past. We all need to unite against our 'common enemy' AGW. :)
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2015
It's not about completely 'stopping' use, but 'minimizing' use. The point is to reduce Anthropogenic CO2 emissions to levels which would maintain pre-industrial levels of atmospheric CO2 so climate would settle down again to predictable/manageable 'prevailing patterns' to which our agriculture, health, communications, transportation etc systems were adapted. It's the increasing AGW caused destabilising/extremes in previously settled patterns which is the problem. Not only sea level 'swings', but unseasonal/extreme storms, floods, droughts, disease-vector severity/infestation spreading north/south etc.

Where do I begin with this often regurgitated AGW Cult hogwash.
Ok, let's start with pre-industrial climate.
Perhaps, you can tell us what it was like and how great it was for agriculture and health?
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :) Am running out of time today, so have to be brief and leave you to do your own further detailed research.
Where do I begin with this often regurgitated AGW Cult hogwash.
Ok, let's start with pre-industrial climate.
Perhaps, you can tell us what it was like and how great it was for agriculture and health?
Freeman Dyson doesn't think AGW is 'hogwash'; he only questions modeling reliability etc. As for pre-industrial climate patterns, just read the global histories of epidemiology and agriculture. You'll find that diseases/vectors have increased their range north/south due to AGW providing now-survivable conditions for vectors/diseases of humans and crops/animals we depend on. Read also the old climate observations around the world during the 'ages/voyages of exploration/expansion' before and since the industrial revolution. It will give you the trending sense of changes which were occurring during that increased industrial activity and since. Try it. :)
Maggnus
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2015
Recently a french meteorologist was fired very publicly for being skeptical about climate change.
Verdier was fired for violating a private company's rules regarding self promotion. He was promoting his book while on air, and that is why he was fired.

Al Gore, the climate change poster-boy, has recently called for climate change deniers to be punished, and that politicians should be made to pay a price for rejecting "accepted science".
So? He's a private citizen, he can say whatever the hell he wants.

The UN is planning an international tribunal of climate justice.
Ooo that sounds scary. Do you know what their mandate is?

Recently a letter was drafted by a dozen or so climatologists and sent to POTUS Obama, to call for the prosecution of those responsible for anti-AGW propaganda.
For UNTRUTHFUL propaganda. Using falsehoods to promote their views. You know - socialism.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 03, 2015
Yes realitycheck, I've read the literature. But, what I'm interested in understanding is, you want to return to pre-industrial climate. So, again, what is it that YOU know about pre-industrial climate that made it so great for weather and health?
If that question is too difficult, let me know.
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (18) Nov 03, 2015
Al Gore, the climate change poster-boy, has recently called for climate change deniers to be punished, and that politicians should be made to pay a price for rejecting "accepted science".


And rightfully so. Here is an example, and please, note that Lutz is the vice chairman of a car (almost synonymous to petroleum) company worth 39B$ (that also destroyed the electric car), GM.
https://www.youtu...p_qDiRhQ

Public speakers have a moral duty to not lie deliberately, especially if it's a lie they would benefit from, usually money-speaking nowadays. There are laws on this, you cannot do false advertisement. You can't sell a sugar pill and claim in cures diabetes. You will be punished by the court if you do so, there are laws around it. To me, claiming on a public tribune, where scientifically-illiterate people will listen and perhaps believe you that AGW or GW is not true, is reprehensible and irresponsible.
RealityCheck
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
Hi, antigoracle. Came in again to post to dogbert in another thread, but am still busy, so I'll just answer yours briefly and leave again...
Yes realitycheck, I've read the literature. But, what I'm interested in understanding is, you want to return to pre-industrial climate. So, again, what is it that YOU know about pre-industrial climate that made it so great for weather and health?
You say you've already read the literature I pointed you to? Well, if you have, then you will be able to answer your own question. You will have the before-and-after picture which such reading will provide. The 'before' picture involves stable, predictable/prevailing weather/climate system/patterns which we and our agriculture were comfortable with. The 'after' picture was evident even during the industrial revolution days, and became especially noticeable of late. The unpredictability/extremes are costly/deadly to our agricultural/health etc requirements etc as I pointed out. Bye. :)
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 03, 2015
Congratulations reality, you have a talent for spewing unsubstantiated hogwash, and when asked to clarify, you can pile even more on. So, in future don't respond to my posts, since I have a talent for ignoring hogwash.
Vietvet
3.7 / 5 (12) Nov 03, 2015
@anti

Your ONLY talent is spewing hogwash.
Noumenon
3.5 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2015
Everything you have raised re religions is the perfect example why we should sooner-than-later transition away from ALL such prehistoric culture/superstition/ignorance/hatred....


That will and is happening naturally. Religion is collectivistic-thought, not freedom of thought. You used the phrase "we should",... implying that collectivistic-thought should take precedence over freedom of thought. It's one thing to educate voluntarily, disseminate information , but quite another that "we" should "fix" thought that "we" don't agree with.

Recently a french meteorologist was fired very publicly for being skeptical about climate change.

Verdier was fired for violating a private company's rules regarding self promotion. He was promoting his book while on air, and that is why he was fired.

OK, if that is true, then I stand corrected on that point.
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
Al Gore, the climate change poster-boy, has recently called for climate change deniers to be punished, and that politicians should be made to pay a price for rejecting "accepted science".


And rightfully so. [....] There are laws on this, you cannot do false advertisement. [...]. You will be punished by the court if you do so, there are laws around it.

Science makes progress by calling into question accepted theory. Should scientists who do so be arrested? Should those who are not even scientists have the right to be wrong?

The courts require specific quantification,... the AGW models only allow long term trends and sweeping speculation of ill effects in general terms upon layers of possible scenarios ,... nothing quantifiable that can be associated with a particular company lost in a sea of like companies.

The climatology industry (defined above) is unique in the history of science in that there are calls for prosecution for skepticism, (whether valid or not)

Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 04, 2015
.... Galileo was prosecuted and Bruno was burned at the stake for questioning the then scientific consensus. The point is not whether we know in retrospect that they were right, but that do we want a coercive government that would seek to prosecute or oppress thought at all?

We don't have first amendment protection for speech that is easily agreeable, but specifically for that which is not. And our court system requires quantification,... and as long as "weather is not climate" ... you can't quantify AGW effects for prosecution of individual companies.

given your understanding of the limitations of modelling, why do you not also acknowledge the benefits?

Yes, they give the general trend,.... but they also lead to implied claims of accuracy that is encouraged and very useful for the AGW-Alarmists. I've corrected CS, MM, howhot, bulbozer, etc,... why haven't you more knowledgeable AGW posters done so.... runrig, thermodynamics, maggnus?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2015
and while I do recognize the oil industry will never stop as long as we keep using it's products, I believe it is vital that we continue to study it's repercussions. [...] it would need everyone to do so and we know this is no where near to happen. The oil industry will fall down either when we run out of oil, or when we find a more cost-effective energy source.


I agree 100% here. And this is what we want, ...that alternatives compete with and defeat oil/coal,... because then they will be desired intrinsically, not artificially and develop value, ensuring their economic robustness.

The solution imo is not a regulation nor leftist political ideological one, but a technological one. I think that the far-left hi-jacking of the issue to promote government socialistic solutions is a fundamental error. Economies must be strong enough to transition off of oil/coal, plus it has to occur within existing economic reality, not fantasy-land idealistic global socialism.

runrig
5 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
Yes, they give the general trend,.... but they also lead to implied claims of accuracy that is encouraged and very useful for the AGW-Alarmists. I've corrected CS, MM, howhot, bulbozer, etc,... why haven't you more knowledgeable AGW posters done so.... runrig, thermodynamics, maggnus?


The "accuracy" comes in showing that (chiefly) it is the PDO/ENSO cycle that is the cause of their "inaccuracy".
GCM's that have been run with it in the correct phase have shown remarkable accuracy.
They are projections that cannot hope to mimic such overlying climate cycles. The science is to show that when these cycles are accounted for the projections are accurate. You also need to hindcast such that the projected variables are correct.

http://phys.org/n...sed.html
Benni
4.2 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2015
I have no idea how to calculate this, but in this article it is stated that IPCC attributed 0,27mm/y to Antarctica, if someone finds their estimation for Antarctica's yearly ice loss for that period, we'd have an easy way to math it out.


Ok, so I did some math based on 350 square km of ocean surface. 1 Gigaton of land ice melt spread over the ocean surface would result in 3 micron rise. There are 1000 microns in 1 millimeter. If there was 118 Gt of land ice melt last year as was stated by someone above then 3 x 118= 354 micron rise in ocean level from land melt, that is 0.354 mm/yr.
Duude
1 / 5 (2) Nov 04, 2015
So now we can worry about the world's oceans disappearing, or they're getting too salty.
Bulbuzor
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 04, 2015
the far-left hi-jacking of the issue to promote government socialistic solutions


Progressism =/= Socialism

.... Galileo was prosecuted and Bruno was burned at the stake for questioning the then scientific consensus. The point is not whether we know in retrospect that they were right, but that do we want a coercive government that would seek to prosecute or oppress thought at all?


Give me one recent (past 50 years) example a scientist who was killed in developped countries for questionning scientific agreements.

Science makes progress by calling into question accepted theory. Should scientists who do so be arrested? Should those who are not even scientists have the right to be wrong?


I doubt it concerns legitimate scientists questionning theories, but rather public speakers who make these claims with no foundation (like Lutz above, claiming GW is a lie because he didn't see a gigantic hurricane and one of his 54 houses in Miami still stands)
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Nov 04, 2015
the far-left hi-jacking of the issue to promote government socialistic solutions


Progressism =/= Socialism

Liberal progressivism effectively grants autonomous authority to 'scientific studies' in politically justifying elements of socialism to "fix" what otherwise are natural consequences of free society,.... redistribution of wealth, economic justice, climate justice, income inequality, ....

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the liberal-progressive and their army of statisticians.

Give me one recent (past 50 years) example a scientist who was killed in developped countries

Isn't it enough that a prominent AGW advocate and former vice president, and that the UN who heads international action on AGW, proposed international tribunal for 'climate justice', ....enough to draw the connection between like dangerous mentality.
Maggnus
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
And always with you Noumenon, always, you try to conflate anything you wish to not be true with your view that there is a socialist under every bed or hiding behind every tree. Your twisted view of reality prevents you from understanding concepts that are really not that difficult and are supported by the majority of those who make study of it their career. You ask this:
Science makes progress by calling into question accepted theory. Should scientists who do so be arrested? Should those who are not even scientists have the right to be wrong?
which is rhetoric and purposefully nebulous, when the real question should be: Should scientists who question the science not have to support their views with science of equal wieght and substance? Why do you, Noumenon, support the unscientific and politically motivated denialism perpetrated by the likes of Soon or Tol? As an avowed anti-socialist, why are you not standing upon your pulpit of indignation and shouting against these types?
Bulbuzor
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 04, 2015
the far-left hi-jacking of the issue to promote government socialistic solutions


Progressism =/= Socialism

Liberal progressivism effectively grants autonomous authority to 'scientific studies' in politically justifying elements of socialism to "fix" what otherwise are natural consequences of free society,.... redistribution of wealth, economic justice, climate justice, income inequality, ....

The greatest threat to personal liberty is the liberal-progressive and their army of statisticians.


Then help yourself and vote for Trump and let's see how much good will AGW deniable and freedom at all cost will bring.
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2015
The "accuracy" comes in showing that (chiefly) it is the PDO/ENSO cycle that is the cause of their "inaccuracy".
GCM's that have been run with it in the correct phase have shown remarkable accuracy.
They are projections that cannot hope to mimic such overlying climate cycles. The science is to show that when these cycles are accounted for the projections are accurate. You also need to hindcast such that the projected variables are correct.

http://phys.org/n...sed.html

First it was a travesty that they could not explain the pause. Then after over 60, peer reviewed studies...er...lies, they finally declared, no pause. So, the models are vindicated because they can now explain the pause which, according to AGW Cult lore, never existed. Why runrig, why did you have to resurrect that which haunts the Cult.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 04, 2015
Then help yourself and vote for Trump and let's see how much good will AGW deniable and freedom at all cost will bring.

I wouldn't vote for someone who denied the core science. Trump doesn't represent my ideology. In fact, as I have been stating for years here, I would massively fund a Manhattan'esque Project for basic energy research, fusion, safe fission, etc.

But even the one you likely would have or did vote for is obliged to act to preserve the economy..... "....if the message is somehow that we're going to ignore jobs and [economic] growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that," - B.H. Obama
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2015
@maggus, try to understand that quote in context,... wrt AlGore, and the climatologists who sent Obama a plea for the prosecution of skeptics disseminating skeptical stance on AGW, and the UN setting up a court for "climate justice".

Again, it does not matter whether you think the skeptics have a point or not (nor even ascertaining what specifically they're skeptical about).... to see the dangerous path and uniqueness amongest the present sciences, that a call for skeptics to be punished or prosecuted, is.

RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :(

It is with sadness rather than anger that I note your continuing trollish/denialist "hogwash" tactic in lieu of honest discourse on such an important matter as AGW.

Despite misgivings (which I shared) re 'modeling/predicting' reliability, even dogbert, Shootist and Freeman Dyson acknowledge that AGW is an objectively observable fact which is increasingly destabilizing previously stable weather/climate patterns/cycles with which we were comfortable but now are so extreme/unpredictable that the globe is virtually becoming 'wall to wall' with unrelenting natural catastrophes because of unseasonable/extreme/extensive storms/droughts/floods/ice-storms/wind-storms etc.

Antigoracle, you make a serious miscalculation about me. I am probably the most honest, independent, objective skeptic and multi-discipline researcher/scientist you ever encountered. Your posts so far betray that you haven't read widely/fully the epidemiology/agriculture studies/literature. Sad.
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 04, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

The process' involves enlightenment of individuals/society via objective info/education in secular context that automatically excludes 'influence' of past/present religious fantasies, unreasoning hatreds/prejudices based on 'cults and isms' of ALL sorts based in ignorance and malice rather than objective reality-consulting enlightenment and humanity.

It would help if you saw the important differences between religious and secular contexts/collectives/mindsets; which clearly makes the two systems of 'individual/social thought/action' qualitatively/effectively 'apples and oranges'.

See? Your 'equating' the two is invalid on many levels: Religious 'socialism' is misinformed thought/action 'mindset' stemming from self-delusional ignorance, blind faith in imaginary entities in denial of objective reality/human condition; while Secular is informed cognizance of reality/human condition stemming from objective/scientific secular investlgation/comprehension.

Bye. :)
Bulbuzor
2.5 / 5 (13) Nov 04, 2015
@Noumenon
Excuse me I have the bad habit of going off-topic in this kind of debate.

Back on topic, the truth is, while you claim that AGW is scientifically debatable, you fail to mention a single PR-paper that refutes AGW despite my specific request. If you want your claim to have any substance, source it. If you can't find any, it isn't about scientists being blindsighted and only accepting one truth, it is about AGW being indeed a prevalent and, dare I say it, accepted theory. I have nothing about questioning scientific claims, but I have something about questioning it if there is no credible experiment supporting it.

"....if the message is somehow that we're going to ignore jobs and [economic] growth simply to address climate change, I don't think anybody's going to go for that. I won't go for that,"


Durable developement, alternative energy and lessening the oil industry are not mutually exclusive to economy. [/off-topic]
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 04, 2015
.. enlightenment of individuals/society via objective info/education in secular context that automatically excludes 'influence' of past/present religious fantasies, unreasoning hatreds/prejudices based on 'cults and isms' of ALL sorts based in ignorance and malice rather than objective reality-consulting enlightenment and humanity.

It would help if you saw the important differences between religious and secular contexts/collectives/mindsets; which clearly makes the two systems of 'individual/social thought/action' qualitatively/effectively 'apples and oranges'.

See? Your 'equating' the two is invalid on many levels: Religious 'socialism' is misinformed thought/action 'mindset' stemming from self-delusional ignorance, blind faith in imaginary entities in denial of objective reality/human condition; while Secular is informed cognizance of reality/human condition stemming from objective/scientific secular investlgation/comprehension.

Ahem! Hogwash. Bye. :)
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (11) Nov 04, 2015
while you claim that AGW is scientifically debatable, you fail to mention a single PR-paper that refutes AGW despite my specific request

As already pointed out, I don't call into question the core science,... only 1) the subsequent wild speculation wrt existential threat to humanity and 2) the political exclusivity of proposed solutions, in particular the hi-jacking of the issue for the justification of far-leftist ideology, 3) the movement to prosecute or "punish" those disseminating opposing views wrt the speculative predictions of catastrophe.

@RC, Yes, while I agree with your distinction between secular and religious thought,.... the point made by me extends to thought generally, even within secularism. IOW, no matter how ignorant that thought appears to you or me. That's the point; there should be no governmental entity that casts judgement on free thought. A society with thought-police is not a free-society, nor is that an environment conducive to scientific progress.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2015
@bulbozer,... don't make the mistake that many neophytes do here,... don't let your '5-ratings' and my '1-ratings' encourage you to think that that is actually representative of the relative quality of our posts,.... they're representative only of the quality of the raters.

It's not hard to earn 5's,... just stick to a liberal leaning anti-capitalist narrative, insult and call names to cranks (easy 5's), make obvious statements in support of the AGW-Alarmist narrative,.... but, as demonstrated above, don't factually correct well known frequent posters on a fundamental misapprehension of their own purported AGW talking point, as you will be troll-rated by the pseudo-gaia-mythology cabal.

The Phys.Org moderators are not smart enough to disable the corrupt and abused ratings system.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
Unbeknownst to greenonions, I had previously openly stated and made known the purpose for countering the abuse of the rating system. I have requested about a dozen times for phys.org to disable the ratings system which is obviously abused.

How insecure does one have to be to troll-rate someone, then hide under their desk?
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2015
@greenonions and Noumenon

To be honest with, I don't give a damn about those ratings, this system doesn't have it's place in a scientific website and should be removed, hence why I never rate any post. They are only representative of the number of people in one "clan" or another who read the comments. And no, I'm not "encouraged" by my ratings I'm just writing what's on my mind.

As for AGW being wild speculations, do you also doubt about the CO2 emissions not being anthropogenic? If you don't, I invite you to read PR papers on atmospheric's CO2 in relation to temperature. If you do, I wonder why you bother commenting on science website.

Yet again, your point number 1) is pure speculation, no source whatsoever. Your points 2) and 3) are distractions from the question.
Noumenon
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
As for AGW being wild speculations, ....


I never stated that AGW is wild speculation, nor have I stated that AGW is itself "scientifically debatable".

I stated "subsequent",.... that is, interpretational speculation, and I even qualified that with ' with respect to existential threat to humanity'. I also stated that "I don't question the core science", immediately prior to that. Is your confusion contrived?

do you also doubt about the CO2 emissions not being anthropogenic?

Yes, I doubt and refute that CO2 emissions are not in part of anthropogenic origin.

If you don't, I invite you to read PR papers on atmospheric's CO2 in relation to temperature.

I've posted here about how statistically it traps heat radiation.

I wonder why you bother commenting on science website.

Have you read all my posts since 2007? I post mostly on quantum mechanics, general relativity, philosophy of physics.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
I have requested about a dozen times for phys.org to disable the ratings system which is obviously abused.

Creating a sock puppet to uprate yourself (which you have clearly done with Erscheinung) would constitute an abuse - yes?

Counter-abuse. None of my above posts above deserve a 2 or a 3 at least? It is not facebook's like/dislike. You don't get to choose a different system, when its implied to be predicted on the valuation between 1 and 5. Why rate at all, how childish is that?

Bulbuzor
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2015
Is English your first language?


English is my third language.

I've posted here about how statistically it traps heat radiation.


Mind giving me a good read on this? Peer-reviewed of course

Have you read all my posts since 2007?


Of course not.

I never stated that AGW is wild speculation, nor have I stated that AGW is itself "scientifically debatable". I stated "subsequent",.... that is, interpretational speculation, and I even qualified that with ' with respect to existential threat to humanity'.


Ok I see now. While I must agree that the repercussions of AGW are speculative to some extend as they are based on predictive models, parts of it are noticeable as of today. Ice masses are melting, and that water won't obliterate into oblivion, sea level will rise and I doubt this is debatable. What is debatable is the rate and the intensity of the rise.

--- continued ---
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2015
- cont.
Other changes affecting humanity are currently occurring, to name a few; insect outbreaks (for example the spruce bark beetle in Alaska with summers being warmer) and wildfires are becoming more frequent, climate disasters like hurricanes are becoming more frequent and are intensifying (tho this is debatable I gotta admit, it is also supported on the other hand, guess we gotta give and take here), oceans are becoming more acid (tho this is more CO2 then AGW related), climate unpredictability is making our crops worst then they were and sometimes miserable.

Some other changes are occurring, tho they do not necessarily relate to humanity but stand as a token of changes, like the phenology of birds which is changing, fauna and flora is migrating North, populations northern (high up in arctic or down in Antarctica) species are falling drastically, warm-loving species are starting to dominate some ecosystems to the expense of other species who are part of it.

cont.-
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2015
- ending -

Will it be cataclysmic for humanity? I don't have a clue, but if I had to make a wild guess, I'd see we better not take a chance as we are still tightly tied up to our environment, especially for countries outside of occidental cultures.
Bulbuzor
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2015
Hi Bullbouzor - thanks for your information rich comments. .


Oh I'm just using this platform for an egocentric reason TBH, it annoys me to be a bystander of a debate and most of all, it's a practice to put words on my thoughts. These are topics I like to think about and writing my thoughts down helps me to put some order in my mind. These are complex issues that are neither all black nor all white; they fall very much in the grey zone. While sometimes I take something for granted, writing it down makes me see my own thoughts from another perspective and sometimes realize it doesn't make sense. Oh, and it is generally more civilized in here then in most website's comment sections, except for a few annoying users (especially in evolution related topics).
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
If you don't, I invite you to read PR papers on atmospheric's CO2 in relation to temperature.

I've posted here about how statistically it traps heat radiation.

Mind giving me a good read on this? Peer-reviewed of course

Why peer-reviewed? This is a comment section. I'm responded to your utterly baseless accusation, by stating that I have confirmed [the effects of CO2] in my own posts here.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2015
Have you read all my posts since 2007?

Of course not.

Then why wonder why I post here, without research?
parts of it are noticeable as of today. Ice masses are melting, and that water won't obliterate into oblivion, sea level will rise and I doubt this is debatable. What is debatable is the rate and the intensity of the rise.

Yes, I agree here wrt large ice masses, ok,... however I don't agree further into local minutiae effects, like on insects, wildfires, hurricanes, and the like, only because it's not possible to quantify proportionally, the effects that an average global increase of temp of 0.70c as compared to 135years ago, would have at a particular locality, as the effect of global average temp on local events are easily washed-out by local weather and climate.

Indeed, it is a fraud imo, to claim to be able to 'look out the window' and see global warming occuring,.... but this has not stopped the alarmist charlatans from making such claims.


Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2015
It isn't always about agreeing, the northern migration is occuring and there are plenty of cases reported on this issue, whether in Canada or north Eurasia. Other claims I wrote above have been studied as well.


Then why wonder why I post here, without research?


I do not have to read 8 years of archives in order to answer to your comments on this specific article.

Indeed, it is a fraud imo, to claim to be able to 'look out the window' and see global warming occuring,.... but this has not stopped the alarmist charlatans from making such claims.


It isn't about looking out the window but looking at a variety of specific phenomena. As I said, I don't know and even doubt those are cataclismic, but they are happening.

Why peer-reviewed?


Because it's a science site not a philosophical one. If you doubt some of my claims feel free to ask and I will give you source material.

Anyways I'm out this is getting annoying, cheers.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
It seems that the length of phys.org threads are inversely proportionate to the effort placed in maintaining continuity in lines of discussion, and the willingness to misapprehend and misrepresent ones comments. Annoying.
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2015
Says someone who mindfully accuses me of "star-whoring" to make a point...
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2015
Says someone who mindfully accuses me of "star-whoring" to make a point...

No, sorry, ....that comment was in response to the comment raters, not you,.... IOW don't take the ratings seriously. I've made this observation before,... and you made a similar point yourself above.
Bulbuzor
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2015
@bulbozer,... don't make the mistake that many neophytes do here,... don't let your '5-ratings' and my '1-ratings' encourage you to think that that is actually representative of the relative quality of our posts,.... they're representative only of the quality of the raters.

It's not hard to earn 5's,... just stick to a liberal leaning anti-capitalist narrative, insult and call names to cranks (easy 5's), make obvious statements in support of the AGW-Alarmist narrative,.... but, as demonstrated above, don't factually correct well known frequent posters on a fundamental misapprehension of their own purported AGW talking point, as you will be troll-rated by the pseudo-gaia-mythology cabal.

The Phys.Org moderators are not smart enough to disable the corrupt and abused ratings system.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
I haven't noticed you doing any of that. I was referring to the 1-rating cabal, who routinely up-rates each other and down votes anyone who is skeptical aspects of AGW or a "right-winger".

No, sorry, ....that comment was in response to the comment raters, not you,.... IOW don't take the ratings seriously. I've made this observation before,... and you made a similar point yourself above.

Bulbuzor
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2015
that comment was in response to the comment raters


Then I must have misinterpreted it, we both agree on this case anyways.

What I have an issue with is not about being sceptical about scientific claims (and tho it doesn't look like it in this post, I often take the job of the "devil's advocate" by being sceptical about grand claims), but I believe that to prove a point which refutes a theory that is more accepted then refused in the science community (not phys.org members but actual researchers involved in the field), one has to double his effort with sources and well-informed arguments. Those you call charlatans who dare say AGW have effects on our planet are (at least the original sources of the information) climatologists, geologists, biologists and others who did their homeworks and research in order to publish it. One needs a better argument then "I think"s to refute those. -continued-
Bulbuzor
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2015
-ending-
You say they are easily washed out by local effects, prove it, and prove that those local effects are not originating from a more global climate. I know this is just a comment section and that we are not to do a complete litterature research for it, but still… I'm not saying you are such a person, at all, but it reminds me of arguments I had with creationists. You bring arguments like fossil chronology, extinctions, the iridium layer, DNA, and their answer is (other then citing a fictional book): "But, did we look EVERYWHERE? What if there is this one spot in the middle of nowhere we didn't look at that fossils aren't stratified? What if we just didn't find the arch yet?" If you want to debunk a theory, especially if there is a general support for it, you need to have source material, a base to sit on, or otherwise, it is purely subjective… (I'm talking about AGW's effect not AGW itself, I understood you agree with that one)
Bulbuzor
2.7 / 5 (12) Nov 05, 2015
It seems that the length of phys.org threads are inversely proportionate to the effort placed in maintaining continuity in lines of discussion, and the willingness to misapprehend and misrepresent ones comments. Annoying.


Is it fundamentally wrong? In science, questions bring more questions, and answers bring even more questions. And there still is a common thread to the topics brought in this section: AGW. From the original article up in this page to wildfire occurenceis and northern insect populations, AGW is a common root and if it is not the answer at 100%, it is at least a hypothesis worth asking to explain those.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2015
You say they are easily washed out by local effects, prove it, and prove that those local effects are not originating from a more global climate

You have it quite backwards. It is the burden of those making such claims, to quantifiably demonstrate how such minutiae local events are supposedly effected by the result of 4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle effect on the average global temperature, without being wash-out by local climate such that the "anthropogenic portion" can be disentangled to be quantified.

The AGW models can at best give long term trends,... which only allows for generalized statements,... not specific occurances outside your window.

I would say this is true today,.... in another hundred years as compared to today may be another story.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2015
it is a fraud imo, to claim to be able to 'look out the window' and see global warming occuring,.... but this has not stopped the alarmist charlatans from making such claims
[sic]@nou
Who is making this claim?
Yes, I doubt and refute that CO2 emissions are not in part of anthropogenic origin
wait what? this sounds like you mean CO2 isn't anthropogenic and it's effects are limited/not applicable to AGW
that doesn't make sense WRT
"I don't question the core science"
the core science tells us what is anthropogenic and what is natural
this is how we know what is natural vs anthropogenic
http://www.bgc.mp...IJMS.pdf

https://journals..../627/632

there are plenty more (this has even been included in some of the historical Oceanographic studies i've posted)

or were you just being unclear?

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2015
@nou cont'd
...countering the abuse of the rating system
and you wield it indiscriminately more often than not
i don't even typically vote on your posts, and i sure don't advocate "redistribution of wealth, economic justice, climate justice, income inequality" or socialism, etc

i do think certain fraudulent claims (esp for the purpose of financial gain) should be punished, be it from science or otherwise (because it is already illegal)

i'll ask you like i did zeph: why should you be so concerned unless you are guilty of said accusations against you?

ratings are subjective, just like philosophy, therefore you should SUPPORT them

but you still created a sock, just like zeph
the WHY is: it bothers you more than you admit
OR
you are guilty of said accusations

up-rating your post with your sock doesn't make it more true, tho
it only makes you look bad
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2015
You have it quite backwards. It is the burden of those making such claims, to quantifiably demonstrate how such minutiae local events are supposedly effected by the result of 4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle effect on the average global temperature, without being wash-out by local climate such that the "anthropogenic portion" can be disentangled to be quantified.


Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was sitting around 260-270 ppm, nowadays it is around 390-400 ppm. How is that 4%? If you mean that only 4% of that 140 ppm is anthropogenic, what explains the other 134.4 ppm rise so well timed with the industrial revolution?

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2015
my third language
@Bulbuzor
what are the other two? (OT- but i'm curious)
if I had to make a wild guess, I'd see we better not take a chance
although some will say differently, this is my argument exactly: better safe than sorry
Because it's a science site not a philosophical one
good luck with this argument when posting to Nou...
What I have an issue with is not about being sceptical about scientific claims
a lot of people misunderstand this, too!

skepticism is the lifeblood of science: it is what drives validation and authentication vs refutation. this is how the scientific method works

what far too many people here on PO do (esp the trolls and pseudoscience posters) is post arbitrary claims with links to pseudoscience and then claim it's validity is equivalent to peer rvd journals or validated studies

those who are scientifically illiterate most often can't comprehend the difference between what constitutes good vs bad evidence
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2015

Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was sitting around 260-270 ppm, nowadays it is around 390-400 ppm. How is that 4%? If you mean that only 4% of that 140 ppm is anthropogenic, what explains the other 134.4 ppm rise so well timed with the industrial revolution?

Wow. I don't know what's worse, the fact that you must ask, or that the rest of the Chicken Little flock would give you 5s. It, however, does sum up the stupidity of the cult. When you do find the answer, I would suggest you don't share it with the rest of the Chicken Littles, it would destroy their blind faith.
RealityCheck
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

Free Thought right, like Free Speech right, comes with social responsibilities attached; involving greater good of society within which such rights supported/made possible due to secular values which make infringements of said rights illegal/punishable in law.

Hence individual/collective responsibilities inseparable from individual/collective rights in secular social democracy....and in science.

Govts have duties/responsibilities individual/groups may shirk in pursuit of their individual/group's politics/religion/mercenary agendas (via lies/propaganda etc; eg, Tobbaco/Religious/Coal/Nuclear Lobbies). Govts must act for societal good; hence must decide/act via 'best available evidence' at crisis point (awaiting 'perfectly detailed' models takes practically forever, so informed judgements must be made based on SYNTHESIS of 'modeling' AND common sense/intuitive appraisal of up-to-date events/news showing AGW trends/effects).

Rights with Responsibilities! :)
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2015
my third language
@Bulbuzor
what are the other two? (OT- but i'm curious)


Serbo-croatian and French :) I'm born in Yugoslavia and grew up in the French part of Canada. I have bases in Spanish thru my travels also.

Wow. I don't know what's worse, the fact that you must ask, or that blablablabla.


I'm not sure how to interpret this... What cult? To me the answer to the question I asked is easy and obvious, it was aimed toward Noumenon because I am curious to know what 4% he is talking about and to highlight the obvious lie that "only 4% of CO2 is anthropogenic" actually is.

It was also because I prefer making my point thru questions and arguments rather then calling others "Chicken Littles" or "scientifically illiterate idiots" (where are you JVK?)

And by the way if you wonder what I think of the star system, feel free to read above.
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
Free Thought right, like Free Speech right, comes with social responsibilities attached; .. greater good of society .. such rights supported/made possible due to secular values which make infringements of said rights illegal/punishable in law.

Hence individual/collective responsibilities inseparable from individual/collective rights in secular social democracy....and in science.

Govts have duties/responsibilities individual/groups may shirk in pursuit of their individual/group's politics/religion/mercenary agendas (via lies/propaganda etc; eg, Tobbaco/Religious/Coal/Nuclear Lobbies). Govts must act for societal good; hence must decide/act via 'best available evidence' at crisis point (awaiting 'perfectly detailed' models takes practically forever, so informed judgements must be made based on SYNTHESIS of 'modeling' AND common sense/intuitive appraisal of up-to-date events/news showing AGW trends/effects).

Rights with Responsibilities! :)

More hogwash :)
RealityCheck
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2015
Hi again Noumenon. :)

I'm frankly shocked that you (someone whom I had thought was reasonably sophisticated in their thought/analysis/mathematical processes/abilities) could fall into such a trivial statisticians' trap, mate. Do you not realize that global-to-local-scales variability-and-feedback-loops-and-cycling are inseparable from the natural Earth weather-climate system dynamics as a whole. The consequences and local marginal difference 'fractal' effects/tipping points create their own dynamics/patterns which INCREASED energy makes more violent/unpredictable/faster processes. It is the increased unpredictability extremes etc are causing increasingly incessant cost/damage which we cannot afford. It is disheartening to see that you also don't understand that Average Global Temp involves 'averaging of' representative/measured LOCAL EXTREMES data points. So any 'small increase' in 'average global temp' means those Local Extremes are trending WORSE overall. See now? :)
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
Yes, I doubt and refute that CO2 emissions are not in part of anthropogenic origin

wait what? this sounds like you mean CO2 isn't anthropogenic and it's effects are limited/not applicable to AGW
that doesn't make sense WRT

"I don't question the core science"

Then shouldn't that prompt you to reread more carefully? I'm saying CO2 emissions have in part an human origin. It's stated backwards and flip-floppy because that is how bulbozer presented his question.

Now, you received 5 ratings of 5's for that Obvious failure at reading comprehension,.... again demonstrating the corrupt nature and abuse of the rating system.
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (13) Nov 05, 2015
my blabla to antigoracle


I just read some of your other posts, don't bother answering actually. I invite you to spare us and go post on this forum rather then a science-based one :

http://www.global...cs.info/

Yes, I doubt and refute that CO2 emissions are not in part of anthropogenic origin

wait what? this sounds like you mean CO2 isn't anthropogenic and it's effects are limited/not applicable to AGW
that doesn't make sense WRT

"I don't question the core science"

Then shouldn't that prompt you to reread more carefully? I'm saying CO2 emissions have in part an human origin. It's stated backwards and flip-floppy because that is how bulbozer presented his question.


Well you didn't bother explaining what that 4% means and where it comes from, did you? You also failed to add a single source on any of your claims despite I politely asked you to, repeatedly...
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (8) Nov 05, 2015
Well you didn't bother explaining what that 4% means and where it comes from, did you? You also failed to add a single source on any of your claims despite I politely asked you to, repeatedly..


I have not read up to that post yet.....
Bulbuzor
2.8 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2015
10/11 posts above, I saw you posted in between so I figured you had read it. :)
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
....4%?.... I thought it was common knowledge of AGW. The earth has a natural cycle of absorbing and releasing CO2 into the atmosphere,... some ~800 gigatons total ocean and land per year,... of which 4% is anthropogenic,.... and 40% of that 4% is absorbed in the ocean.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
... Of course over time that small % anthropogenically sourced CO2 accumulates in the atmosphere on account of it being external to what is considered as part of the natural cycle. It is unknown how long it would take to become a part of the natural cycle,... as the increase in CO2 is unprecedented or at least without an historical example which could be studied. More knowledgeable posters could explain better.... but that is what I was referring to with the at present 4% (x 40%).
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
You have it quite backwards. It is the burden of those making such claims, to quantifiably demonstrate how such minutiae local events are supposedly effected by the result of 4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle effect on the average global temperature, without being wash-out by local climate such that the "anthropogenic portion" can be disentangled to be quantified.


Pre-industrial atmospheric CO2 was sitting around 260-270 ppm, nowadays it is around 390-400 ppm. How is that 4%? If you mean that only 4% of that 140 ppm is anthropogenic, what explains the other 134.4 ppm rise so well timed with the industrial revolution?


Ok, I answered this above.

The four people who 5-rated you for this misapprehension ,... yyz, Maggnus, Captain Stumpy, Vietvet, (thermodynamics must be busy), ... are well aware that it was a misapprehension and know what "4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle" means. Are they even reading these posts?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Nov 05, 2015
Then shouldn't that prompt you to reread more carefully?
@nou
it is why i asked, so quit being defensive
Now, you received 5 ratings of 5's for that Obvious failure at reading comprehension
failure?
i asked a question and produced my evidence for the anti- argument
there is nothing there not true

you clarified it: thank you. that's it. done.

so what about how people vote?
you said you didn't care

you started much of the anti-nou 1star movement with your own tactics (like sock-&-downrate), but when it is used back on you, it is wrong?

why?

notice i don't usually vote on you, right?
and that i've also uprated you, right?
i have no socks

but you still attack... perhaps the problem is not the voters, but you?
or is that something you can't consider?

https://www.psych...ttle-ego

why is that, nou?
do you perceive yourself to be infallible?
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 05, 2015
it was aimed toward Noumenon because I am curious to know what 4% he is talking about and to highlight the obvious lie that "only 4% of CO2 is anthropogenic" actually is.

It was also because I prefer making my point thru questions and arguments rather then calling others "Chicken Littles" or "scientifically illiterate idiots"


Wow, Really? Well bulbozer, I study mostly philosophy of physics and the mathematical and conceptual foundation of general relativity and quantum mechanics,..... but honestly don't know too much about AGW technically,...

....however it appears I know more than you do about AGW if you were blinking twice over my reference of "4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural cycle", and was arrogant enough to surmise it to have been a lie by a scientifically illiterate idiot! So what then does this say about you?
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 05, 2015
@nou cont'd
Are they even reading these posts?
still so defensive?

perhaps i up-rated it because it made me think?
i often do that
why is that important to you?
is it related to your need for self aggrandizement like JVK? or is it more of an egotistical narcissistic Dunning-Kruger?

feel free to expound: any and all feedback as to your motivations is welcome as it goes to your intent and exposes your personality.
thanks

.

Serbo-croatian and French :) I'm born in Yugoslavia and grew up in the French part of Canada. I have bases in Spanish thru my travels also
@Bulbuzor
interesting!
if you ever go to SciForums, say HI (my profile is: Truck Captain Stumpy)

i have some OT questions that are related to Canada and more

PEACE
antigoracle
1.4 / 5 (10) Nov 05, 2015
... thought/analysis/mathematical processes/abilities) could fall into such a trivial statisticians' trap, mate. ...global-to-local-scales variability-and-feedback-loops-and-cycling are inseparable from the natural Earth weather-climate system dynamics as a whole. The consequences and local marginal difference 'fractal' effects/tipping points create their own dynamics/patterns which INCREASED energy makes more violent/unpredictable/faster processes. It is the increased unpredictability extremes etc are causing increasingly incessant cost/damage which we cannot afford. It is disheartening to see that you also don't understand that Average Global Temp involves 'averaging of' representative/measured LOCAL EXTREMES data points. So any 'small increase' in 'average global temp' means those Local Extremes are trending WORSE overall. See now? :)

More/unsubstantiated/extreme/hogwash/even/the/hogs/are/choking. :)
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 05, 2015
perhaps i up-rated it because it made me think?
......
feel free to expound: any and all feedback as to your motivations is welcome as it goes to your intent and exposes your personality.
thanks

If you were speaking for someone else, then perhaps the use of "perhaps" could be justified, unless you are too stupid to know the actual reason why you up-rated.
So, your words not only confirm that you are a liar, but also that you are incapable of what you claim i.e. thinking [far less intelligent one at that]
But, it sure "goes to your intent and exposes your personality"

You're welcome.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
Then shouldn't that prompt you to reread more carefully?

@nou
it is why i asked, so quit being defensive

Clearly you were more interested in levelling accusations in the guise of a question, than in understanding the content of my post, for otherwise it would have been hard to miss the word "not" to misapprehend it, and you would have at least been prompted to reread it on discovering two diametrically opposed statements.

But you received 5's for that deliberate misapprehension and bulbozer received 5's for being factually wrong on several occasions whilst I received 1's for factually correcting him. Why are you so sensitive to me exposing the abjectly corrupt circle-jerk rating cabal?

If Noumenon cared about ratings he wouldn't request that the abused system be disabled,... and if the troll-rating cabal didn't care about ratings, they wouldn't up-rate each other and down rate others irrespective of actual content of posts. This fact was exposed above.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
you started much of the anti-nou 1star movement with your own tactics (like sock-&-downrate), but when it is used back on you, it is wrong?

Factually incorrect, I don't downrate anyone now except with Noumenon, and only in response to arbitrary, bias, or unfair ratings.

The corruption and abuse of the rating system by the circle-jerk Gaia cabal has been exposed and you will never admit that,... so this exposes your intent and personality.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Do you not realize that global-to-local-scales variability-and-feedback-loops-and-cycling are inseparable from the natural Earth weather-climate system dynamics as a whole. [...]. It is the increased unpredictability extremes etc are causing increasingly incessant cost/damage which we cannot afford. It is disheartening to see that you also don't understand that Average Global Temp involves 'averaging of' representative/measured LOCAL EXTREMES data points.


As pointed out above such generalizations are certainly valid to make,...but they're generalizations that may or may not be true in a given local circumstance. To point to a Particular local event, including behaviour of insects and shrubbery, and say such and such is because of global warming ignores that those effects are quantifiably obscured by local climate and weather variations. You would object to AGW-Skeptics making the inverse argument, yes? I understand unpredictability and global averaging.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
so this exposes your intent and personality.

Stated by someone who created a sock puppet (Erscheinung) to upvote themselves 4 years ago.

Of course, why should I let some clown hiding under their desk troll rate me irrespective of content by the literally hundreds of 1's (open, lite, toot, NOM, frankherbert, the liberal-wed-wetting-circle-jerk-gaia-cabal, etc). It is a deliberately corrupt and ad hominem, way of obscuring the value of ones posts, and as demonstrated by you, bulbozer, CP, and many others,.... falsely grants them confidence not warranted.

I think that the majority of folks on this board could not give a rip about the rating system.

Not according to the circle-jerk club who up-rates themselves incessantly without regard to actual content, as proven above.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

Free Thought right, like Free Speech right, comes with social responsibilities attached; involving greater good of society ....


I wouldn't entrust a government that can't even fulfill its most basic responsibility of balancing their budget at least within projected economic growth, to take on the role of thought-police.

Of course, as pointed out, we have court systems in place for those who can quantify damages as the result of deliberately false speech in particular cases. The political left will abuse this system and attempt to take oil producers and car companies to court, as in this case, and the UN will attempt to set up a "climate justice" court,.... but there are too many unknowns wrt future effects of AGW to quantifiably substantiate damages, IMO. Gas pumps and cars with "warning labels" //rolleyes
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
(Willie always gives me a 1). I understand that Willie and I come from different perspectives - so reciprocate and give his rubbish 1's, and move on. At least we have that mechanism. The sad point is - how you want to attack others 'intent' - and criticize the rating system - at the same time as doing exactly the same thing (in fact much worse) yourself. - weird!

So you reciprocate and give Willie 1's,... but it's weird if I do that?

Is Obama just as bad as ISIS for droning them in response? I only downrate in response, just like you, apparently. Their bias intent was demonstrated above conclusively.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
I find that people like you - seem bound and determined to undermine every opportunity that reasonable people have to positively impact science - and the progress of knowledge.


This is not speculation of my "intent", hypocrite?

You're flooding the thread with unsubstantiated and conspiratorially ridiculous ad hominems. Totally meaningless non-sense, that is exactly counter to the evidence in my posts above. You consider correcting posters misapprehension about AGW anti-progress? You consider deliberately misapprehending and actively misinterpreting ones posts progress?

I'm interested in physics, philosophy, and history and am quite aware that obtaining understanding does not come about as easily as being up-rated would lead some phys.org posters to believe,.... and the best thing for the progress of knowledge is to have ones ideological paradigm challenged. Is this what you're objecting to or my factual posts about AGW, or my opinion?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
The sad point is - how you want to attack others 'intent' [....]- at the same time as doing exactly the same thing [...] - weird! - greenonions


And then hypocritically posts the ultimate wild speculation of my intent....

I find that people like you - seem bound and determined to undermine every opportunity that reasonable people have to positively impact science - and the progress of knowledge. - greenonions


LOL, how ironic to say to someone that is in fact so concerned with Knowledge in science, that he posts about epistemology to refute metaphysics and speculation in science, or routinely corrects misunderstandings of GR and QM, and AGW, etc.

Bulbuzor
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
It was also because I prefer making my point thru questions and arguments rather then calling others "Chicken Littles" or "scientifically illiterate idiots"


Wow, Really? Well bulbozer, I study mostly philosophy of physics and the mathematical and conceptual foundation of general relativity and quantum mechanics,..... but honestly don't know too much about AGW technically,...


That post was clearly aimed toward antigoracle who calls people chicken littles, and the "scientifically illiterate idiot" a clear reference to JVK who writes that in every of his posts.

....however it appears I know more than you do about AGW if you were blinking twice over my reference of "4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural cycle", and was arrogant enough to surmise it to have been a lie by a scientifically illiterate idiot! So what then does this say about you?


It was a genuine question, I gotta do my homeworks for climate indeed. Anyway ty for the answer above.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Stop telling me that I am talking about your intent - I am not - I am talking about your behavior.


Hmm, I don't know if even you can escape from your own rabbit hole this time. Lets look at your statement again,....

I find that people like you - seem bound and determined to undermine every opportunity that reasonable people have to positively impact science - and the progress of knowledge. - greenonions


Yep, that looks like you were speculating about my intent to me. Resoundingly so. I'm "bound and determined"; seems to imply a concerted effort and motivation ,.... "to undermine every opportunity"; yep that's definitely "intent".
Bulbuzor
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Serbo-croatian and French :) I'm born in Yugoslavia and grew up in the French part of Canada. I have bases in Spanish thru my travels also
@Bulbuzor
interesting!
if you ever go to SciForums, say HI (my profile is: Truck Captain Stumpy)

i have some OT questions that are related to Canada and more

PEACE


I'll probably go soon, I had something I wanted to ask on the academia subforum also. Cheers :)
Noumenon
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
That post was clearly aimed toward antigoracle who calls people chicken littles, and the "scientifically illiterate idiot" a clear reference to JVK who writes that in every of his posts.


Ok bulbozer, thank you for that clarification. It wasn't clear to me as you started your comment with "it was aimed toward Noumenon because...", however I see now you were referencing JVK's behaviour at the end.

Btw, the 4% anthropogenic of total natural CO2 cycle is not an "obvious lie", in fact not a lie at all. Here is a Reference about it.
Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
Ok bulbozer, thank you for that clarification.


Sorry for the confusion :)

Btw, the 4% anthropogenic of total natural CO2 cycle is not an "obvious lie", in fact not a lie at all. Here is a Reference about it.


Ok I see what you mean now, I misread and thought that the percentage was for the ppm concentration, not the global CO2 cycle, those numbers are indeed what I saw in class pretty much. Tho despite being 4% of the CO2 emissions, it isn't 4% of "net emissions" (not sure for the technical term here). So even if our 29gT is tiny next to the natural 771gT, plants and oceans soak up 788gT yearly (numbers from your reference). So without humans, Earth's net CO2 yearly emissions would actually be -17gT, and with humans thats +12gT yearly. Even if the 40% of 29gT isn't included in the 788gT, we'd still have a net of +5,4 yearly gT (and still increasing....y'all politicians better do something in the Paris meeting). Not sure how that translates in ppm

Bulbuzor
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Nevermind my last post, I don't know why I keep thinking you doubt AGW when you said you didn't.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
You're forgiven. Anyone who even remotely challenges certain aspects of AGW, or questions the understanding of a particular set of members, or expresses skepticism over questionable behaviour of climatologists in adjusting inconvenient prior conclusions or data, or questions the alarmists .... are mindlessly treated here as if they don't believe the earth revolves around the sun. So, I am not surprised that you got that impression, as that is their intent [@ greenonions, it's funnier if I do it].

There are aspects, outined above, which I am skeptical about, but not the core physics nor general conclusion that burning fossil fuel will effect the climate.

Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
more interested in levelling accusations
@Nou
nope. and i've never had a problem admitting to a mistake, either
i asked and also responded based upon your history
The corruption and abuse of the rating system ...Gaia cabal has been exposed ...
so, because you don't like people who downrate you, it is somehow a cabal or organized directed attack?LMFAO!
Of course
and this is the weird flaw in your "logic"... you attack people who downrate with a sock, even though they don't have a sock, but somehow think this makes sense?
if you didn't care about the ratings, why are you so willing to lie to generate popularity for your posts?
some of the mentioned socks you out (like toot) are also downraters of the "cabal" you hate

you don't like how other people vote
your solution: uprate yourself with a sock (lie, cheat, misrepresent)

and you think this is logical? just because you don't like a person?
you don't like it so you replicate/perpetuate it?
WTF?!
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Ok, I answered this above.
No you didn't.

The four people who 5-rated you for this misapprehension ,... yyz, Maggnus, Captain Stumpy, Vietvet, (thermodynamics must be busy), ... are well aware that it was a misapprehension and know what "4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle" means. Are they even reading these posts?
Although I frankly don't give a flying truck what you think about, well, anything really, I gave this comment a 5 because it was well worded, it was on topic, and it correlated with questions I also have about your understanding of this discipline. You continue to bob and weave in an effort to steer the conversation to your own private bugaboo, but your end game is transparent.

Maybe you should read the whole conversation before responding.
RealityCheck
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 06, 2015
Hi Noumenon.
As pointed out above such generalizations are certainly valid to make,...but they're generalizations that may or may not be true in a given local circumstance. To point to a Particular local event, including behaviour of insects and shrubbery, and say such and such is because of global warming ignores that those effects are quantifiably obscured by local climate and weather variations. You would object to AGW-Skeptics making the inverse argument, yes? I understand unpredictability and global averaging.
That 'generalization' was based on actual scientifically demonstrable/understood chaos process which was dubbed "Butterfly Effect" by the person who established the real world local-to-global connections/consequences of seemingly isolated/unrelated local phenomena/patterns of weather/climate conditions/evolutions. So arguments/objections invoking arbitrary/unsupported individual/group 'debate tactics/misdirections' (from any 'side') are distractions. :)
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
As pointed out above such generalizations are certainly valid to make,...but they're generalizations that may or may not be true in a given local circumstance. To point to a Particular local event, including behaviour of insects and shrubbery, and say such and such is because of global warming ignores that those effects are quantifiably obscured by local climate and weather variations. You would object to AGW-Skeptics making the inverse argument, yes? I understand unpredictability and global averaging.
And once again, you make sweeping generalizations while in the same paragraph you accusatorily decry others for doing the same thing. There is a general species shift towards the poles in both hemispheres that is especially noticeable in the north. That is not a generalization nor a situation obscured by local variations, that is a documented phenomena across several continents.

It is you who tries to button hole data to meet your desired outcome.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2015
@Magnus... You were confused over my meaning of "4%",.... in "4% anthropogenic CO2 over the natural CO2 cycle" , were you? I don't believe you.

ok, I answered this above

No you didn't

Yes, I did, immediately proceeding that post. Try reading the the whole conversation before you post
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2015
PS: Noumenon.

I'm heartened by your repeated confirmation you don't deny AGW is real. :)

I understand that dogbert also doesn't deny AGW is real. :)

I'm also heartened by the fact that Shootist (after I quoted Freeman Dyson agreeing AGW is real) has stopped posting misleading quotes/claims re Dyson's stance on AGW. :)

But poor, antigoracle (a Troll Factory Shill taking blood money from Lobby groups for religious/political/fossil fuel interests?) is still plugging away, making himself increasingly irrelevant while reasonable, honest discoursers get on with reaching a meeting of minds on the important issues involved (to this end, Noumenon, it would help if you dropped your own unhelpful invocations of 'political/personal dimension' in otherwise objective scientific discourse; ie, you calling everyone 'lefties/socialists' just because they follow the science, only invites retaliatory accusations 'in kind'.

Yes. Rating system is compromised by some. Ignore it/them. :)
RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Before I go-----a 'circuit breaker' suggestions:

Now would be a good time to 'reset' your discourse/exchange to avoid/forestall further cross-purpose 'argy-bargy' based on whatever may be the misunderstandings that have obviously arisen (whether innocently or carelessly) between some of you. :)

I suggest you re-tart afresh from the point where Noumenon confirms his acceptance that AGW is real...and go from there based on whatever clarifications have been made above from whatever 'side', and proceed to further clarifications/discourse/agreements on the science and try to assiduously eschew all political/personal irrelevancies from any 'side' in the debate.

Gotta go. Don't know when I will be in again. Good luck and good discourse, everyone. :)
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
And once again, you make sweeping generalizations while in the same paragraph you accusatorily decry others for doing the same thing.

Well no, actually what I said, as is clear in the quote, is that it IS valid to do so,... just not then to apply to a particular [capitalized] locality and to specific local events.

There is a general species shift towards the poles in both hemispheres that is especially noticeable in the north. That is not a generalization nor a situation obscured by local variations, that is a documented phenomena across several continents.

Which also means that its not a local event,... so how could it be so obscured?
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
(to this end, Noumenon, it would help if you dropped your own unhelpful invocations of 'political/personal dimension' in otherwise objective scientific discourse; ie, you calling everyone 'lefties/socialists' just because they follow the science, only invites retaliatory accusations 'in kind'.


Don't forget "liberal bed-wetters", also. I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that I refer to people as lefties/socialists "just because they follow the science". That's a strange assessment.

If the scientific discourse was of say black-holes,... then yes I would agree that politics is not a relevant component. But, with AGW there is a real component and driving force that is politically exclusive and so is relevant wrt 'what to do about it'. This should be important to any AGW-Enthusiasts.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Noumenon, I was just about to log out when I saw this from you to Maggnus:
There is a general species shift towards the poles in both hemispheres that is especially noticeable in the north. That is not a generalization nor a situation obscured by local variations, that is a documented phenomena across several continents.
Which also means that its not a local event,... so how could it be so obscured?
Noumenon, clearly you are doing what you accuse others of doing, purposely miscontruing and missing the point, using spurious and obviously flawed logics and arguments and sophist rationalizations for avoiding the obvious, well-known/demonstrable scientific point.

Consider: Global is a composite of Local 'sub-sets'; else there is no global system at all if each local event/pattern etc is not interacting with its 'neighbor' and either canceling or re-inforcing each other and evolving further afield until 'net global' patterns/consequences emerge.

See your own biases?
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Don't forget "liberal bed-wetters", also. I'm not sure how you could possibly conclude that I refer to people as lefties/socialists "just because they follow the science".
Not at all. You yourself admit bringing politics and other personal/ideological dimensions into an otherwise objective scientific matter/discourse. That YOU see the 'politics/personalities' etc everywhere, does not mean that the science itself, and discourse based on the objective science of climate/weather, has to be dragged into the mire of political/ideological/mercenary/personal agendas (of any 'side'). Only if we divorce all that crap from the actual scientific matters/discourses at hand, can we ever come to objectively informed picture of what is happening in reality and what we can/cannot do about it. All else is distraction/ego/agenda 'play'; which is not what we need at this juncture; as time/luxury for such self-indulgent forays, tit-for-tats etc has run out.

Drop biases/prejudices. Bye. :)
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
Magnus' example is concluded on the basis of data that is global in nature, "spanning continents", and if true, is not true for specific local particular events. I mentioned "looking out your window" and claiming to "see" global warming,.. i.e. particular hurricanes, particular wildfires, particular insects, etc.

Only if we divorce all that crap from the actual scientific matters/discourses at hand, can we ever come to objectively informed picture of what is happening in reality and what we can/cannot do about it


Science has zero to say wrt what can be done about it,... that de facto requires politics. Adults talk about politics. There is little objective and challenged science being discussed here in any case.

RealityCheck
2 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Again, just logging out when I saw your attempt at missing/muddying objective matter (upon which all other political/personal/ideological etc 'agendas/biases' are OVERLAYED by those who wish to distract from the crucial need for action).

Your latest egregious offense against reasoned relevant objective discourse...
Science has zero to say wrt what can be done about it,... that de facto requires politics.
The 'politics' can be informed or uninformed. That is where science comes in. It informs re PROBLEM, re OPTIONS for SOLUTIONS, and OPTIONS for POLITICAL process to CONSIDER based on best available objective picture at 'decision point' (which a crisis may force upon political system which has the social duty to make decisions at some point if procrastination may result in more costly 'too late' action).

Science first; informed politics next. That's what is required. Bringing political biases *first* seems your 'thing'. Others discuss science; but you want politics. :(
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2015
That's not how it works RC. Time to grow up. There's the matter of the intensity of the effects for mankind, there's the matter of the tactic used by political charlatans of alarmist sense of urgency that is scientifically unfounded,... politics is never directed by science blindly,... especially in matters of speculation of supposed future catastrophe.

There is a general species shift towards the poles in both hemispheres that is especially noticeable in the north.

"Only when you look at the averages of very large numbers of species can you begin to see their relationship to climate change." ,.... IOW nothing to do with local events for which I was referring.
Bulbuzor
3 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
I mentioned "looking out your window" and claiming to "see" global warming,.. i.e. particular hurricanes, particular wildfires, particular insects, etc.


Then what if those local events are seen all accross? Ok you don't make a model with one occurence, but if we have loads of occurences, we see a pattern. Could we then talk about global warming's side effects? I can't talk for hurricanes and wildfires, but if you want to, I can give you numerous occurrences of wildlife "migrating" North, both fauna and flora. I know this doesn't sound like the cataclismic event that you are skeptical will occur from AGW, but it is still a significant change on the behaviour of our ecosystems, and AGW barely started. Another ecosystemic change we see, amongst others, is the phenology of species.

But I guess what you want a solid proof of causal-effect (and me too actually) is regarding climate/geological events, for which I unfortunately can't provide a well-informed answer.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
@RC,... theres also the cost of liberty vs risk assessment. Notice RC that humanity continues to increase its consumption of oil and coal. Why has not science informed politics to stop this? It's irresponsible to be naive about this.

@bulbuzer, that is a good point, I guess you are right, as was Maggnus wrt global effects, which I don't dispute (see ice mass comment above),... only pointing to local events and saying thats because of AGW.
antigoracle
1 / 5 (9) Nov 06, 2015
But poor, antigoracle (a Troll Factory Shill taking blood money from Lobby groups for religious/political/fossil fuel interests?) is still plugging away, making himself increasingly irrelevant while reasonable, honest discoursers get on with reaching a meeting of minds on the important issues involved (to this end, Noumenon, it would help if you dropped your own unhelpful invocations of 'political/personal dimension' in otherwise objective scientific discourse; ie, you calling everyone 'lefties/socialists' just because they follow the science, only invites retaliatory accusations 'in kind'.

Awww... you are breaking my heart. Poor/ignorant/faithful/AGW propagandists, plugging away for the share joy of spreading his unsubstantiated/ignoRANT hogwash. You previously spewed the usual cult propaganda of extreme weather. Find us, a single peer reviewed paper, that conclusively proves, observed extreme weather is the result of anthropogenic warming.
Bulbuzor
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2015
That's not how it works RC. Time to grow up. There's the matter of the intensity of the effects for mankind, there's the matter of the tactic used by political charlatans of alarmist sense of urgency that is scientifically unfounded,... politics is never directed by science blindly,... especially in matters of speculation of supposed future catastrophe.


Yes, science and politics are deeply anchored one in another (tho it's a one-way ticket, politics influences our science thru funding those who say what the leaders don't want to hear, unfortunately politics are not influenced adequately by science). But, even tho we can talk politics here, we must not confound the two topics. Noumenon, you seem to claim that politics influence scientific publications to favour AGW effects. Truth is, it's the exact opposite. If politicians have a word to say to AGW scientists, it would be "shut the f*ck up", like Harper in Canada by, litterally, muzzling AGW scientists.
Bulbuzor
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2015
Here is a great, objective, paper published in Nature regarding the causal relation between extreme weather and AGW:

https://www.pik-p...2012.pdf

It brings a really, really good point on why it is hard to link those two; extreme events are, by definition, rare. Rare as in you do not have a ton of data points and anyone who ever played with that kind of dataset knows it's hard to draw significant conclusions. Not necessarily because there is none, just because there haven't been enough occurrences, yet.

Quote:
"Many lines of evidence — statistical analysis of observed data, climate modelling and physical reasoning — strongly indicate that some types of extreme event, most notably heatwaves and precipitation extremes, will greatly increase in a warming climate and have
already done so. In 2007, the IPCC --continued--
Bulbuzor
3.2 / 5 (11) Nov 06, 2015
--cont--
concluded that a future increase in the frequency of heatwaves and extreme precipitation events caused by greenhouse warming in most continental areas is very likely (>90%
probability) and an increase in intense tropical cyclone activity and drought-affected areas is likely (>66% probability). Some extreme events will decrease — extreme cold being the most obvious one.
However, the overall number of extremes is expected to increase. Human society has adapted to the kind of extremes experienced in the past, so a lesser number of these will bring only modest benefifts. But unprecedented new extremes can be devastating, as the Pakistan flooding of 2010 illustrates."

"As well as improved modelling, there is still much to be learnt by statistical data analysis. To understand observed changes in the frequency of extremes, long time series are needed and further work should be directed at identifying and correcting for inhomogeneities in data sets."

-cont--
Bulbuzor
3.3 / 5 (12) Nov 06, 2015
This is a good one:

"Many climate scientists (including ourselves) routinely answer
media calls after extreme events with the phrase that a particular
event cannot be directly attributed to global warming. This is often
misunderstood by the public to mean that the event is not linked to
global warming, even though that may be the case — we just can't be
certain. If a loaded dice rolls a six, we cannot say that this particular
outcome was due to the manipulation — the question is ill-posed.
What we can say is that the number of sixes rolled is greater with
the loaded dice (perhaps even much greater). Likewise, the odds
for certain types of weather extremes increase in a warming climate
(perhaps very much so). Attribution is not a 'yes or no' issue as the
media might prefer, it is an issue of probability. It is very likely that
several of the unprecedented extremes of the past decade would not
have occurred without anthropogenic global warming.[...]
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
Noumenon, you seem to claim that politics influence scientific publications to favour AGW effects


Hmm, no, not really. I would say most of the alarmists are politicians with leftist ideology,... but am not so naive to think that climatologists themselves are not effect by their own political bias and shouldn't be challenged or questioned. Search "18 year" above.

Regarding expected extreme weather, .. I even used NASA's like study as a basis of argument in This Thread,... but it is compatible to reject the claim (as occured) that AGW adds 5 mph to particular hurricanes.
Noumenon
2.4 / 5 (8) Nov 06, 2015
This is a good one:

"Many climate scientists (including ourselves) routinely answer
media calls after extreme events with the phrase that a particular
event cannot be directly attributed to global warming. This is often
misunderstood by the public to mean that the event is not linked to
global warming, even though that may be the case — we just can't be
certain. ...


Yes, Makes sense, good prior two posts. I indeed confirmed above several times that its valid to make generalizations and explicitly mentioned problems of quantifiably and proportionality of AGW effects on specific local events ,... so obviously agree here,..

Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
That last post by Bulbazor (Many climate scientists..) nicely encapsulates the point I have been trying to reach. It is the conflation of a desired condition (AGW is being used to promote socialism) with the dry scientific fact dressed up for publication that Noumenon (in this instance) uses as the wedge to drive in his political views.
The fact of AGW, as he has recently acknowledged, is not in dispute despite the increasingly desperate cries to the contrary by the likes of shootist or dogbert. I differ from Noumenon however, in that I do not believe that there is a groundswell of support for socialist policies to combat the coming climatic changes in scientific or political circles, and I strongly disagree with his portrayal of scientists in general of perpetrating fraud to support some nebulous political outcome of world governance - or any other nefarious purpose.

The science is what it is. Noumenon argues it is contrived.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (7) Nov 06, 2015
Noumenon, you seem to claim that politics influence scientific publications to favour AGW effects


Hmm, no, not really.
Yes, actually, you really do. For instance:
I would say most of the alarmists are politicians with leftist ideology
a clear generalization. And a political statement to boot.
Bulbuzor
3 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
This is off-topic but I still had to share it with you as I brought up the (ex-)scientific muzzling in Canada under Harper's reign:
http://www.nation...ientists
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
Noumenon, you seem to claim that politics influence scientific publications to favour AGW effects


Hmm, no, not really.
Yes, actually, you really do. For instance:
I would say most of the alarmists are politicians with leftist ideology
a clear generalization. And a political statement to boot.


Listen dipstick, you're not entitled to decide what I say or mean, only I get to do that.

I never said anything about politics influencing "scientific publications",.... but I did mention the reverse, that those scientific publications are made use of by politicians. You don't put enough effort into ascertain what I think, so you're not in a position to do so. For another example, here is what I said above in this very thread .....

"this does not mean that I'm saying AGW is invented for the above purpose [of leftist ideology], as I don't believe that"
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
I strongly disagree with his portrayal of scientists in general of perpetrating fraud to support some nebulous political outcome of world governance - or any other nefarious purpose.


Can you substantiate where I have said any such thing here? I mentioned the UN, and politicians.

I do call into question the motivation behind the reanalysis of the 18-year pause, but not because of political leftist motivation,... but rather from the pressure from skeptics to combat that narrative. If not for that, they would never have had occasion to consider 'adjusting the data', nor should they, as that is only short term and not relevant to the general AGW conclusion by their own admission. What motivated them, ...not pure science.

antigoracle
1 / 5 (10) Nov 06, 2015
Of course when the AGW Cult spew their propaganda on extreme weather they conveniently conceal all that debunks their dogma.
http://www.expres...X-months
http://realitywea...land-uk/
https://www.googl...ted+snow
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2015
@greenonions, I feel as though I'm on the Jerry-Springer show in discussions with you (and others), with your accusationary style of argument and focus on your own generalized analysis of my intent (behaviour),.... rather than substantively and accurately portraying my posts. So, yes, indeed, it seems that the length of phys.org threads are inversely proportionate to the effort placed in maintaining continuity in lines of discussion, and the willingness to misapprehend and misrepresent ones comments.
Noumenon
2.8 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2015
The fact of AGW, as [Noumenon] has recently acknowledged....,


I have not 'just recently' acknowledged that (if that is what you implied) ,...I've never disputed the core science of AGW,.... in fact have been saying for years that that is a colossal mistake that some on the poltical right are making, as that is not the relevant debate and is a losing one on its face.

I've never said that politicians influence "scientific publications",.. in fact rejected explicitly that AGW was invented to promote leftist ideology above.

I've never decried AGW-Enthusiats for making generalizations,... in fact I stated myself that they are valid to make (that's what the models do, long term trends),... just not then applied to particular local events. That was my objection, to claim wildfires, hurricanes, the next door neighbors dog, is doe to clmate change.

You're fundamentally dishonest.
AGreatWhopper
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2015

But poor, antigoracle (a Troll Factory Shill taking blood money from Lobby groups for religious/political/fossil fuel interests?) is still plugging away, making himself increasingly irrelevant


You give him much too much credit. That would be like a job, which he has never experienced. Conservative groups pay this site not to delete the free ravings of morons, the mentally ill and Christians. All three in his case. They would never employ a total looser like antirational and even they would be ashamed of the association. Increasingly irrelevant? He's totally irrelevant, except to the extent that you support him by responding. I'd sooner speak to picnic ants than him.
jljenkins
2.7 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
Recent Activity for antigoracle
Average rank: 1.6


I think I could pick random words from the dictionary and do better than that. All these misunderstood geniouses. At least many commit suicide. How'd you leave out MentallyRetard166? That one is as pitiful as the other two mentioned.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2015
Man, would he ever shit his pants!

That's how you were born and now you are desperate for a friend.
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2015
Recent Activity for antigoracle
Average rank: 1.6


I think I could pick random words from the dictionary and do better than that. All these misunderstood geniouses. At least many commit suicide. How'd you leave out MentallyRetard166? That one is as pitiful as the other two mentioned.

1.6 is still 1.6 more than the collective IQ of the Chicken Littles.
"geniouses", really!! Try learning to use a dictionary.
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 07, 2015
I think I could pick random words from the dictionary and do better than that. All these misunderstood geniouses. At least many commit suicide. How'd you leave out MentallyRetard166? That one is as pitiful as the other two mentioned.


Antigoracle, there's really no reason to reply to comments like that. Put the guy on "ignore" and move along. The comment was disgusting as is the notion that this site's popularity contest rating system has any value whatsoever.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2015
@greenonions,

It seems funnier when I do it though. Do you have a counter-argument that is about an actual point made, rather than of the 'form of argument'.

For example, you made this vague and sweeping accusation, not long after I had advanced a posters understanding about AGW,.....

I find that people like you - seem bound and determined to undermine every opportunity that reasonable people have to positively impact science - and the progress of knowledge. - greenonions


This is utterly ridiculous and insulting to one who posts here about standards physics. I'll try to stop the insults if you do, hows that?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2015
.... and I'll remind you that you promised to ignore my posts. Hard isn't it.

MalleusConspiratori
2.5 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2015
Liberal's across the country are slashing their wrists.


And conservative trolls will never learn basic grammar before they spew.

Actually I know a lot of boomer progressives that are cashing out. Universally stated motive so far is being tired of living on the same planet with the kind of people you find trolling this page. Seems the fucktards will inherit the earth.
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2015
Liberal's across the country are slashing their wrists.


And conservative trolls will never learn basic grammar before they spew.

Actually I know a lot of boomer progressives that are cashing out. Universally stated motive so far is being tired of living on the same planet with the kind of people you find trolling this page. Seems the fucktards will inherit the earth.


liberals are gross and smelly.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2015
...perpetrating fraud to support some nebulous political outcome of world governance
@Maggnus
well said! and this is why politics should not be a topic in scientific discussions, and is part of the "avoided topics" in the guidelines

and as most will note: dispite Nou's claims of "Adults talk about politics", it is like religion (and philosophy) in that the POV of the observer can be very subjective (& more often than not, actual definitions are entirely ignored. see Rygg for his ignorance re: Socialism vs Communism)
for evidence see this article http://arstechnic...nformed/

if a "world gov't" will ever occur, it will most likely happen due to an external threat or some catastrophic event
but given the proclivities of humans & their cultural, religious, and other ties, this will most likely happen AFTER the fact, when most are at their weakest
ex: NATO
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2015
The bigger context for me relates to what I see as a concerted effort to hijack the conversation about the science of climate change. Let me give you and example - this is from your comment

The true underlying agenda is no more than a leftest-political hi-jacking of seeking global economic justice,.... all built upon a foundation of anti-capitalism, emotional immaturity and stupidity wrt reality.

Now why don't you read those words carefully - and understand something. Many of us are very serious, and concerned about climate change.


That was in reference to the UN's motivations as it was a continuation of my previous post,... once again you deliberately left off context by extrating posted text without reference to that context nor supplying relavent counterpoint about the actual contextual content quoted,.... as should be the only reason for quoting one.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2015
@greenonions.... in doing this you are continuing your dishonest tactic of deliberate obfuscation and avoiding the pertinent point made,..... entirely relevant to AGW...

....In that original context, ...if you are seriously concerned about climate change solutions, then you should be concerned over the politically exclusive ideology that is driving opposition to, not so much reasonable solutions in line with existing economic realities,... but to a far left political ideology that expected to be accepted along the way.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2015
you're not entitled to decide what I say or mean, only I get to do that
@nou
except, as noted already, a person CAN extrapolate your reasoning or meaning based upon your examples
another thing is what you support (be it by voting or argument)
...your own generalized analysis of my intent (behaviour),.... rather than substantively and accurately portraying my posts
well, when dealing with a philo major who tends to create vague circular arguments that are typically subjective, or you advocate opposing side via secondary actions or support (sock-, down- & up-rating, or hypocrisy)
then it is NOT irrelevant, but actually provides a sound analytical tool for intent and purpose as well as definition

then you make blanket statements (as noted by Mag above) but try to backpedal

Green makes valid points & it is likely this reason that you are typically downrated or treated like a troll

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2015
Greenonions and CaptainStumpy like to inform posters that this is a science site despite that the bulk of their own posts are vacuous Jerry-Springer responses to others.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2015
Noumenon
you deliberately left off context

I can't include the whole quote can I? ,

Then why quote it at all, if you're not going to respond to the point made in proper context. It is flatly dishonest to quote soneone out of cobtext, then not even respond the its original point.

If you are too immature to understand the political element involved in AGW solutions, then don't say anything in response. Your objection that "it's not science" is a joke given the bulk of your own posts.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
despite that the bulk of their own posts are vacuous Jerry-Springer responses to others
@nou
so, pointing out trolls and then explaining how intent can be derived from careful observation of historical posts (like above)

or defining evidence and sharing this (the difference between evidentiary claims found in experimental science vs philosophical musings or the differences between linking sites mixed with religion and opinion, like jk, versus reputable peer reviewed journals)

explaining how delusional beliefs can interfere with logical thought (like http://rspb.royal...full.pdf )

these things aren't science?
it isn't science to help others fight against being scammed by pseudoscience or subjective arguments by showing them how to recognize evidence and to follow the proof?

thanks for pointing that out to me Nou
it explains a lot
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2015
You just made an offer to stop with the insults.

And I was sincere,.... until you immediately returned to your insulting tactic of quoting without respect to it's original context, nor for the purpose of actual discussion,.. but merely to make your own subjective and irrelevant critiques and insinuations,

.... in this case that i'm not serious about AGW,.... despite that very post pointed out the root of the opposition to AGW solutions, and despite me having proposed a massive Manhattan'esque Project for energy research. Do you see how your tactics lead to mischaracterizations and thus extend pointless argumentation? I have to defend myself against you accusationary posting style.

@CP, you have done more at phys.org than anyone I can readily think of, to effectively multiple the posts of the cranks,... yes, your objection to politics (or philosophy (which I have not even posted here)), is intellectually immature .
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2015
Why do you need to come on to an article about snow in Antarctica - and start in about the U.N.


The reason was stated in that post. The UN (IPCC) was mentioned in the article. The UN is relevant to AGW action. The article is relevant to countering AGW-Alarmism of imminent catastrophe. Why are you concerned about why others make their posts, given that most of your own above have nothing to do with science? At least mine are relevant to the topic at hand. I probably spoke more about factual AGW theory above than you did.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2015
your objection to politics ...is intellectually immature
@nou
why is that?
why is it "intellectually immature" to want a discussion that centers around provable points & evidence?
especially when the guidelines state:
1- this is a science site (science is not subjective: it is evidence based- see scientific method)
&
2- Avoid political and religious discussions

now, i can see that you believe in philo/politics, but belief doesn't mean something is real (see religion)

my arguments, though you think "effectively multiple the posts of the cranks"[sic], are all about science WRT to pointing out to the scientifically illiterate/uninformed, that there is a huge difference in believing in something and it's reality

you dislike [my comments] b/c you "believe" intellectuals/scientists should be more like you (philosophical) whereas in the real world they're typically more like me (investigators- follow the evidence)
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
@nou cont'd
or philosophy (which I have not even posted here)
except that it IS relevant for several reasons:
-your history
-your circular arguments
-the subjective nature of the arguments

philo is much like politics and religion in that they're typically subjective to the individual and even with clear concise definitions (bible, dictionary, etc: see- rygg, verkle, ren, jvk) that directly contradict the argument: an individual takes a belief (substantiated or not) and then intensely attempts to justify said belief ( http://phys.org/n...ies.html )

this argument tactic is shared in subjective arguments like philo, religion, politics, etc

thus, it IS relevant, especially when dealing with the topics at hand AND when dealing with YOU

this is where behaviour, history, analyzing posts and psychology come in
it doesn't matter how "intellectual" or "adult" someone is WRT to topics that are subjective based upon belief
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2015
@nou cont'd
take your argument above
The UN is relevant to AGW action
true, but that is because the UN is an attempt for world governance through cooperation, correct? https://en.wikipe..._Nations

now this belief is tied to the conspiracist ideation because of comments like yours
The United Nations is setting up an 'international court' to prosecute for 'climate justice', as a component of a proposed climate treaty. Their lack of political inclusiveness and emotional over-reaching is what prevents international agreement for action.
i am not quoting the whole thing
i will point out that you blatantly refuse to acknowledge relevant data with the claim, like cultural differences (the world can't agree Bacon is a good breakfast food, and you want them to agree to....????)

your comments inflame conspiracist ideation (especially things like "most of the alarmists are politicians with leftist ideology")
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
@nou -conclusion
so you are actually perpetuating conspiracist ideation (and pulling a ryggy) except that you tend to couch your terms into subjective or circular reasoning that is typical of your philo training

this is not a bad thing when arguing politics, religion or philo... however, as i note: it is subjective

this is not how science works, and I would also like to point to Bulb's arguments WRT politics, etc above

politics is a necessary evil in Science - however, when discussing science, it is also irrelevant

the problem with the UN (etc) is NOT the science, but the irrational head-in-the-sand ignoring of the science and the data (evidence)

you don't like my tactics (i don't care)
but i have taught some people to look beyond the BS and follow the evidence
that is my main goal in the promotion of science, and it has worked (at least according to the feedback i get)

like it or not: your tactics are suited for subjective ONLY arguments
Noumenon
2 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2015
@CP, I don't need you to "inform" me of what science is. I'm aware of the mathematical foundation of GR and QM, and science is what principles interests. You've been told this, but will continue your insulting tone.

... you have 16 posts in this thread,... not one of which said anything factual or enlightening about AGW.

My interest lies mostly in GR and QM,... however, if I make philosophy of physics related points [why are you even bringing this up in this thread?],... it is likewise to distinguish between realism and positivism for the purpose of refuting metaphysics in science. Your objection is never articulated wrt the point made, but rather that a philosophical point was made at all,.... meanwhile your limited understanding of the subject prevents you from knowing that interpretations of QM, for example, IS 'philosophy of physics',.... but the facts or particular point made does not matter to you,... so you follow me around out of context with your anti-philo bs.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
I don't need you to "inform" me of what science is
@nou
you also don't need me to remind you of the guidelines, but you continue to ignore them and re-post political and subjective arguments regardless
so who is the idiot?
but will continue your insulting tone
and you've been told that a subjective argument is not the same as an evidence based one
repetition irritates us all
not one of which blah blah blah out of context
at least i can ADMIT my flaws & carry on/correct myself
you can't even admit you have flaws! (see above as evidence)

and it is NOT out of context to the above discussion, nor is it WRT science and evidence

i don't "follow you"... i could care less about you or your philo beliefs
they're subjective, therefore irrelevant

you just like baiting and trolling with irrelevant arguments on threads i frequent (troll tactic)
you consider yourself to be an "intellectual" troll?

apologies to Bulb et al
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
Listen dipstick, you're not entitled to decide what I say or mean, only I get to do that.
Pookums, I am only repeating what you, yourself, have said. Don't like looking in the mirror?

i never said anything about politics influencing "scientific publications",.... but I did mention the reverse, that those scientific publications are made use of by politicians.
You are trying to walk a line so thin it is invisible. And you HAVE said this, or variations on this, several times. What is the IPCC again Nou???
You don't put enough effort into ascertain what I think, so you're not in a position to do so.
I can only go by what you have said. This is not your first rodeo, and since about 2012 you have gone from "It ain't happening" to "It might be, but it's not from humans" to now "It might be humans but it's not that bad". That is progress, but it still doesn't support your contention that the science is being used to foist socialism upon an unsuspecting world.
Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
Can you substantiate where I have said any such thing here? I mentioned the UN, and politicians.
Seriously? You have repeated this sentiment in various guises many times. For example:
I do call into question the motivation behind the reanalysis of the 18-year pause, but not because of political leftist motivation,... but rather from the pressure from skeptics to combat that narrative.
The motivation had nothing, at all, to do with politics, it had to do with trying to understand what was happening. The evidence all suggested that temps should have been rising at a higher rate. An honest question - why not? That was the motivation.
If not for that, they would never have had occasion to consider 'adjusting the data', nor should they,
nor did they
as that is only short term and not relevant to the general AGW conclusion by their own admission. What motivated them, ...not pure science.
This is comment is simplistic and conspiratory.

Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
As usual you just make things up. In This Thread, I not only reject the charge of being "a denier", but even propose a Manhattan'esque Project for energy research as a solution,.... and this was in 2011.

In 2009 I was less careful about the distinction between alarmism and valid GW science. If we go even further back .....

Maggnus
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
And I was sincere,.... until you immediately returned to your insulting tactic of quoting without respect to it's original context, nor for the purpose of actual discussion,.. but merely to make your own subjective and irrelevant critiques and insinuations,
Backtracking.
.. in this case that i'm not serious about AGW,.... despite that very post pointed out the root of the opposition to AGW solutions, and despite me having proposed a massive Manhattan'esque Project for energy research. Do you see how your tactics lead to mischaracterizations and thus extend pointless argumentation? I have to defend myself against you accusationary posting style.
Attack.
@CP, you have done more at phys.org than anyone I can readily think of, to effectively multiple the posts of the cranks,... yes, your objection to politics (or philosophy (which I have not even posted here)), is intellectually immature .
Insult.

Sad really.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 07, 2015
Your posts above don't provide enough substance to respond to, to vague and impressionistic.

If not for that, they would never have had occasion to consider 'adjusting the data', nor should they,

nor did they

Well, yes, they did. They adjusted bouy data based on ship data so they could reanalyze the trend away using an alternative statistical analysis.

The short term trend of 18 years was never relevant to the long term predictability of the models,..... by climatologists own admission,... the 18 year pause was acknowledged as fact by the IPCC based on data. It was literally a non-problem in terms of models ability to predict.

The "fix" only exposes the malleability of the data and will be telling if the climatology industry does not challenging this behaviour.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
If not for that, they would never have had occasion to consider 'adjusting the data', nor should they
@Maggnus
i would like to add my two cents on this particular subject as well: this quoted comment from Nou is absolutely wrong because of the following: http://www.climat...1998.pdf

science noticed a problem and moved to correct it (Homogeneity in climate data) and it started before the "hiatus" as well as was noted in early studies WRT equipment use, exposure and measurement (see second sentence of the abstract and references- Jones et al., 1985; Karl and Williams, 1987; Gullett et al., 1990; Heino, 1994)

making a claim quoted above while ignoring the fact that they've known of problems since the 80's is...????

it's not like i haven't linked Karl et al, or Peterson et al multiple times in the past
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
Well, yes, they did. They adjusted bouy data based on ship data so they could reanalyze the trend away using an alternative statistical analysis...blah blah blah The "fix" only exposes the malleability of the data and will be telling if the climatology industry does not challenging this behaviour
this is called conspiracist ideation as well as a false claim
http://www.ploson...tion=PDF

http://www.auburn...ion.html

for evidence, see:
Karl et al
Peterson et al
Jones et al., 1985
Karl and Williams
1987; Gullett et al.
1990; Heino, 1994
(and many more, also referenced in the link above)
http://www.realcl...sources/

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
Mass gains of Antarctic Ice Sheet greater than losses, NASA study reports November 7, 2015, 3:23 pm 1 Noumenon
whats the matter Nou?
you don't like it when i point out your problems... say it isn't science

but when i post validated science and studies proving you are being an idiot, it is also not science?

Hypocrisy at it's finest!
Thanks for validating everything i posted about you above, demonstrating your hypocrisy as noted by Mag and Green, and then showing everyone that you aren't here for anything except stroking your own ego and obfuscating the science!
much like your post here:
The "bad things" scenario presumes that humanity will not migrate and adapt,.. which historical evidence proves is a fallacy.
http://phys.org/n...ial.html

and now you know why you are downrated!
LMFAO
thanks, nou
i couldn't have explained it nearly as effectively as you demonstrated it!

PS- i knew you would do that! predictable!
LOL
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2015
Hi jim_xanara. :)
When you walk out the front door in the morning and you see a big steaming pile of doggie doo on the sidewalk, do you greet it?
When exchanges become clogged with distracting personal insults and trollish 'noise', it's time to bring out 'the big gun' of debating------unrelenting politeness (yes, even towards the most self-demonstrated malignant types). :)

That way it soon becomes unambiguous who is the mercenary/political/religious/ego-driven mindless shill/troll and who is the reasonable objective science motivated mind.

It worked a treat clarifying the air with Shootist/dogbert; I politely showed Freeman Dyson agrees AGW is fact but is at a loss what to do. Politeness 'shook their trees' more successfully than continued hostility ever could: they too now agree AGW is real. :)

Similarly, politeness will help 'distill' the essence of what 'points' Noumenon is 'arguing', so we, he and I, can politely and unambiguously clarify misunderstandings. :)
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 07, 2015
@CS, I don't know what your point is in your last post???!!!

"The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for.....We believe the satellite measurements since 1979 provide a more robust measure of global temperatures, and both satellite research groups see virtually the same pause in global temperatures for the last 18 years ," - Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville

" [Karl's pause denial paper] is a highly speculative and slight paper that produces a statistically marginal result by cherry-picking time intervals, resulting in a global temperature graph that is at odds with all other surface temperature datasets, as well as those compiled via satellite." - http://www.thegwp...gerated/
antigoracle
1 / 5 (4) Nov 07, 2015
I politely showed Freeman Dyson agrees AGW is fact but is at a loss what to do

Really, a wiki page. Where in the actual reference does he say what you claim?
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) Nov 07, 2015
@CS, I don't know what your point is in your last post???!!!

" - Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville"
Quoting long discredited misinformers doesn't advance your claims. It bears repeating that Spencer was responsible for one of the most obvious and easily caught errors in the history of remote sensing — he committed multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and created one of ther most laughable of denier myths; he claimed that the satellite data didn't show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.His work was shown to be shoddy and without merit.

One wonders why you would quote him in any serious discussion about the science of climatology.
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
I don't know what your point is in your last post
@nou
try reading it
it is self explanatory: you are a hypocrite/liar
you don't like it when i point out your problems... say it isn't science
but when i post validated science and studies proving you are being an idiot, it is also not science?
+ it points out that you LIE about "I don't need you to "inform" me of what science is" because, apparently, you ignore that which you don't like (because politics? philo? religion? conspiracy? what?)

You just demonstrated your intent, your obfuscation, your trolling and down-rating tactics and hypocrisy (esp. WRT rating and your claims re: science)
I don't downrate anyone now except with Noumenon, and only in response to arbitrary, bias, or unfair ratings
and i've up & down -rated your comments above based on content- whereas you have...?
see what i mean?
no, you can't see your own personal flaws

cont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
@nou cont'd
but then (as i see Maggnus has noted) you want to bring out a discredited liar as evidence of something?
Roy Spencer
shall i discuss levels of evidence yet again?
how about this? http://www.auburn...ion.html

it is easy to find random links that support your position, however, if you want to discuss the "science" then you should look for claims that are validated, don't you think?
esp. WRT things like temp adjustment

the studies above noted that IOT standardize measurement, we must all be on the same page (IOW- it doesn't mean just time of day, but also note issues that affect temp measurement, like age of equipment or surrounding influences, parking lots, etc)

so, i posted to you a STUDY and references, but in return you linked a discredited DR and then AN ARTICLE

how is that validation of your claims?
I can link proof that Irish believe in Leprechauns, but that doesn't make them REAL, does it?
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 07, 2015
@nou cont'd
more importantly, this is NOT a singular event with you, nor is it the first time you have denied evidence for the sake of personal argument or belief

this is what my posts above RE: intent and your problems with philo are referring to
this is also why you down-rate arbitrarily and try to justify it as "in response to arbitrary, bias, or unfair ratings"

you don't like to admit you are wrong, nor that you have the problem

this is what Green and others have been saying (including myself)
you are NOT HERE for science
you're here to argue, or to stoke your own ego with what YOU perceive to be intellectual discussion

i would go on, but you will ignore it all anyway

@MAGGNUS
GREAT POSTS
thanks!
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 07, 2015
@CS, I put you on ignore for a while, because I can't stand reading your Jerry-Springer gibberish. You post like an old women.

@CS, I don't know what your point is in your last post???!!!

" - Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville"
Quoting long discredited misinformers doesn't advance your claims.

Well of course maggnus, it is simply a truism that if you question the narrative and challenge obvious a-priori bias manipulation of data analysis, you de facto have become discredited.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 07, 2015
it is simply a truism that if you question the narrative and challenge obvious a-priori bias manipulation of data analysis, you de facto have become discredited
@nou
if you (or Dr roy) had valid evidence, you would not only hold nobel prizes, you would be marketed by every oil/gas/coal company on the planet as a "hero"

-this goes to your "intent" as well as your failure to recognize evidence

and since you think blogs are equivalent to studies:
http://blog.hotwh...ion.html

http://blog.hotwh...ier.html

more important: why would dr roy intentionally make a non-peer reviewed opinion piece on a blog look like a scientific paper?
http://www.drroys...esponse/

this goes to intent
it also violates the scientific method

care to elaborate on that one, since you are a follower?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 07, 2015
@CS, I put you on ignore for a while, because I can't stand reading your Jerry-Springer gibberish
@nou
ah, the hypocrisy knows no bounds then?
fascinating... too bad you will miss this post

funny thing is, you can't see where you have actually undermined your arguments as well as demonstrated and validated my arguments above!
remember: YOU demonstrated your lies/hypocrisy
i just let you do it!
LMFAO

thanks for continuing to validate my claims, though... i will continue to point out your hypocrisy just like i did with dung, alchie and everyone else

this is, BTW, a point Green was making above (as well as I):
you like to think your arguments are logical and intellectual, up until you are refuted with scientific evidence (like above)

want to know more about Nou and his type of pseudo-intellectual trolling?
https://www.psych...ttle-ego
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (13) Nov 07, 2015
My mame is an old woman. And she is probably is the smartest Skippette I know.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 07, 2015
You post like an old women.


Wow - Noumenon wants to present as an informed philosopher - but does not realize that displaying misogyny on an open forum is not a good way to impress. Note to Noumenon - we don't insult people by calling them females any more - OK? Many women contribute greatly to our world - and don't deserve your ignorance.


I live many light-years from your asinine PC and faux untra-sensitive world.... and don't put up with insults without returning the favour.

In the midst of more of your subjective critiques of form of argument, you inadvertently made a substantive and valid point. There are several other articles claiming Gates thinks "socialism is the solution", and having reread a few more, I don't see this claim as valid either. While his arguments are convoluted,... he seems to be just saying that there is little profit motive in the private sector in the short term,... and emphasizes funding of basic energy research, which I concur.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2015
Pointing out your misogyny is not insult - just pretty matter of fact.

Yes, you have wasted a lot of posts and extended this thread to far with a wide spectrum of your self-righteous and emotionally subjective critique of my "behaviour", none of which was substantive to the points being made, except inadvertently. Posters like you and CS think you can analyze ones character through the internet, and the results are turning a science site into jerry-springers facebook page.

Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2015
The emotionally driven ultra-sensitivity of Politically-Correct bed-wetting liberals, feigning offense at every opportunity, is what tears countries apart.

you inadvertently made a substantive and valid point.

I did a little digging with google - and cleaned your clock. Nothing inadvertent at all.


It was inadvertent in the sense that you use that post as "an example" for another one of your off-topic generalizations of my character, as if in the hope of rendering all my posts invalid, such is your demented mind,.... for otherwise you would have addressed that one hundred posts ago.

And don't push your luck, Gates actually did say some pseudo-socialistic things in that interview, like referring to the problems of democracy and that presidential powers should be extended implying congressional powers (state power) should be limited.

However, I granted you that concession anyway because you had finally made a substantive counter point.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2015
So it seems this is all about point and counter point to you

That's what a constructive discussion IS. If you're leveling accusations, for which the bulk of my posts above were in defence of, you're not engaging in discussion.

Eg. CS complains whenever he thinks I'm making philosophical or political comments [because of his intellectual immaturity, is offends him?], yet never articulates any actual substance about the content of those comments,... just objects to their form. His claim is that "this is a science site", despite that all 20 of his posts above contain zero substantive scientific facts, which can't be stated of mine, and his irrelevant behaviour actively extends the number of nonsense posts. ....

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2015
.... this behaviour earns him 5's.

You're doing a similar disservice, perhaps falsely encouraged by those same provenly corrupt ratings, by being more interested in leveling accusations and earning 5's from the gaia-cabal, than seeking an understanding of ones pov.

I thought liberals wanted diversity,.... just not diversity of ideology or opinion it appears.

Feigning concern over the integrity of the comment section all the while being instrumental in its degeneracy, is disingenuous at minimum.

QED
Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2015
Your charge of me being an political alarmist, is despite history and despite your particular lack of awareness of present political elements pushing AGW-Alarmism.

you are a hypocrite/liar ...[.....].... you don't like to admit you are wrong


You were shut off for your arbitrary accusations. Here are a few quotes from me in this thread....

"OK, if that is true, then I stand corrected on that point."

"More knowledgeable posters could explain better."

"it seems funnier when I do it though"

"I reread your post and see you stated "GW" and not "AGW"."

"but honestly don't know too much about AGW technically,"

", that is a good point, I guess you are right..."

"I granted you that concession anyway because you had finally made a substantive counter point."

Captain Stumpy
3.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2015
despite that all 20 of his posts above contain zero substantive scientific facts
@nou
why is it that when i DID post studies and facts, you ignored it and then ran away?
you claimed zero substantive scientific facts, but when i DID post scientific facts, you ran away
I don't know what your point is in your last post
then tried to substantiate your claims with a debunked fraud and an article, all debunked by the science, to which your reply was
I put you on ignore for a while
Maggnus destroyed your argument, and then i destroyed your argument (with links and references, BTW) but you didn't want to address that part of it

that would mean admitting to conspiracist ideation and your proven hypocrisy as well as chronic lying and red herrings

so tell us: why didn't you address ANY of the studies i linked?
and why post a fraud and article as though it was equivalent to a study?

Captain Stumpy
3.3 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2015
Feigning concern over the integrity of the comment section all the while being instrumental in its degeneracy, is disingenuous at minimum
And again you fail to see the irony
@Green
ROTFLMFAO

right on the money, Green!

maybe you should ask nou why she didn't even address the actual science that i posted when she started crying above?

ask her why she didn't discuss any of the references i posted?

she wanted to talk about the "conspiracy" of altering the data, but refused to even attempt to discuss the science behind the links & references i gave WRT said data and why...
(which was the reason i linked them)

but she is here for the science, right?
ROTFLMFAO

wish i could have given you 100stars for that comment!
Noumenon
2 / 5 (8) Nov 08, 2015
Well, yes, they did. They adjusted bouy data based on ship data so they could reanalyze the trend away using an alternative statistical analysis...blah blah blah The "fix" only exposes the malleability of the data and will be telling if the climatology industry does not challenging this behaviour
this is called conspiracist ideation as well as a false claim


"Another study, led by Thomas Karl, the director of the National Centers for Environmental Information of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and published recently in the journal Science, found that many of the ocean buoys used to measure sea surface temperatures during the past couple of decades gave cooler readings than measurements gathered from ships. The NOAA group suggested that by correcting the buoy measurements, the hiatus signal disappears. "

antigoracle
1.6 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2015
@CS, I don't know what your point is in your last post???!!!

" - Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville"
Quoting long discredited misinformers doesn't advance your claims. It bears repeating that Spencer was responsible for one of the most obvious and easily caught errors in the history of remote sensing — he committed multiple errors in analyzing the satellite data and created one of ther most laughable of denier myths; he claimed that the satellite data didn't show the global warming that the surface temperature data did.His work was shown to be shoddy and without merit.

One wonders why you would quote him in any serious discussion about the science of climatology.

So magganus why don't you point us to where you found this - "His work was shown to be shoddy and without merit."
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2015
I mentioned 'reinterpreting the data' and 'alternative statistical analysis' as well. The original question was why they felt the need for manipulation of bouy data and ' reinterpretation' in the first place,... since the pause had no baring on capacity of the AGW models for long term predictability .
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2015
IOW, i'm not claiming that they're doing anything beyond what they have themselves admitted to. They have shown the willingness to manipulate data and statistically reinterprete analysis at will,..... it's malleability. They should be challenged wrt the particular case cited, not hailed as heros.
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (10) Nov 08, 2015
You're not paying attention. I already know the base readings are adjusted. I stated this above. But that was already done, you see. There was the 18 year pause, acknowledged by the climatologists community and the IPCC. That was based on readings that were adjusted.

Now we come to Karl, ....why was the data adjusted again? Why another statistical analysis performed? It is indeed suspicious and indeed exposes malleability of results, when it was never necessary.

We KNOW that data is often adjusted. It is a standard part of the scientific process


Actually this is not true generally in science. Much effort and expense is expended calibrating gauges to NIST standards, in addition to much work and innovation to excluded contaiminating influences.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2015
I already phrased my question numerous times. The 18 year pause was inconvenient, but still was acknowledged by the IPCC as fact. It was already part of accepted data analysis for over a decade. The climatologists argument to counter deniers referencing "the pause" was always that that trend is too short term and thus has no baring on long term trends for which the models are only designed to predict. The question once again,.... what motivate them to manipulate the data analysis now,... why correct bouy data using ship data, and reinterprete at all.
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Nov 08, 2015
Actually this is not true generally in science.

But it is true in a field like climate science - So why do you even need to make this comment?


Because you stated,... "data is often adjusted. It is a standard part of the scientific process",... so referencing "the scientific process" implies making a general statement, which was patently false for the statement you made. Pay attention.
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)
Really, a wiki page. Where in the actual reference does he say what you claim?
Shootist et al posted Dyson quotes like...
"the Polar Bears will be just fine"
....in misleading attempt to imply that Dyson did not agree AGW was real and due to CO2 emissions from burned fossil fuels. To counter Shootist's misleading "Dyson quotes' campaign, I just posted this from wiki referring to Dyson's own writings on the issue...

https://en.wikipe..._warming

...
Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas...."


Shootist now has to admit Dyson knows AGW is real, however imperfect the models/predictions. Do you agree that AGW is real and caused by our fossil fuel burning CO2 emissions, antigoracle? :)
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)
"Alarmist"
Would you also call volcanologists who warn of/predict imminent danger based on trending-but-imperfect data/modeling "alarmists"?

Data "manipulation"
The Stanford study SEPARATELY modeled BOTH the buoy and the ship sensor data to compare the modeled trends. Each/Both showed a rising warming trend. So each data set separately confirmed "no hiatus". Then they looked at why the datasets/modelings showed unexpected variation....and realized that the previous models were using statistical/analytical techniques originally designed for biological systems, not climate system; latter has more temporal/geographical real-time variations/correlations that couldn't be properly embodied in analysis/prediction without further 'adjustment/compensation' for both erroneous buoy data AND inappropriate models. Hence combined/adjusted analysis now also confirm "no hiatus". Scientific method and correction in action....sans politics/personality. :)

[cont...]
RealityCheck
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 08, 2015
[...cont]

Re characerizations/accusations:
"Leftist/Liberal/Political Agenda etc"
Are you calling Freeman Dyson a Leftist/Liberal? Can you admit the reality? It was the combined propaganda campaign/tactics of the GOP/Religious/Fossil Lobbies which made the climate debate 'political' issue; not the leftists/Liberals, who were just following the science long before the 'right wing' mercenary/political/religious DENIERS started to use 'paid-for' so-called 'data/scientists' to muddy/pollute the discourse to prevent govts taking reasonably informed action to ameliorate/prevent worst of climate change effects and change course towards renewables? Just like the Big Tobacco/Alcohol/Asbestos lobby did with respect to the respective science in those areas which warned of harm involved, but those interests paid off so-called 'scientists' to lie/muddy those conversations/science. Did you also call HONEST scientists, warning against harm then, "alarmists"?

Drop the politics etc. :)
antigoracle
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 08, 2015
Here you realitycheck, read the actual reference your wiki page took out of context.
http://edge.org/c...-society
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2015
Hi antigoracle. :)

No. I posted fuller context to Shootist:

http://phys.org/n...html#jCp

[from wiki:] Dyson agrees that anthropogenic global warming exists, and has written that "[one] of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."[55] However, he believes that existing simulation models of climate fail to account for some important factors, and hence the results will contain too much error to reliably predict future trends:
...Dyson's quibble is ONLY with climate 'modeling' reliability, and NOT climate change fact/causes per se.
See, antigoracle? Context was Dyson agrees re CO2 emissions from coal etc burning, but skeptical/unsure re modeling/prediction/action etc.

FYI, I too often pointed out lacks/errors in modeling/predictions due to facile/inappropriate analysis/incomplete/disconnected inputs/factors etc

[cont...]
RealityCheck
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 08, 2015
[...cont]

But modeling/inputs/factors set has been improving to include many things previously missed.

So Dyson wasn't only one who acknowledged AGW is real/trending warmer. I did too! Unlike Dyson, however, I didn't commit very same errors he accused climate scientists/modelers/predictors of making!

Dyson, while acknowledging AGW, was even MORE 'all over the shop' when it came to identifying actual factors/mechanism for 'natural amelioration/compensation' for AGW effects on "natural CO2 sink" capability/rates of soil/ocean for increased AGW atmos CO2.

His views many years old, equally faulty/incomplete understanding of capacity re natural systems absorbing increased CO2 to prevent CO2/AGW effects from reaching Greenhouse 'tipping point' situation.

He missed Methane mass release risk from permafrost (soils) and clathrates/hydrates (seabeds). He missed increaed heat, extreme/droughts/floods disturb 'natural sink' capacity (destroy soil fertility/disturb sediments).

:)
thermodynamics
4.4 / 5 (7) Nov 08, 2015
Nou said:
IOW, i'm not claiming that they're doing anything beyond what they have themselves admitted to. They have shown the willingness to manipulate data and statistically reinterprete analysis at will,..... it's malleability. They should be challenged wrt the particular case cited, not hailed as heros.


Nou, the data reinterpretation is under review by an unfriendly congress. If there is any fire among the smoke, the committee will root it out. I suspect they will just quietly drop the topic once they do the analysis in-house. However, if you are right and it has been manipulated improperly, you will see a hue and cry from the right as the election cycle gets going. So, lets agree to revisit this in a few months after the committee has had a chance to analyze the data. Can we agree that if the committee finds no wrong doing, there was no wrong doing or are you going to stick to your approach of branding it a conspiracy even if no conspiracy if found?
antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 09, 2015
extreme/droughts/floods

There you go again, spewing the usual unsubstantiated AGW drivel.
Find me a single peer-reviewed study that conclusively blame AGW for any observed extreme weather.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2015
"Another study, led by Thomas Karl...
@nou
wow, if only we could read the study they reference in that article: OH WAIT
http://download.s...898990d0

but that's not all... that study also references (drum roll please) "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" http://www.scienc...242/1469

now... where did i see this already? OH, right
for evidence, see:
Karl et al
Peterson et al

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2015
ok, so here is the funniest part of that whole post nou gave, which has the part here

"Another study, led by Thomas Karl...
this is the science that he IGNORED when i posted it, but somehow he wants to use it as justification for his conspiracist ideation????
LMFAO

he didnt read the studies

but then he also assumes that an "article" is somehow equivalent to a study, and so uses an article he doesn't understand, cherry-picked out a phrase that didn't mean what he thought it meant, and then completely ignored the studies linked therein

worse yet, this is not something that is singular, but something that has been worked on since the 1980's (as noted in the references)

ah, but nou is here for the science...

ri-i-i-i-i-ight!

hypocrisy at it's finest, slathered in blatant self-ignorance & Dunning-Kruger while cherry-picking a known fallacy as justification for a delusion
you go, nou!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2015
The original question ...the need for manipulation ...
@nou
and if you would have read Karl et al (linked in that article you quoted) and the Peterson reference i gave, you would have had your answer
Peterson is also in the Karl references, but there is also another that both Peterson and Karl worked on that is related to "bias" issues WRT instrumentation and measurements
They have shown the willingness to manipulate data and statistically reinterprete analysis at will
READ THE STUDIES

the adjustments are for a reason: more info here http://www.scienc...l-SM.pdf

I already phrased my question numerous times
and i've answered this to you and others numerous times, with links to studies, which you promptly ignored

WHY NOT READ THE STUDIES?

then maybe you can argue points from the studies instead of saying "why did they do that"?

PluviAL
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 09, 2015
Are science minded people so egotistical? These conversations are so juvenile. The people with snarky names tease the people with self deprecating ones, and then the interactions degrade into meaningless ad homonymous chatter.
The issue at had is marvelously interesting, as many start to argue, like if SLR (Sea Level Rise has is increasing despite negative Antarctic contribution, thus, SLR is worse than though, or that there may be errors to correct.
Consider that one mm of SLR is roughly 360 GT (billion tons). If W-Antarctica is contributing say 1 mm -a (per year) and E-Antarctica is absorbing 1.1 mm per year then the continental mass balance is shifting by 2.1 GT per year.
Increased seismic activity in Antarctica, when reinterpret may show increased seismic activity in the rest of the planet too, and so all tectonic activity may be affected. This could in turn lead to a better motive force for tectonic dynamics. Current core convection cells is a really bad alternative.
PluviAL
3 / 5 (2) Nov 09, 2015
OK, tectonic plate motivation may be to far to carry here, but how about this: Of course Antarctica should be gaining mass. The atmosphere reacts faster to energy loads than the oceans, its mass is 800 times less per volume. Thus, additional energy means additional water load with net atmospheric travel in one direction; to the poles. The ocean carries mass in the other direction; to the equatorial bulge.
What is really cool, is that with simple thermodynamics we can create a machine to engage, and harvest the 10 to the 21st joules, of additional energy from CO2 forcing in the atmosphere, into production for civilization. What is even more cool is that production of fresh water onto land is a natural way to do that. What is cooler yet, pun intended, is that this process involves accelerating the natural heat sink from the planet by increased atmospheric radiation into space. (radiation = change in temp Kelvin to the 4th power)
Not getting childish about this is interesting.
Noumenon
2.3 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2015
"Bottom line: the "no upward trend" has to continue for a total of 15 years before we get worried"" - Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

They're now getting worried, ....evidently.

Can we agree that if the committee finds no wrong doing, there was no wrong doing or are you going to stick to your approach of branding it a conspiracy....

They're not going to find anything wrong with the mechanics of the analysis itself, as is in statistical analysis generally, it's the motive premise behind the analysis that matters. IOW one could mathematically validly analyze a data set to make statements that vary with motive (obviously the reinterpretation cited is a clear example).

However, Yes, I will agree that if that committee finds no questionable motive behind that analysis, which is to say, that is not in conflict with the models capacity to predict long term trends,.... then I will concede, w/caveat...
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2015
I don't believe that there is a conscious concerted conspiracy going on in the AGW industry,.. but rather in an atmosphere where skeptics are attacked and concerted calls for prosecution and "climate justice" tribunals are set up, it becomes less likely that the industry challenges itself.

Nou, the data reinterpretation is under review by an unfriendly congress.

While I would say that there should be no one on that committee that rejects a core science that is a consensus in the first place,.... in this case, I'm glad there is.

That oversight committee's entire purpose for existing is in ensuring that tax payer funded science organizations are not corrupt. This means they (we) have a right to every syllable written by those responsible for that reanalysis, including emails. The emails are in fact the key, because that is where the motive or justification for the reanalysis will be. The statistical reinterpretation itself will be, de facto sound.

Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2015
Here is the reason that not only should skeptics, but the non-skeptical AGW-industry itself should challenge this transparent attempt at "fixing" an inconvenient truth,....

"We don't fully understand how to input things like changes in the oceans, and because we don't fully understand it you could say that natural variability is now working to suppress the warming. We don't know what natural variability is doing." - Professor Phil Jones, director of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia

.... so therefore as I stated a hundred posts ago,... there is no scientific basis given the implied limit of the models to long-term trend capability, to "correct" through reanalysis, short-term trends in data.

I don't have time to clunk the rest of you numbskulls heads together, like Moe, at present,.... so why not for once do this yourself?
Noumenon
2 / 5 (12) Nov 09, 2015
Because you stated,... "data is often adjusted. It is a standard part of the scientific process",... so referencing "the scientific process" implies making a general statement, which was patently false for the statement you made.
This is technically an accurate statement [though] - as climate science is a part of the wider body of science. As we are talking about climate science - your statement
Actually this is not true generally in science.
is just a distraction - unnecessary -

In fact, I thought your statement was a distraction to obfuscate the point being discussed,... adjusting sensor readings.
and reflects your general tone of trying to be superior.

Another subjective critique of my motives. You're like a brain surgeon who wears oven-mits. I require no effort in being superior,.. that's where you're wrong :)
Noumenon
2.2 / 5 (13) Nov 09, 2015

dear thermodynamics,

[ ] check here if you love me
[ ] check here if you hate me

dear greenonions,

[ ] check here if you love me
[ ] check here if you hate me

We used to do this in grade school, but yea, continue abusing the rating system, seems like the only recourse you have.

EDIT: the above caveat was the emails are turned over.
Noumenon
2.1 / 5 (11) Nov 09, 2015
Not if one is logically contingent on the other occurring first,... i.e. I would have to no need for the recourse of invalidating troll raters, had there not been any in the first place. Also, the real reason is because my doing so obviously annoys you. Everyone of my posts deserve a 1?, ....not a 2 or even a 3? Abuse of the system as established, invalidates those raters. End of story.

You would waste less time and frustration if you recognized the a-priori limits in internet discord, ....that is, if you gave up the impossible task of making accusations about ones personal character through the internet,... a task likened to a brain surgeon who wears oven-mits.

What you call 'a rabbit hole' is what I regard as critical thinking, a necessity in science generally,.... albeit obviously not necessarily a requirement for AGW-Alarmist nor AGW-Enthusiasts. Have a pleasant day.

Bulbuzor
2.6 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2015
Damn this thread continued quite a long way
jeffensley
1.7 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2015
there is no scientific basis given the implied limit of the models to long-term trend capability, to "correct" through reanalysis, short-term trends in data.


Well said though no one here wants to hear it. People who are supposedly science-minded don't like it when people point out that utilizing models as predictors from which concrete action is supposed to take place boils down to Faith. They believe we should take action because their higher power (in this case a computer simulation) says we should.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 09, 2015
I already phrased my question numerous times

and i've answered this to you and others numerous times, with links to studies, which you promptly ignored

I'm obviously not doubting whether or not Karl etc have their own justifications for their reanalysis,.... the question is whether that analysis itself introduces bias and is valid. I've provided a link above myself that innumerates various objections and concerns. I've ask a specific question. Stop being so naive to think that just because a convenient study is published "it must be right because it's science",.... it's not one that even claims to be accurate short term.

I've removed you from ignore,... please back off on the insulting tone.

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2015
Stop being so naive to think that just because a convenient study is published
@nou
first off, it is not about "a convenient study" being published: if you will note, Karl and Peterson have a history of tracking measurement problems and inconsistencies for decades. this is not a topic of "oh, lets just put this here because we can't make the data look good any other way... conspiracy theorists will go ape-sh*t"

this is a historical tracked problem, starting as far back as at least the 1980's (at least, that's as far back as i noted in other historical posts)

i've also linked a historical study that discussed equipment exposure, measurement bias due to non-standardization and more... this is very applicable to the topic in that, just like measuring a bar of metal, if temperature, barometric pressure and more isn't noted, it can skew the measurements

this is also my point WRT your argument of data manipulation
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2015
@nou cont'd
just because a convenient study is published "it must be right because it's science"
and i've never said that a singular study must be correct because it is science... i've argued that it is far more relevant than an article or an opinion because of evidence, but never that it such unless it is validated
and you know that (although you don't like to admit it)

i know i can have bias as well: when certain posters say "but if you look at this artice..." i am usually dismissive because of historical posts re: denial tendencies ot argument tactics
however, this is NOT a singular study, and it has a long history of supporting information....especially considering the authors and that they've typically been investigating some fo the problems of measurement WRT AGW and it's non-standardized practices (in most cases) like timing, equipment problems, etc

i've posted a lot of info on this (to you and others) in the past

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2015
@nou cont'd
which brings me full circle to this argument above: you posted an article which is, in itself, an opinion of something. it is not evidence of something (and i've always stated this in the past: levels of evidence as well as this http://www.auburn...ion.html )

if you had better information, i would not be as derisive, especially as this is an issue that has been rehashed here on PO for over a year
as for this part
please back off on the insulting tone
i believed myself to be responding in like manner due to your accusations in my first post to you above, as well as what i viewed to be hypocritical behaviour

Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 09, 2015
@nou
and yes, i have downrated your posts

typically i don't rate your posts unless i don't agree with something in it or i percieve condescension and derision thinly veiled
when i do rate, it is typically a 5 or 1

Above is 1 because of things like this
I require no effort in being superior,.. that's where you're wrong
What you call 'a rabbit hole' is what I regard as critical thinking
typically, when one does critical thinking, one supplies evidence that can support said critical thinking...
my problem with your "critical thinking" is that you've based your arguments on evidence that is at best an interpretation of evidence...

this is why i downrated you above, and it is why i don't agree with your assessments of the data being referenced in the historical studies, or even the most recent Karl study

until you can produce better evidence or demonstrate flaws to get retractions (a continuing argument of mine here) then it is more OPINION than evidence, really

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2015


"The treatment of the buoy sea-surface temperature (SST) data was guaranteed to put a warming trend in recent data. They were adjusted upwards 0.12°C to make them "homogeneous" with the longer-running temperature records taken from engine intake channels in marine vessels. As has been acknowledged by numerous scientists, the engine intake data are clearly contaminated by heat conduction from the structure, and they were never intended for scientific use. On the other hand, environmental monitoring is the specific purpose for the buoys. Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data."
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (9) Nov 09, 2015
"The greatest changes in the new NOAA surface temperature analysis is to the ocean temperatures since 1998. This seems rather ironic, since this is the period where there is the greatest coverage of data with the highest quality of measurements...."
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2015
@nou
you didn't like the source
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 09, 2015
@nou
you didn't like the source

excuse me: this should read "LINK" the source
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2015
@nou
you didn't [link] the source


They were opinions from climatologists who read the Karl study who don't deny the core science. I'm not going to link the sources, because as already pointed out above, it doesn't matter,.... if they don't comply with the general narrative, de facto they're attacked and considered cranks, idiots, etc,.... meanwhile Karl is hailed a hero for rearranging the short term data to fit a long term narrative.

And calling "for evidence" is patently naïve wrt this particular messy field of science. The "evidence" was already existent by the industries own admission,... all Karl et al are doing is rearranging furniture to give better aesthetic appearances.

antigoracle
1.5 / 5 (8) Nov 10, 2015
@nou
you didn't like the source

excuse me: this should read "LINK" the source

--Captain Stupid
Both posts rated 5s by the Chicken Littles. Yet they protest any mention that they are in a cult. This is the blind ignorance that the cult relies on, when it's time to dispense the special Kool-Aid.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2015
They were opinions from climatologists who read the Karl study
@Nou
lets try that again:
you didn't link the source
I'm not going to link the sources...it doesn't matter
actually, it does
might i reiterate a point WRT claims?
http://www.auburn...ion.html

And calling "for evidence" is patently naïve wrt this particular messy field of science
this is a philosophical argument: science is entirely based upon evidence, not opinions of evidence
all Karl et al are doing is rearranging furniture to give better aesthetic appearances
and yet, if Karl ignored things like "change in equipment and a homogenization of the data" you would be arguing that outdated equipment (or known characteristics of the environment) alter or skew the data b/c of things like: exposure, degradation of equipment, timing, standardization, etc

so that is a catch 22 circular argument
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 10, 2015
@nou cont'd
so when you state
I'm not going to link the sources...calling "for evidence" is patently naïve
it either demonstrates that:
1- you don't want to accept the valid evidence because of a belief or predetermined prejudice
OR
2- you are intentionally arguing for a known false claim and don't want to get caught

(there is also a third option of a circular philosophical argument for the sake of argument or personal gratification, but that's already been addressed above)

are you attempting to build a strawman?

there is a difference between an opinion and a fact (see: http://www.auburn...ion.html )

the scientific method is not opinion based, and requires evidence to support a claim
I am asking for support for your claims in order to argue a valid, evidence based argument (argument from science) so that the subject is clear, concise and can't be "misconstrued" or "misinterpreted"

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2015
Stop arguing philosophically about what science is idealistically.

There was "valid evidence" for a 18 year pause such that it was accepted as fact by many climatologists and even by IPCC (despite 'missing heat') ,... so by your own simplistic understanding of science, you should be refuting Karl et al,... or at minimum accepting the analysis of every climatologists even if their conclusions differ,... as does Karl and other data sets.

However, the above questioning has to do with the validity of the analysis of evidence, ... certainly not raw evidence, which if existed he wouldn't have been able to move the furniture around.

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

Your agreement, and Dyson's, Shootist's, dogbert's, that AGW real, is a good 'consensus position' to proceed from. So, briefly....

Your suggestion (and mine also) that we should be undertaking a "Manhattan-Project-like" concerted effort towards renewables/adaptations etc to forestall/remedy whatever problems AGW is likely to present sooner than later, is commendable and good prudent objective. Unlike the US "Manhattan-Project" however, which was necessarily limited to US govt, any climate change efforts must include all countries/talents/resources/co-operation etc if we are to succeed.

That is exactly what IPCC/UN have been trying to get us all to agree/do! :)

But self-serving mercenary/egotistical/anti-science GOP/Coal/Oil/Religious 'lying/denial/politics' campaigns have been spending vast sums on sabotaging all reasonable attempts to date towards global "Manhattan-Project-like" co-operative action.

Time/Luxury for 'games' is running out fast. Yes/No?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 10, 2015
@RC
Never in history has the major countries agreed on anything,... even when faced with potentially and actually millions of deaths. Putin has recently called AGW a myth. A international agreement by its nature is unbinding. Why doesn't it exist yet?

The UN has failed in the most basic of tasks,... it's proposed solutions as stated above, are politically exclusive,... and focused on the wrong end of the problem, in regulation of a key component of existing economies, and redistribution of wealth,... it operates counter to economic realities, orders of magnitude harder than operating along with it.

The US government can't even balance its own budget,... so it is irresponsible imo to believe in the fantasy that all major nations will agree to and succeed at regulating energy use without tanking economies.

I don't trust that approach,... and the reality is we are still increasing coal and oil consumption globally.
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (12) Nov 10, 2015
But self-serving mercenary/egotistical/anti-science GOP/Coal/Oil/Religious 'lying/denial/politics' campaigns have been spending vast sums on sabotaging all reasonable attempts to date towards global [...] co-operative action.


This is a myth. Big energy companies don't care what form energy comes in, only that that source is in demand such that it is viable in the market for return on investment. If monkey-farts could power your car and home at vast scale and compete with oil/coal, then there would be heavy investment in monkey farms, and the same investors in oil would switch over. Of course big oil will protect its industry from attack, lacking such alternatives,... as well as they should.

The problem is a technological problem,.... time is running out for naïveté and far-left ideology, yes?

RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2015
Hi Noumenon. :)

That is 'legacy' history: ignorance, violence, superstition, short-term self-interest etc.

But never in history have all countries faced a common threat in an age of internet communications/knowledge 'platform/access' which can inform everyone concerned as to the science/options regarding a truly global common threat to all countries. Just because we were all crazy/ignorant twerps in the past it does not mean we can never learn and progress away from such historical state/legacy and make a new beginning based on the common global reality we all now know we are all in together now that global AGW threat is agreed as real by all thinking people irrespective of what they think we should/shouldn't do about it.

And Putin would deny/lie like that; he sells oil/arms to finance his murderous paranoiac/megalomaniac power/adventures. He and Koch Bros/GOP etc are 'alike'.

But modern world is bigger than 'dinosaur' Putin despot and 'loony' GOP/Koch Bros idiots. :)
RealityCheck
2.3 / 5 (9) Nov 10, 2015
Hi again, Noumenon. :)
Big energy companies don't care what form energy comes in, only that that source is in demand such that it is viable in the market for return on investment. ... Of course big oil will protect its industry..
Just as in the early days of coal/oil establishing economies of scale and cost/technical etc efficiencies were encouraged/assisted financially and via other hidden subsidy/support (even to this day!), the new renewable industries, and the respective technical evolutionary trajectories which they are currently on, also have case for support/subsidy, especially during early stage. Yes/No?

There is one 'dimension' which coal/oil never had to face: imminent/developing climate change disaster unless we act FAST. Alternative Energy developments don't have time/luxury for slow buildup like coal/oil industries had.

Sabotage by entrenched coal/oil/GOP interests is anti-humanity; especially if sabotage is to PREVENT expediting alternatives. Yes/No? :)
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2015
Stop arguing philosophically about what science is idealistically
@Nou
i am not
science, and the scientific method, can only progress on evidence

evidence is what can be proven empirically, and then validated (like through second part repetition)

evidence is the key word because : https://en.wikipe...evidence

There was "valid evidence" for a 18 year pause
and yet, if Karl ignored things like "change in equipment and a homogenization of the data" you would be arguing that outdated equipment (or known characteristics of the environment) alter or skew the data b/c of things like: exposure, degradation of equipment, timing, standardization, etc

circular argument and nonsensical- again
which leads into
the above questioning has to do with the validity of the analysis of evidence, ... certainly not raw evidence
and raw evidence that is not accurate cannot give accurate predictions
2Bcont
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2015
@Nou cont'd
so if you have raw data that is slightly off because of the reasons Peterson and Karl have been working on, then you would see (or not see) something

logically speaking, the only way to make a good decision is to insure your data is of the best caliber as well as accurate as possible: which then can lead to more accurate information as well as better results with prediction

which is more accurate?
the data you know to be correct?
or the data you don't know is incorrect?

Karl and Peterson found out that there were problems, and sought solutions to the problem
Once you know there is a problem, you can often find a solution
this is the very point of the alteration of data you are so afraid of, BTW

more to the point:
unless you can provide empirical evidence of the same caliber demonstrating it is false, then you are simply arguing from ignorance
(well, and conspiracy)

its not enough to say it's wrong
you gotta prove it too

now where are those links?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2015
so by your own simplistic understanding of science, you should be refuting Karl et al
@Nou
1- waiting for those links still... if you are gonna quote evidence, you should also link or quote the source

2- WHICH Karl et al paper? be specific

a singular piece of evidence can be important, but in science, it is validation that is the king

this is one reason I am supportive of the most recent Karl paper ( here: http://www.scienc...469.full ) - because there is evidence supporting the reasoning for the bias (all the former Karl/Peterson papers)

this leads right back to "the validity of the analysis of evidence", if you read the other Karl papers (and Peterson, and some others)

had there not been a history of possible bias in the data due to problems like equipment, timing, non-standardization, etc... i would also be skeptical of the singular study

HOWEVER...

well...you get the point now
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 10, 2015
OOps.. i gotta chime in about this
This is a myth. Big energy companies don't care what form energy comes in, only that that source is in demand such that it is viable in the market for return on investment
WTF???
really?
so, regardless of infrastructure investment, buildings manufacturing and other costs... it is as simple as that, right?

are you off your nut?
or haven't you ever actually worked in the real world? Manufacturing? tooling?
owned a business?

if you are selling a product... and even if you know said product will eventually be obsolete, you will be far more likely to defend the status quo than have to rebuild, retool, reinvest, rewire etc

especially if the cost of the retooling, restructuring etc is large enough to get into investor pockets

this is the reason the US power lines (NOT high power transmission lines) are still on wood power poles despite it being cheaper in the long run to bury them
theshovel74
3 / 5 (4) Nov 11, 2015
Good news for climate change? It is evidence that the prevailing models are not yet as accurate as they need to be. There's more ice than expected on Antarctica. But globally, sea levels are still rising. How is that good news?
jeffensley
2.3 / 5 (3) Nov 13, 2015
Good news for climate change? It is evidence that the prevailing models are not yet as accurate as they need to be. There's more ice than expected on Antarctica. But globally, sea levels are still rising. How is that good news?


By the same token, how exactly is it "bad"?
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2015
Just as in the early days of coal/oil establishing economies of scale [...] assisted financially and via other hidden subsidy [...] the new renewable industries, [...] also have case for support[...]. Yes/No?

Yes, and for the same reason of When and Why,.... economic dependency.

There is one 'dimension' which coal/oil never had to face: imminent/developing climate change disaster unless we act FAST.

There is an even greater threat,... the notion that "we" as in collectivism, is to "act fast",... which generally means unproven gov central planning without regard for actual economic reality, all over scientifically unsubstantiated speculation wrt future AGW effects on humanity.

Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2015
Alternative Energy developments don't have time/luxury for slow buildup like coal/oil industries had

This is a valid argument, and is why I have been calling for a Manhattan'esque project for energy research, and use of the market to be the arbiter to scale it.

But this idea, and the natural 'miracle' source of fission and safer fusion generally, is not desired by the political far left, because it actively competes with government solutions.

IOW, as long as there are no viable alternatives that actually could replace oil/coal on that scale, ... leftist ideology will attempt to enact it's agenda on the 'threat of AGW'. And they need it to be a 'threat' and to 'act fast',... for the same reasons that charlatans use those tactics.

Noumenon
1.9 / 5 (9) Nov 14, 2015
Sabotage by entrenched coal/oil/GOP interests is anti-humanity

-By that logic, why do AGW-Enthusiast's en mass continue to use oil/coal based energy? After all, if only they would reduce their lifestyles and go to increased personal expense to reduce their carbon footprint, the supposed 'AGW threat' would be abated, as there are enough of them to do so.

-Again, those invested in oil/coal don't care of the specific form of that energy,... only that there exists a potential return on investment. They would just assume invest in monkey farm.

-The existent reality is that the worlds major economies float on a bed of oil/(coal),.. the loaded characterization of "sabotage" here is simply childish.

-Big oil/coal companies only have power commensurate with the demand of that source for energy. This power is given to them by the vast majority AGW-Enthusiast's in their own consumption of carbon based energy, and lack of investment in alternatives.
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 14, 2015
@CS... Adjusting the less error prone bouy-data to fit the greater error prone ship-data is the same questionable practice climatologists took in adjusting less adversely effected rural area temperature readings to coincide with the arguably more adversely effected city area readings. The motivation is transparent and is in rearranging the furniture to give better aesthetic appearance commensurate with the a-priori accepted narrative.

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 14, 2015
Saul Alinsky's rules for AGW-Alarmist radicals...

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy .... many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address."

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions "

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Perception is reality."

Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Nov 14, 2015
Saul Alinsky's rules for AGW-Alarmist radicals...

RULE 3: "Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy .... many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address."

RULE 5: "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions "

RULE 9: "The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself. Perception is reality."



Newt Gingrich was a master at applying the Rules For Radicals.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2015
Adjusting the less error prone bouy-data to fit the greater error prone ship-data is the same questionable practice climatologists took in adjusting less adversely effected rural area temperature readings to coincide with the arguably more adversely effected city area readings
Nou
your argument has absolutely no supporting evidence- it is the equivalent to "i don't like it":

whereas the above links (all Karl & Peterson links and references therein) actually demonstrate the need for adjustment with evidence that is empirical, measured as well as validated
The motivation is transparent
then link the supporting evidence
you are making a claim that has no basis except per your personal subjective opinion

there is no evidence supporting your claim, whereas there are studies supporting my points WRT adjustment that include sound reasons and valid points measured for accuracy and detailed prediction/analysis

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 14, 2015
@nou cont'd
and is in rearranging the furniture to give better aesthetic appearance commensurate with the a-priori accepted narrative
if repeating a lie doesn't make it more true, then repeating an opinion also doesn't make your opinion any more factually supported either

this is called a false claim
http://www.auburn...ion.html

you have yet to actually provide any kind of substantiating evidence for your belief or opinion regarding the altered data

your whole argument is essentially boiled down to "i don't like it so it must be false"
or is it more "I don't understand it"?

this is one reason that i continue to get irritated with your posts like that:
you like to think you're intelligent, but when it comes to evaluating your argument, it is almost exclusively supported by opinion (subjective) and not evidence...
which is a philo argument, not a science one

and you still haven't linked validation of the earlier stuff
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2015
Your continued incessant calling for "evidence" and redundancy of referencing the study, only exposes your naïveté about this science in particular, and is why your posts are vacuous to me, with nothing new in them.

You merely reference a study as if it MUST be true merely on the basis of it being a science study with "arguments and evidence",..... without understanding the element of judgement, motivating biases, and underlying assumptions, that may adversely effect that study.

For example, there were several papers published in 2013 claiming that the pause in warming was caused by deep ocean absorption of the expected heat. Now these were science papers that did analysis on "evidence",... and so accordingly your particular brand of naïveté, those studies MUST be correct merely on that basis.....

Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 15, 2015
.... but wait, then in late 2014, NASA released a study concluding that deep ocean had insignificant warming, thus opening the missing surface heat and pause problem once again. As is clear from this example your presumption of truth merely on the basis of "evidence supplied in a study" leads directly to logical conflict.

What is being called into question is the judgement in reanalysis and whether that reanalysis is itself bias and so valid.

"....environmental monitoring is the specific purpose for the buoys. Adjusting good data upwards to match bad data seems questionable, and the fact that the buoy network becomes increasingly dense in the last two decades means that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data." - Climatologist

Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (4) Nov 15, 2015
Your continued incessant calling for "evidence" and redundancy of referencing the study, only exposes your naïveté about this science in particular
@nou
so, you want to discuss science but you don't want to have to actually prove your points with science?
that isn't science, that is philosophy (and the reason that philosophy is not science)
lets look at your above posts (TO me and others)
Your posts above don't provide enough substance to respond to
&
Your objection is never articulated wrt the point made
&
so you follow me around out of context with your anti-philo bs
So, i deliberately post studies that are not only on topic to your discussion, but also explain why data was adjusted as well as the problems that lead to the adjustment
This evidence isn't just "made up", but validated... it is explaining why adjustments were made, and then it showed a historical trend of investigation into the subject

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
@nou cont'd
so you get defensive...
I don't need you to "inform" me of what science is
but apparently, you DO need some refresher courses in basic science, because science isn't about "making sh*t up", it is about being able to actually provide evidence for a claim...to which you say
Your continued incessant calling for "evidence" and redundancy of referencing the study, only exposes your naïveté about this science in particular
how is it naive to want you to actually validate a claim with evidence when discussing a scientific topic that has validated studies that explain what is going on?

what's worse... YOU yourself ridiculed people about "making up stuff"
As usual you just make things up
but that is EXACTLY what you are doing right now! above!

you made a claim, but you can't substantiate said claim with evidence
i gave you the benefit of the doubt (untested claim) but you've proven that it is not... it's a FALSE claim, blatantly so
2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2015
@nou cont'd
but this is talking about the science?
no, it is called philosophy, and you're sharing OPINION about science and telling people you don't like something because you feel there is a conspiracy (Conspiracist ideation - the data is altered because you think there is no reason and
rearranging the furniture to give better aesthetic appearance commensurate with the a-priori accepted narrative
now you want to talk about several papers in 2013...
You merely reference a study as if it MUST be true merely on the basis of it being a science study with "arguments and evidence"
actually, no
a study is evidence, true, and you can't argue with the evidence, however it is only a point of interest... it isn't until something is VALIDATED through second party investigation that it becomes "true"... this is the scientific method at work
https://en.wikipe...c_method
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
@nou cont'd
but wait, ... deep ocean had insignificant warming
and again: https://en.wikipe...c_method

perhaps you should also read these two links:
https://www.simon...ngs-out/

http://www.math.u...nman.pdf

another point: you claim
What is being called into question is
and then add a quote
that this adjustment must put a warming trend in the data." - Climatologist
but don't link sources

surely you are aware that an article (or even a quote) is not the same as a study, right?
also note: singular opposition or opinion will be present in ANY article about science no matter what, with rare exception... so quoting a dissenting opinion without evidence is like using hearsay or eyewitness testimony: it is circumstantial at best, but until you can validate it with "EVIDENCE" it is simply like an *sshole -those are everywhere and full of crap
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
@nou last: So, basically what you are saying is that you, and ONLY you, should be treated differently because you can make a claim that isn't supported by evidence...
but because it sounds like what you want to hear, it must be true

besides being confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger, this is also a typical argument of philosophy
subjective arguments that sound good are OK for philosophical arguments, but NOT for scientific ones

this... THIS is the point i keep trying to make WRT your ohilo double speak arguments!

and you've demonstrated it above again!
but apparently you can't even see it for yourself!

I don't have a problem arguing science, but even when you claim non one needs to teach you about it, you demonstrate you are woefully uneducated in ever the basics...

but you must be right, because you can arbitrarily quote random sh*t and then label it from "- Climatologist"????

http://www.dpa.st...h17.html
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
correction: "ohilo" should be "philo"

"non one" should be "no one"

"in ever the basics" should be "in even the basics"

Sorry folks!
chock the spelling/typo's to laughter and incredulity from seeing nou actually validate AND demonstrate my arguments that i've been making (historically) WRT his philosophical arguments in a science thread

i still can't believe some of the complete lack of logic being displayed... plus, i'm the one labeled with
naïveté about this science in particular, and is why your posts are vacuous
WOW
just... WOW
no links
no proof
no evidence
no logic... just
there were several papers published
and
- Climatologist
python logic at its finest!

make a random claim- substantiate it with vague random quotes that can't be validated!
MUST BE TRUE... because nou posted it!
everybody go home!

Nou's on the case... and with rc saving us too... no one need worry any more!

we'll call them the "wonder twins"!
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2015
Six emotional typo-and-insult-ridden posts in response to my two posts,... wouldn't it be less time consuming to respond to the salient point made instead of parsing it out of existence? Probably not.

Of course i'm not saying evidence is not important in science,... but rather that you appear to be focusing on merely the 'existence of evidence' or the 'existence of a PR study', to the exclusion of the element of judgement, motivating biases, and underlying assumptions, that may adversely effect that analysis of evidence.

It is valid to call into question the justifications and methodology of doing so, as some climatologists have. In some respects I think climatology exists up its own ass.

btw, "Second party investigation" is categorically NOT what validates science. Consensus does not validate science. Making predictions of empirical observations that are independent of those used to form the models is what does that.

...
Noumenon
1.8 / 5 (10) Nov 15, 2015
"The study is one more example that you can get any answer you want when the thermometer data errors are larger than the global warming signal you are looking for.....We believe the satellite measurements since 1979 provide a more robust measure of global temperatures, and both satellite research groups see virtually the same pause in global temperatures for the last 18 years ," - Roy Spencer, University of Alabama in Huntsville

Just because a statistical analysis is 'mechanically sound', as I have referred to it above, does not imply also that its premise is valid or pertains to reality.

Vietvet
4 / 5 (8) Nov 15, 2015
"Another global warming contrarian paper found to be unrealistic and inaccurate"
http://www.thegua...accurate

Using Roy Spenser is weak tea.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Nov 15, 2015
wouldn't it be less time consuming to respond to the salient point made instead of parsing it out of existence?
@nou
lets see: to date, i've argued with you in more than 15 threads about the exact same topic (your argument from philosophy and not science and evidence) and you have yet to change...so... you do the math
Of course i'm not saying evidence is not important in science
then why aren't you including any that is verifiable?
you appear to be focusing on merely the 'existence of evidence' or the 'existence of a PR study', to the exclusion of the element of judgement, motivating biases, and underlying assumptions, that may adversely effect that analysis of evidence
so you're saying that 3 decades of studying the same basic situation/subject is excluding elements of judgement, etc?
this is called conspiracist ideation, you know

that was why i linked the above: show a timeline and more
and i only went back to the 80's...

2Bcont'd
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Nov 15, 2015
@nou cont'd
It is valid to call into question the justifications and methodology of doing so, as some climatologists have
i am not saying it isn't valid: i'm saying that if you are going to "call into question" something and attribute it to a "climatologist" or scientist, you should actually reference the name, or attribute the quote to said professional
Unless you're intentionally hiding the name as it has been proven to be a fraud, like perhaps roy?
"Second party investigation" is categorically NOT what validates science
you can't validate your own work...
https://en.wikipe...c_method

Roy Spencer
the guy that is trying to post OPINION in a format that mimic's a study/research?
spencer has the same credibility as zephir right now

so what you are saying is:
it's ok to use confirmation bias as long as it matches your own personal view... it doesn't matter what the evidence elsewhere says

is that it?
because that's what you've alluded to
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2015
Apparently the Karl study may have been "rushed to publication" over the objections of numerous scientists at NOAA.

Perhaps they question the legitimacy of rearranging short term data to fit the long term narrative.
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
the Karl study may have been "rushed to publication"
@nou
from your own link
"The notion that this paper was rushed to publication is false. In December 2014, the co-authors of the study submitted their findings to Science — a leading scientific journal. Following a rigorous peer review process, which included two rounds of revisions to ensure the credibility of the data and methodologies used, Science informed the authors that the paper would be published in June.

"The notion that NOAA is 'hiding something' is also false. We have been transparent and cooperative with the House Science Committee to help them better understand the research and underlying methodologies. … We stand behind our scientists who conduct their work in an objective manner."
also note, an ARTICLE and an OPINION are not the same things as a study

and more to the point: almost every climate study that comes out "set[s] off alarms among skeptics" (aka- deniers)
Captain Stumpy
3.9 / 5 (7) Nov 19, 2015
@nou cont'd
Perhaps they question the legitimacy of rearranging short term data to fit the long term narrative
or perhaps there is a concerted effort to intentionally maintain the status quo for financial gain?

and that isn't speculation, nor is it conspiratorial belief, it is a matter of evidence:
http://www.drexel...nge.ashx

but even ignoring the above study outing big oil/big $$ as funding a program to attempt to undermine the science, the evidence still suggest you are attempting to argue your own confirmation bias as well as promote opinion over evidence

evidence is not all the same

so far, you've linked opinion, articles and ignored sources above... but still cling to your belief
this isn't scientific at all... nor is it logical, skeptical or anything other than "faith"...
IOW- religion

just because you want to believe it's real doesn't mean it is
Noumenon
1.7 / 5 (11) Nov 19, 2015
You have ignored the basis of the charge,... " published over the objections of numerous scientists at NOAA".

It's a forgone conclusion that NOAA is going to deny the charge, yet you offer that as evidence? According to the charge scientists from NOAA objected to that study being released for publication.

"Big Oil" has nothing to do with the above investigation science-face, it is a governmental oversight committees who's direct responsibility is to oversee and if decided, to investigate tax funded science,... the NOAA.

also note, an ARTICLE and an OPINION are not the same things as a study


And I'll remind you that every post YOU make is de facto your OPINION and not a PR journel entry. It makes me laugh how naive you seem to be wrt science.
Captain Stumpy
4.2 / 5 (5) Nov 20, 2015
You have ignored the basis of the charge,... " published over the objections of numerous scientists at NOAA"
@nou
actually, no, i didn't: unless i can see the charge sheet or a public access review of the charges, this is still opinion: it could be 10 or even just 1 or 2... Numerous is not a quantity, it is an Adjective
It's a forgone conclusion that NOAA is going to deny the charge
As well as Science
so? again, it is OPINION until proven... which is my point
And I'll remind you that every post YOU make is de facto your OPINION
except the links above which are validated studies, right?
Oh, and the point that opinion and articles aren't the same as studies...
and the fact that you are seeking whatever you can to justify your "belief" and not following the evidence...
and the fact that almost every climate study that comes out "set[s] off alarms among skeptics" (aka- deniers), which is proven here weekly, if not daily

i can go on
Captain Stumpy
4.3 / 5 (6) Nov 20, 2015
@nou cont'd
It makes me laugh how naive you seem to be wrt science.
this is what makes me laugh more than anything else...
first off, you are the one claiming that you know science
I don't need you to "inform" me of what science is
then you try to justify yourself
i'm not saying evidence is not important in science
but here is where you go all stupid:
In some respects I think climatology exists up its own ass
and you try to allude to opinion being equivalent to evidence
Apparently the Karl study may have been "rushed to publication" over the objections of numerous scientists at NOAA
even with your link, it is speculation until proven (& in the US, innocent until proven guilty... not by the media, but by a fair and impartial means which requires... you guessed it... EVIDENCE)

but you are the scientifically literate one?

this is why philosophers (& you) can't discuss science...subjectivity/subjective argument is NOT the same as evidence
profpf
3 / 5 (6) Nov 27, 2015
We've known for years that Antarctica has been gaining ice.

We've also known for years that on the opposite side of the earth the Arctic is losing ice far faster than Antarctica is gaining it.

A lot of commenters on here seem to think that Antarctica include both poles.

The climate is changing and as a result one side of the earth is gaining ice and the other side is quickly losing it.

A quick search and you can find articles by NASA from 2012 that talk about Antarctica gaining ice and the Arctic losing ice.


I was wondering when someone would mention that the Arctic and Antarctic were two quite different locations...
erikhum
3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2015
If we could get back to what this study might actually indicate about global warming and climate change it is the following
1. The rate of formation and/or loss of ice from an ice sheet that is permanently well below zero is not immediately or simply dependent on shifts in temperature of a degree or two and could result in either gains or losses of ice during periods of global warming.
2. Significant changes are occurring in the ice behaviour on and around Antarctica.
3. Such change are in themselves evidence of Climate Change.
4. We are not perhaps in possession of enough data to make exact predictions as to the future changes in climate around Antarctica.
5. Rapidly improving satellite data is adding to our knowledge on a daily basis and has been the source of much of the improved levels of certainty concerning the existence of AGW and Climate Change.
6. Attempts of the so called Skeptic community to use research like this "disprove" AGW etc are false.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.