06 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyWhy am I not surprised?
http://phys.org/news/2015-04-western-canada-percent-glaciers.html
"Western Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100
Seventy per cent of glacier ice in British Columbia and Alberta could disappear by the end of the 21st century, creating major problems for local ecosystems, power supplies, and water quality, according to a new study by University of B ...[text shortened]... mbia researchers. The study is published online in Nature Geoscience.
..."
-not a good sign.
"For the study, researchers used observational data, computer models and climate simulations to forecast the fate of individual glaciers."
Isn't observational data enough? Do they need computer models to scare everyone into thinking they should get more funding? Computer models are your new religion I guess. You need a leap of faith to believe in them.
Originally posted by Metal Brain"enough" for doing what exactly? Making an educated and rational forecast? If so, the answer to that question is a definite "NO"!
Isn't observational data enough?
Observational data alone tells you what is going in the present and what happened in the past. And an assumption that a past trend will continue into a future would be relatively unqualified and therefore not as rational without it being based on some sort of model or insight into what is going on or, possibly, depending on what sort of thing is being forecasted and the context such as the one in that link, on a computer model.
You clearly don't have the rudimentary understanding of how science works.
07 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyEvery claim you make depends on computer models. You will always get bunk predictions using computer models. You still have a leap in faith in them apparently. Do you ignore links like this one instead of reading them?
"enough" for doing what exactly? Making an educated and rational forecast? If so, the answer to that question is a definite "NO"!
Observational data alone tells you what is going in the present and what happened in the past. And an assumption that a past trend will continue into a future would be relatively unqualified and therefore not as rational without it ...[text shortened]... on a computer model.
You clearly don't have the rudimentary understanding of how science works.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/06/09/model-behavior-in-climate-science-its-all-about-the-computers/
I don't think you ever read this article all the way through. If you did you would not still have blind faith in climate models. Are you too scared to read it or do you dismiss it as wrong before you can understand the facts of climate model failures?
07 Apr 15
3 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope. Examples;
Every claim you make depends on computer models.
that CO2 absorbs infrared light.
That much of the current atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.
etc.
+ it would matter if every claim DID come from computer models for computer models can and often do make reliable predictions and are a perfectly reasonable scientific tool for investigation.
+ you haven't answered my question; observational data is not "enough" for doing what exactly?...
Originally posted by humy"Nope. Examples;
Nope. Examples;
that CO2 absorbs infrared light.
That much of the current atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.
etc.
+ it would matter if every claim DID come from computer models for computer models can and often do make reliable predictions and are a perfectly reasonable scientific tool for investigation.
+ you haven't answered my question; observational data is not "enough" for doing what exactly?...
that CO2 absorbs infrared light.
That much of the current atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.
etc."
Those things have been known for years. That is nothing new. You are not making any points, just stating the obvious. It doesn't change the fact that climate models predicted temperature increases that never happened!
Observational data is not enough to mislead people into believing bunk predictions, that is why dishonest alarmists must resort to climate models. They are dishonest for the same reasons anti-cannabis zealots lie about cannabis. They are convinced their lies are doing a greater good by scaring people away from smoking pot. You have the same mentality.
Climate models made false predictions. This is a fact. Your continued reliance on them to promote your doom and gloom predictions shows how detached you are from real science. Real science does not have to rely on the unreliable to mislead.
I have proved climate models are unreliable time and time again, yet you are still in denial. The irony is that you have proven yourself to be a denier, the very term you label others with. Moreover, your denial is the denial of real science which is easily proven. Then you accuse me (irony) of rejecting science, a clear case of psychological projection. FAIL!
Stop denying science. You are challenging the very thing you claim to hold so dear in a feeble attempt to fool yourself into thinking it is others who deny science. Your ability to fool yourself into believing what you want to believe is incredible. It requires that you blatently ignore obvious facts. I am certainly not the only one that has noticed. You can continue to embarrass yourself though. I'll let you. Please continue.
07 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainHow have YOU proved anything?
"Nope. Examples;
that CO2 absorbs infrared light.
That much of the current atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.
etc."
Those things have been known for years. That is nothing new. You are not making any points, just stating the obvious. It doesn't change the fact that climate models predicted temperature increases that never happened! ...[text shortened]... that has noticed. You can continue to embarrass yourself though. I'll let you. Please continue.
07 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal Brain...and the fact of man made global warming isn't anything new either.
"Nope. Examples;
that CO2 absorbs infrared light.
That much of the current atmospheric CO2 comes from burning fossil fuels.
etc."
Those things have been known for years. That is nothing new. .
07 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWell now I get where you are coming from. The problem with his analysis is there are direct measurements of CO2 levels Vs temperatures for the last several hundred thousand years via the Antarctica ice core data.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2011/06/09/model-behavior-in-climate-science-its-all-about-the-computers/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Your guy can scream all he wants about faulty computer models and such and probably has a point but that does not hide the fact that past historical evidence shows clearly a relationship with CO2 levels Vs temperature and it is not "logarithmic" as he asserts. The levels show a much higher correlation and sensitivity to levels of CO2 that he asserts.
These studies are not the result of labs or computer models. These are direct measurements so you better take it up with those dudes if you want to come up with a better climate change denial tact.
07 Apr 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYou might want to read that link, especially this part:
Well now I get where you are coming from. The problem with his analysis is there are direct measurements of CO2 levels Vs temperatures for the last several hundred thousand years via the Antarctica ice core data.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
Your guy can scream all he wants about faulty computer models and such and probably has ...[text shortened]... ter take it up with those dudes if you want to come up with a better climate change denial tact.
"Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around? This is one of the questions being debated today. Interestingly, CO2 lags an average of about 800 years behind the temperature changes-- confirming that CO2 is not the cause of the temperature increases. One thing is certain-- earth's climate has been warming and cooling on it's own for at least the last 400,000 years, as the data below show. At year 18,000 and counting in our current interglacial vacation from the Ice Age, we may be due-- some say overdue-- for return to another icehouse climate!"
Now I will post a link I have posted before on the science forum. You may remember it. It claims the lag is closer to 200 years.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
In any case there is a correlation between CO2 and temperatures, but you have the cause and effect in the wrong order. We have been through this before. Maybe you don't remember. I have noticed you forget things like this often. I guess at your age it can be expected. You are a smart guy, but I hope you try to remember this next time. I would rather not repeat myself again.
Originally posted by Metal BrainJust like it has been for some time now, it is a scientific fact that it is a bit of both. This is nothing new.
"Do rising atmospheric CO2 concentrations cause increasing global temperatures, or could it be the other way around?
(I and other scientists here that are experts in physics have already more than once tried to explain to you, who isn't a scientist, the physical mechanism of this which you just condescending idiotically trashed with your usual combination of extreme arrogance and ignorance so I won't waste any more of my time doing so yet again.
But: to everyone else here:
if anyone here would like to know that physical mechanism, I will be glad to explain it here on request 🙂.
Personally, I find the science of it quite interesting ).
Any reason why the two would be mutually exclusive?
Do you comprehend the concept of something having more than one cause?
Do you reject the concept that something could have more than one cause and, if so, why so?
Originally posted by humyYou are right, this is nothing new. We have been through this before and I will tell you the same thing I did last time. It has always been that way. CO2 did not change the way it warms the earth.
Just like it has been for some time now, it is a scientific fact that [b]it is a bit of both. This is nothing new.
(I and other scientists here that are experts in physics have already more than once tried to explain to you, who isn't a scientist, the physical mechanism of this which you just condescending idiotically trashed with your usual combination ...[text shortened]... se?
Do you reject the concept that something could have more than one cause and, if so, why so?[/b]
Sonhouse tried to make the point that temps and CO2 go hand in hand in an attempt to digress away from the link I posted about climate models and how they have proven to be unreliable. If temps lagged behind CO2 he might have a point, but they don't. Co2 lagged behind temps and the ice core samples proved that.
To be clear, it was not me that posted that link that claimed those things, it was sonhouse. He obviously did not read it before he posted it. He would not intentionally post a link that claims the climate might be about to freeze. Even I wouldn't do that. He just goofed. It happens to all of us. I don't think less of him for it.
I do think less of you for trying to claim I did not acknowledge CO2 warmed the climate right away without hesitation the last time we talked about this. I think you are an absolute assshole for trying to mislead others on this forum into thinking you ever had to explain any of this to me. As for cause and effect, prove it in the context it belongs in. If CO2 is driving temps right now and it is not because of a lag effect then prove it and do it without another article that depends on climate models. Don't just say it, talk is cheap. You have a hard time proving anything substantial on this subject and I'm sure others have noticed. It isn't my fault you were duped by the myth that 97% of climate scientists believe in those alarmist predictions. It isn't my fault that climate models have failed to predict temps and most climate scientists have little faith in them. Hurling more insults at me is not going to change these facts. You were duped by a common myth. You are human, get over it.
To all on this forum:
I encourage anyone on this forum to look back and read my exchange with humy the first time this came up if any of you are curious. If you read it you all will see for yourselves that humy either has a very poor memory or is deliberately trying to deceive all of you.
08 Apr 15
8 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainThat is obviously not what I just said. I obviously implied the exact opposite and you know it. You won't fool anyone here.
You are right, this is nothing new. .... It has always been that way. CO2 did NOT change the way it warms the earth. (my emphasis)
.
reminder of what I just said:
"...Just like it has been for some time now, it is a scientific fact that it is a bit of both. This is nothing new. ..."
"a bit of BOTH" means just that and cannot possibly be interpreted as "one but not the other" no matter how you twist it. You must think we are all incredibly stupid not to notice this.
And your refusal to answer my last few simple questions only confirms what we all here already know.
08 Apr 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou ask us to see how humy trashes your arguments again? Wasn't it enough humiliating the first time?
To all on this forum:
I encourage anyone on this forum to look back and read my exchange with humy the first time this came up if any of you are curious. If you read it you all will see for yourselves that humy either has a very poor memory or is deliberately trying to deceive all of you.
09 Apr 15
Originally posted by humyI acknowledged that a long time ago. It doesn't matter though. If CO2 alone were enough to raise temps like you imply the earth would be much warmer than it is. The fact that it isn't that warm collapses your position.
That is obviously not what I just said. I obviously implied the exact opposite and you know it. You won't fool anyone here.
reminder of what I just said:
"...Just like it has been for some time now, it is a scientific fact that it is [b]a bit of both. This is nothing new. ..."
"a bit of BOTH" means just that and cannot possibly be interpret ...[text shortened]... your refusal to answer my last few simple questions only confirms what we all here already know.[/b]