Remember me
▼ Content

Climate Change - What are the causes?



Page 1 of 212>
Climate Change - What are the causes?01-11-2015 19:13
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
So, I know the Greenhouse Effect is one possible explanation to climate change. I read not long ago an article that suggested that underwater volcanoes activity is a possible cause for climate change.

So I guess my question is if there are other theories or possibilities discussed apart from the Greenhouse Effect. What role did the Greenhouse Effect played in previous climate cycles?
01-11-2015 19:19
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - yes, the Earth receives significant amounts of energy input from both the Sun and geothermal activity like volcanoes.

Interestingly, as we continue to warm the planet and melt the polar caps, once a sufficient amount of ice has been removed from Antarctica by M2C2 induced melting, the entire continent will begin to shift upwards, ultimately by as much as 2000 feet, due to isostatic rebound (a.k.a. - glacial rebound). This kind of shift, unknown in the recorded history of mankind, will lead to a dramatic rise along global fault lines with divergent boundaries (i.e. - where the tectonic plates are moving away from one another). When this happens, geothermal energy (e.g. - volcanoes) may become just as important as Solar radiation in terms of what is actually driving M2C2.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
01-11-2015 21:02
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Trafn - Whoa, that's a lot of damage. Could you please explain again what you mean when you say the continent will shift upward? I didn't understand.

This kind of shift, unknown in the recorded history of mankind, will lead to a dramatic rise along global fault lines with divergent boundaries

What is the criteria used to make this prediction if there's no antecedent in history? What were the the variables considered to predict this? It's very interesting.
02-11-2015 00:07
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - read my book (copy attached). There's an entire chapter there devoted to the isostatic rebound of Antarctica.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Attached file:
burstingtheatmosphere_1stedition2014_8.pdf
02-11-2015 00:29
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote:
@Trafn - Whoa, that's a lot of damage. Could you please explain again what you mean when you say the continent will shift upward? I didn't understand.

This kind of shift, unknown in the recorded history of mankind, will lead to a dramatic rise along global fault lines with divergent boundaries

What is the criteria used to make this prediction if there's no antecedent in history? What were the the variables considered to predict this? It's very interesting.


To4, trafn believes thermal energy is building up rapidly in the atmosphere and the earth's surface. He is a firm believer that the "greenhouse effect" and all the "climate" miracles of Global Warming lore are building up heat, but that they're just hiding all this thermal energy very well, like at the bottom of the ocean and all other places where there aren't any thermometers (ensuring full unfalsifiability).

trafn believes all the earth's ice is melting rapidly, because of this thermal energy build-up.

trafn believes the earth's ice is what is preventing the earth from rising in temperature.

trafn believes that the disappearance of all the earth's ice is imminent. When that happens, the earth's surface will have no alternative but to increase drastically in temperature until the earth's crust is incinerated off the mantle.

This is his religion. This is his unshakable faith. Any who don't believe his WACKY dogma are considered trolls. Commentary that does not pay homage to his WACKY dogma is considered "unproductive."

If you were to provide him evidence that the earth's ice is not decreasing, he simply would be unable to process it. He would consider it "unproductive" input and he would call you a "troll." He would consider you as having one strike against you. Two more and you are to be banned.

If you were to ask him why he believes what he does, he'll mutter something about "climate science" and then change the topic to one of cursing falsifiability.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-11-2015 01:06
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you wrote If you were to ask him why he believes what he does, he'll mutter something about "climate science" and then change the topic to one of cursing falsifiability.

My profile - trafn

Your profile - IBdaMann

Notice any difference?

Care to tell us what your background is in science?


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
02-11-2015 02:08
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(232)
trafn wrote:
@Totototo - read my book (copy attached). There's an entire chapter there devoted to the isostatic rebound of Antarctica.


Regarding isostatic rebound of Antarctica, keep in mind that rock is subject to both elastic deformation and an plastic deformation as well as fracture. I'm reasonably sure that you can't extrapolate as you did in your 3-15 calculation the small amount of elastic rebound in California to the situation in Antarctica. The slow isostatic rebound of formerly icecap depressed crust is a subject mentioned in undergraduate geology courses, is still considered to be (slowly) ongoing in part of North America and Europe that was covered in the last Ice Age.
02-11-2015 02:30
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Notice any difference?
Care to tell us what your background is in science?

As a rule I don't, but if I were to do so I'd hand you your fanny.

Pay attention to my posts. No one owns science, contrary to your belief. Appeals to authority are irrelevant, contrary to your belief. I let science do all the talking, in spite of your mistaken belief that science is somehow merely my subjective opinion.


You are incapable of discerning science from religion, especially from your WACKY religion that you believe is science. Strangely, that aspect seems to be missing from your profile.

Everybody knows that you will high-tail and flee (behind some lame "blame others" excuse) before engaging in any discussion involving actual science (your WACKY religion doesn't count as science, I'm sorry to say).


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-11-2015 02:56
still learning
★★☆☆☆
(232)
Totototo wrote:
So, I know the Greenhouse Effect is one possible explanation to climate change. I read not long ago an article that suggested that underwater volcanoes activity is a possible cause for climate change.

So I guess my question is if there are other theories or possibilities discussed apart from the Greenhouse Effect. What role did the Greenhouse Effect played in previous climate cycles?


Could you point to that underwater volcanic activity article?

I don't recall reading anything seriously suggesting that underwater volcanism affects climate on the timescales usually involved in anthropogenic climate change discussions. The amount of solar radiation reaching the top of the Earth's atmosphere averages out to about 340 watts per square meter, the amount of global warming imbalance is estimated to be about 0.6 watts per square meter (http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_16/) and geothermal heat (includes volcanoes) estimated to be about 0.08 watts per square meter. Tou can see that you'd need about seven times the estimated geothermal heatflow to equal the estimated greenhouse imbalance. Unlikely that much would go unnoticed.

Volcanism does affect climate though, short term and long term. Do much reading on climate change and you'll find referrals to the effects of the Mount Pinatubo eruption of 1991. All that reflective dust in the atmosphere cooled things a little. Longer term, volcanism, via plate tectonics, affects climate by moving continents around. That world encircling system of midocean spreading zones/ridges could be viewed as one linear volcano, erupting here and there.

What role did the greenhouse effect play in previous climate cycles? Well, the greenhouse effect has always been around. Always some water vapor in the atmosphere. CO2 and methane too. Sometimes other effects play a part too. Milankovich cycles. KT meteorites. Possibly large undersea methane or H2S "burps."
02-11-2015 03:07
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Trafn and IBdaMann - Please stay on topic. Also, I've read the chapter.

IBdaMann
If you were to provide him evidence that the earth's ice is not decreasing, he simply would be unable to process it.

But there isn't yet if I understand correctly.
02-11-2015 03:34
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote:
@Trafn and IBdaMann - Please stay on topic. Also, I've read the chapter.

IBdaMann
If you were to provide him evidence that the earth's ice is not decreasing, he simply would be unable to process it.

But there isn't yet if I understand correctly.


Ice is accumulating rapidly in Greenland and in Antarctica. Stuff gets buried under lots of ice if left in either place.

All warmazombies talk about are those glaciers that are retreating. They never talk about the glaciers that are forming or those that are growing. They certainly never discuss the rapidly accumulating land ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

Why don't you start a thread on it?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

Edited on 02-11-2015 03:35
02-11-2015 16:01
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you wrote They never talk about the glaciers that are forming or those that are growing. They certainly never discuss the rapidly accumulating land ice in Greenland and Antarctica.

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwn.

Gee, for a moment I thought you might have actually written something intelligent.

Oh well.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
02-11-2015 16:04
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you wrote As a rule I don't, but if I were to do so I'd hand you your fanny.

Ohhhhhhhhhhh. Scaryyyyyyyyyy.

What are you, some foreign secret agent or something?

Or better yet, let me guess, you're with the DoD?

Do they know you're posting on their time?

They do now!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
02-11-2015 18:19
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Please stay on topic. IB, please provide some info about glaciers growing.
02-11-2015 19:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaMann - you wrote If you were to ask him why he believes what he does, he'll mutter something about "climate science" and then change the topic to one of cursing falsifiability.

My profile - trafn

Your profile - IBdaMann

Notice any difference?

Care to tell us what your background is in science?

Why do you feel it is relevant to produce links to your vitriol against others?
02-11-2015 20:28
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you wrote Why do you feel it is relevant....

Why do you feel the need to insult and harass others when you obviously have no science background what so ever?

Correct me if I'm wrong.

Oh wait, you can't.



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
02-11-2015 20:44
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote: IB, please provide some info about glaciers growing.


Sure, we could review this list and confirm.

This report claims that high-end accurate measurements show Greenland ice accumulation has increased by roughly 10% since the late 1980s. It really looks like the authors were prohibited from expressly stating that total ice mass is increasing because they keep talking around it, hinting at it, but never committing to expressing the bottom line. It also appears that the authors were required to blame "the warming climate" for the increase in rate of ice accumulation.

Because it was such a hit with trafn and others, I'm going to repost the link to the Cliff Harris article. They apparently can only mock Cliff Harris but they can't refute his message.

Do the Dansk claim that Greenland is increasing in ice mass right now ?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-11-2015 20:55
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaDoDMann - you wrote It really looks like the authors were prohibited from expressly stating that total ice mass is increasing because they keep talking around it, hinting at it, but never committing to expressing the bottom line.

That's what I love. Scientific literature based on authors who talk around it, hint and never commit. Wouldn't you agree, Into the Night?


Any other wonder data you wanna throw at us, Mr. Super-Pooper-Scooper?*

* - You must be. No one could possibly make that much crap up on their own. So you must be scooping it up. How else could you shoot so much shit out of your mouth.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!

Edited on 02-11-2015 21:07
02-11-2015 21:32
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@IBdaMann - Thanks for the links, I'll check them out soon.

@Trafn - If the info provided by IBdaMann holds, what could be causing them to grow amidst a global warming?
02-11-2015 21:37
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Totototo - if you can verify anything IBdaDodo says against a half-dozen or more other recognized authorities on whatever he's babbling about, then I'll take a look at it.

Remember, don't go with what one person says. First, cross-reference and verify it against as many varied, verifiable, and recognized sources as you possibly can.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
02-11-2015 22:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1271)
Totototo wrote:
So, I know the Greenhouse Effect is one possible explanation to climate change. I read not long ago an article that suggested that underwater volcanoes activity is a possible cause for climate change.

So I guess my question is if there are other theories or possibilities discussed apart from the Greenhouse Effect. What role did the Greenhouse Effect played in previous climate cycles?


Other ideas or factors I have come across are;

Solar activity,- This is obviously a big part of our climate.

Interstellar cosmic rays,- I don't understand it all but it's something to do with more cosmic rays make more (or is it less) clouds.

http://press.web.cern.ch/press-releases/2013/10/cerns-cloud-experiment-shines-new-light-climate-change

Natural variability. How uniform should the earth's temperature be in any case?

Other stuff I am sure I have forgotten.

I don't know how powerful any of the above are.
02-11-2015 22:33
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
@Tim the Plumber - Well, thanks for answering. I will do some reasearch but right now I'm in a hurry!

@Trafn - Well right now I'm in a hurry, but I know there's been discussion in my country about the growth of Perito Moreno (one of the glaciers that appear in the list IB posted). There are many hypothesis about why this happens along with other smaller glaciers in the Patagonia region, but if I remember correctly they atribute this to geological effects and not climate. I'll read more when I return.

IBdaMann - Why could it be that so many glaciers are melting around the world? What other possibilities you find besides global warming?
02-11-2015 22:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
IBdaMann wrote:
Totototo wrote: IB, please provide some info about glaciers growing.


Sure, we could review this list and confirm.

This report claims that high-end accurate measurements show Greenland ice accumulation has increased by roughly 10% since the late 1980s. It really looks like the authors were prohibited from expressly stating that total ice mass is increasing because they keep talking around it, hinting at it, but never committing to expressing the bottom line. It also appears that the authors were required to blame "the warming climate" for the increase in rate of ice accumulation.

Because it was such a hit with trafn and others, I'm going to repost the link to the Cliff Harris article. They apparently can only mock Cliff Harris but they can't refute his message.

Do the Dansk claim that Greenland is increasing in ice mass right now ?


Thanks for the links! Concerning the list of growing glaciers, I live in the Pacific NW and can personally vouch for the glaciers growing here. They are also growing on Mt Shasta, Mt Hood, and others not mentioned in the list.
02-11-2015 22:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
trafn wrote:
@IBdaDoDMann - you wrote It really looks like the authors were prohibited from expressly stating that total ice mass is increasing because they keep talking around it, hinting at it, but never committing to expressing the bottom line.

That's what I love. Scientific literature based on authors who talk around it, hint and never commit. Wouldn't you agree, Into the Night?


Any other wonder data you wanna throw at us, Mr. Super-Pooper-Scooper?*

* - You must be. No one could possibly make that much crap up on their own. So you must be scooping it up. How else could you shoot so much shit out of your mouth.


Read the paper, stupid.

There's a reason scientists have to write papers this way. They are funded by government money. If they don't tip their hat to the government agenda, they don't get their money.
02-11-2015 22:59
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Totototo wrote:IBdaMann - Why could it be that so many glaciers are melting around the world? What other possibilities you find besides global warming?


Many glaciers around the world are melting. Many glaciers around the world are growing. Many glaciers are coming into existence. Every square meter of the earth's surface has continually changed since the planet came into existence.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-11-2015 23:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Totototo wrote:
So, I know the Greenhouse Effect is one possible explanation to climate change. I read not long ago an article that suggested that underwater volcanoes activity is a possible cause for climate change.

So I guess my question is if there are other theories or possibilities discussed apart from the Greenhouse Effect. What role did the Greenhouse Effect played in previous climate cycles?


Other ideas or factors I have come across are;

Interstellar cosmic rays,- I don't understand it all but it's something to do with more cosmic rays make more (or is it less) clouds.


Cosmic rays are just high energy particles emitted from the aggregate of stars out there. Our own sun produces the most in this area just because of proximity.

Most of these particles are high energy protons, but they may contain the nuclei of almost any atom. Gamma rays are also included in the mix.

When these particles strike the Earth's magnetic field, their direction is changed. Some are flung out into space again, others follow the field downward where it concentrates and strikes the rarefied air in the upper atmosphere, causing it to glow. This is what causes our Auroras. It's basically the same process as in a neon bulb, but we use electrons instead.

When radiation strikes air that contains a good deal of humidity, it can cause a cloud to form. These clouds tend for form as streaks. At altitude, the same thing can happen. The upper winds spread the resulting ice crystals into very pretty wisps. This effect, discovered by Dr. Charles Wilson, was later used to detect ionizing radiation while developing nuclear reactors.

Cirrus clouds typically just condense out like any other cloud, but they can also be produced by cosmic rays.

The density of cosmic rays change mostly with our own sun's activity. The remainder is an aggregate of the other stars you see.

Your local science museum might have a Wilson cloud chamber on display. Go see one if you can. They typically use alcohol instead of water, but the principle is the same.
03-11-2015 01:32
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night - you wrote Read the paper, stupid. There's a reason scientists have to write papers this way.

Thanks for the hint, shithead.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
03-11-2015 04:05
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Thanks for the hint, shithead.


Colorful!


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-11-2015 04:23
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you wrote Colorful!

Ohhh. I like that!


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
03-11-2015 04:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
trafn wrote:
@Into the Night - you wrote Read the paper, stupid. There's a reason scientists have to write papers this way.

Thanks for the hint, shithead.

Any time. I assume you never read the paper, did you?
03-11-2015 05:04
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
Into the Night wrote:Any time. I assume you never read the paper, did you?

Yup, it's pretty clear if you read the paper.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-11-2015 05:10
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@Into the Night(& IBdaMann) - you wrote I assume you never read the paper, did you?

My comments weren't about the paper. My comments were about IBdaMann quoting someone who he claimed was talking around it, hinting at it, but never committing to expressing the bottom line.

That's not science. That's hearsay.

Get back to me when you're ready to present some science.

Or, if you prefer, any science credentials either of you may have.

Oh wait, my mistake.

You can't.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
03-11-2015 05:20
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Oh wait, my mistake.

You can't.


Great! So let's talk science.

What science have you reviewed and understand that convinced you that Global Warming will prevent my grandchildren from having grandchildren?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-11-2015 05:29
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - you wrote What science have you reviewed and understand that convinced you that Global Warming will prevent my grandchildren from having grandchildren?

Not read.

Wrote.


The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
03-11-2015 05:46
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(3109)
trafn wrote:Not read.

Wrote.


Great! You're officially the guy with the credentials.

What science have you written and understand that convinced you that Global Warming will prevent my grandchildren from having grandchildren?


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-11-2015 06:04
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
@IBdaMann - tomorrow
03-11-2015 11:41
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Read the paper, stupid.

There's a reason scientists have to write papers this way. They are funded by government money. If they don't tip their hat to the government agenda, they don't get their money.


That is ridiculous. I have never heard of anyone writing a paper in a certain way because they are constrained by what the government wants them to write! Do you really think that we have politicians vetting our research outputs?!

Any such paper would not stand up to the peer-review process, which is international, and therefore not constrained by any country's political agenda.

Your ignorance about academia is quite remarkable! Do some research - stupid!
03-11-2015 12:02
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
This report claims that high-end accurate measurements show Greenland ice accumulation has increased by roughly 10% since the late 1980s. It really looks like the authors were prohibited from expressly stating that total ice mass is increasing because they keep talking around it, hinting at it, but never committing to expressing the bottom line. It also appears that the authors were required to blame "the warming climate" for the increase in rate of ice accumulation.


It is clear from reading this paper that IBdaMann and Into the Night have missed the point.

The paper is about variability in accumulation rates in the interior of Greenland. In order to determine the Greenland mass balance, you need to consider accumulation rates and ice sheet loss, the latter of which is not mentioned by the paper at all.

All this paper is saying, is that climate change is most likely increasing the water vapour in the atmosphere around Greenland, which is resulting in more snow. They do not talk about ice sheet loss at all, and they do not try to say whether Greenland is gaining or losing ice. Here is a quote from the paper:

"The significance of this for the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, is that at least some of the increased mass loss from melting at the lower-elevation margins of the ice sheet is balanced by the small increases in mass gain from increased accumulation in the higher-elevation interior."

They are simply saying that the increase in accumulation rate is offsetting at least some of the loss from ice sheets, but the mass gain from increased accumulation is small.

The authors were not prohibited from writing anything. The study is about snow accumulation in Greenland. They collected data on snow accumulation in Greenland, and then published the results. Their study is not about the Greenland mass balance, so I'm not sure why you think they should be writing about it?!
03-11-2015 12:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
climate scientist wrote:
Read the paper, stupid.

There's a reason scientists have to write papers this way. They are funded by government money. If they don't tip their hat to the government agenda, they don't get their money.


That is ridiculous. I have never heard of anyone writing a paper in a certain way because they are constrained by what the government wants them to write! Do you really think that we have politicians vetting our research outputs?!

Any such paper would not stand up to the peer-review process, which is international, and therefore not constrained by any country's political agenda.

Your ignorance about academia is quite remarkable! Do some research - stupid!


I have. I have seen scientists ejected from their institutions of study because of what they wrote. I have seen it over and over again. I have seen grant money get cut off because of what they write.

I have seen the 'peer' review process in action. Even the 'international' ones. I've seen what a sham they really are.

I have seen censorship applied by scientific journals and other media, science organizations (especially government controlled ones), and the awful price paid by a scientist that questions the global warming agenda.

I have seen this affect nation after nation. It spreads from a common source: the IPCC.

I have seen the effect on simply accepting the religion and starting the studies from preconceived ideas and assumed correctness of data that color the entire study and as a result build a conclusions on false premises.

I have seen junk papers and good ones. The price the author pays of the good ones, though, is high.

I submit that your experience is limited, both in scope and in length.
03-11-2015 12:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(6284)
climate scientist wrote:
This report claims that high-end accurate measurements show Greenland ice accumulation has increased by roughly 10% since the late 1980s. It really looks like the authors were prohibited from expressly stating that total ice mass is increasing because they keep talking around it, hinting at it, but never committing to expressing the bottom line. It also appears that the authors were required to blame "the warming climate" for the increase in rate of ice accumulation.


It is clear from reading this paper that IBdaMann and Into the Night have missed the point.

The paper is about variability in accumulation rates in the interior of Greenland. In order to determine the Greenland mass balance, you need to consider accumulation rates and ice sheet loss, the latter of which is not mentioned by the paper at all.

All this paper is saying, is that climate change is most likely increasing the water vapour in the atmosphere around Greenland, which is resulting in more snow. They do not talk about ice sheet loss at all, and they do not try to say whether Greenland is gaining or losing ice. Here is a quote from the paper:

"The significance of this for the mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet, is that at least some of the increased mass loss from melting at the lower-elevation margins of the ice sheet is balanced by the small increases in mass gain from increased accumulation in the higher-elevation interior."

They are simply saying that the increase in accumulation rate is offsetting at least some of the loss from ice sheets, but the mass gain from increased accumulation is small.

The authors were not prohibited from writing anything. The study is about snow accumulation in Greenland. They collected data on snow accumulation in Greenland, and then published the results. Their study is not about the Greenland mass balance, so I'm not sure why you think they should be writing about it?!

Funny, I thought the conclusion of the paper IS the point.

"... accumulation in the interior of the Green-
land ice sheet has increased slightly in the currently
warming climate."

Gain is gain.
Edited on 03-11-2015 12:20
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Climate Change - What are the causes?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact