Remember me
▼ Content

Consensus of Scientists and Proof



Page 2 of 8<1234>>>
06-04-2017 21:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Frescomexico wrote:

Some people seem to think that the earth just before the industrial revolution was at its optimum condition, and any changes thereafter constitute a degradation. The ice was melting before then and the sea was rising. Animals were increasing, decreasing and becoming extinct. Man and other species have always had to move because of climate change. They say the Sahara desert was once a jungle. Where did everyone go?

I have no quarrel with keeping down man-caused pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant) or protecting wildlife. But to think we should try to manipulate our climate to keep it at a certain state seems to be not only folly but prohibitively expensive.


Some people say that? Other people say other things. The fact is that changing CO2 concentration has a profound influence on climate whether you call it a pollutant or whatever else. Many species have gone extinct in the historical period, we are effectively living through a mass extinction event, mostly if not exclusively due to pressures bought about by Man. People say the Sahara was a Jungle? I think you will find informed people say it was a savanna. I think you are misinformed.

You are the one saying we should keep on manipulating climate by unrestricted burning of fossil fuels because it might just possibly be a disaster to the the economy if we transition despite the fact the economy has transitioned from dependence on one thing to another in the past just fine.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
07-04-2017 00:13
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Define a profound influence. I'm doing fine, how about you?
07-04-2017 00:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
I'm not your tutor. I have already linked a piece showing some of the effects already, I have also just posted a graph showing the how the cherry blossom festival is coming early. These trends will not stop and will inevitably have an effect on peoples well being. If you don't believe scientific evidence and wish to believe blogs that tell you what you want to hear that's fine but it does not make my point any less true.
07-04-2017 00:30
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Thank ex-tutor, I've graduated. If you think flowers coming early is a problem, so be it. I remember years when they didn't come at all. By the way, I hope you don't think I am polishing the apple by asking where that post is.
Edited on 07-04-2017 00:35
07-04-2017 00:32
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Frescomexico wrote:
Thank ex-tutor, I've graduated. If you think flowers coming early is a problem, so be it. I remember years when they didn't come at all.


That's not the problem, its evidence of an effect you deny.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
07-04-2017 00:40
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:
Thank ex-tutor, I've graduated. If you think flowers coming early is a problem, so be it. I remember years when they didn't come at all.


That's not the problem, its evidence of an effect you deny.


I don't deny the effect, I just haven't seen the problem yet.
07-04-2017 19:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
spot wrote:
The fact is that changing CO2 concentration has a profound influence on climate whether you call it a pollutant or whatever else.

Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth. It is not something you happen to assert.
spot wrote:
Many species have gone extinct in the historical period,

Many new species have been found too.
spot wrote:
we are effectively living through a mass extinction event,

No.
quote]spot wrote:
mostly if not exclusively due to pressures bought about by Man.[/quote]
Some species have gone extinct due to man's activities. Not 'greenhouse' effect.
spot wrote:
You are the one saying we should keep on manipulating climate by unrestricted burning of fossil fuels

Fossils don't burn. They make a lousy fuel. You might try oil, it burns much better.
spot wrote:
because it might just possibly be a disaster to the the economy if we transition despite the fact the economy has transitioned from dependence on one thing to another in the past just fine.

Not a fact. Learn what a 'fact' is.


The Parrot Killer
07-04-2017 21:25
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"AGW denier liar whiner frenziedmex" muffed: Thank ex-tutor.... I am..... asking where that post is.

What part of NOT your tutor, do you NOT understand..... knothead.
07-04-2017 22:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

Some people seem to think that the earth just before the industrial revolution was at its optimum condition, and any changes thereafter constitute a degradation. The ice was melting before then and the sea was rising. Animals were increasing, decreasing and becoming extinct. Man and other species have always had to move because of climate change. They say the Sahara desert was once a jungle. Where did everyone go?

I have no quarrel with keeping down man-caused pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant) or protecting wildlife. But to think we should try to manipulate our climate to keep it at a certain state seems to be not only folly but prohibitively expensive.


Some people say that? Other people say other things. The fact is that changing CO2 concentration has a profound influence on climate whether you call it a pollutant or whatever else. Many species have gone extinct in the historical period, we are effectively living through a mass extinction event, mostly if not exclusively due to pressures bought about by Man. People say the Sahara was a Jungle? I think you will find informed people say it was a savanna. I think you are misinformed.

You are the one saying we should keep on manipulating climate by unrestricted burning of fossil fuels because it might just possibly be a disaster to the the economy if we transition despite the fact the economy has transitioned from dependence on one thing to another in the past just fine.


The species which are going extinct today are generally island species. We have eaten most of the continental ones long ago.

The transittion from previous forms of power to fossil fuel has been a transittion from poverty to huge wealth beyond the dreams of most of the people back in the 19th century.

Given thatwe know that changing from the best power source we have to something less good will definately make us much poorer and the total lack of anybody able to show me any reason to feel scarred about a slight temperature rise why would I want millions of people to die for some sort of weak western guilt complex mixed with a need for a doom's day cult???
08-04-2017 07:10
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
spot wrote:
Frescomexico wrote:

Some people seem to think that the earth just before the industrial revolution was at its optimum condition, and any changes thereafter constitute a degradation. The ice was melting before then and the sea was rising. Animals were increasing, decreasing and becoming extinct. Man and other species have always had to move because of climate change. They say the Sahara desert was once a jungle. Where did everyone go?

I have no quarrel with keeping down man-caused pollution (CO2 is not a pollutant) or protecting wildlife. But to think we should try to manipulate our climate to keep it at a certain state seems to be not only folly but prohibitively expensive.


Some people say that? Other people say other things. The fact is that changing CO2 concentration has a profound influence on climate whether you call it a pollutant or whatever else. Many species have gone extinct in the historical period, we are effectively living through a mass extinction event, mostly if not exclusively due to pressures bought about by Man. People say the Sahara was a Jungle? I think you will find informed people say it was a savanna. I think you are misinformed.

You are the one saying we should keep on manipulating climate by unrestricted burning of fossil fuels because it might just possibly be a disaster to the the economy if we transition despite the fact the economy has transitioned from dependence on one thing to another in the past just fine.


Changing CO2 concentration has not yet had a profound effect on climate, and, without positive feedback from other greenhouse gases (an unsubstantiated sensitivity), it never will.

Jungle, savanna; the point is migration due climate change is natural and not historically new.

Severe restriction of the burning of fossil fuels at this time WILL be a disaster to the economy and to the welfare of poor people everywhere. We will have to transition from fossil fuel to other energy sources someday, but those other sources are not near ready yet nor is the need pressing.
08-04-2017 15:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Profound was my own word and an assertion, however I stand by it. The climate is changing noticeably I could link even more stuff or tell you about what I have noticed in my shortish life. If you are so well informed on this subject you think people should be taking your advice you should know about the facts backing up my argument.

Of course whether the Sahara was a jungle or a savanna in the past seems a trivial thing but if you want to influence policy and be thought of as credible I think you should take the time to inform yourself.

I don't think you know how climate sensitivity is calculated I think that your information comes from blogs to be honest. You say nobody knows but I think although we don't perfectly know what be the reaction to putting so much CO2 in the atmosphere I think we have a better idea then you think, Also saying we don't know is not really reassuring how can you be sure that errors will be on the less extreme side?

I am touched by your concern for the poor, I'm sure substance farmers in marginal land for example are grateful for your concern but I am disappointing in the fact that I have been offered no explanation of how exactly transitioning away from fossil fuels to technology already available and being used now will bring about economic doom. I am confused as to how exactly this will happen. All I have is a restatement your belief that it will.

It is you that is making a proposal, that we should do nothing, it is up to you to back it up. I think what you advise is unwise and the future will curse you and people like you who have already and continue to retard progress in this field for petty political reasons that override scientific evidence.

Sorry to be blunt.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-04-2017 15:29
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Profound was my own word and an assertion, however I stand by it. The climate is changing noticeably I could link even more stuff or tell you about what I have noticed in my shortish life. If you are so well informed on this subject you think people should be taking your advice you should know about the facts backing up my argument.

Of course whether the Sahara was a jungle or a savanna in the past seems a trivial thing but if you want to influence policy and be thought of as credible I think you should take the time to inform yourself.

I don't think you know how climate sensitivity is calculated I think that your information comes from blogs to be honest. You say nobody knows but I think although we don't perfectly know what be the reaction to putting so much CO2 in the atmosphere I think we have a better idea then you think, Also saying we don't know is not really reassuring how can you be sure that errors will be on the less extreme side?

I am touched by your concern for the poor, I'm sure substance farmers in marginal land for example are grateful for your concern but I am disappointing in the fact that I have been offered no explanation of how exactly transitioning away from fossil fuels to technology already available and being used now will bring about economic doom. I am confused as to how exactly this will happen. All I have is a restatement your belief that it will.

It is you that is making a proposal, that we should do nothing, it is up to you to back it up. I think what you advise is unwise and the future will curse you and people like you who have already and continue to retard progress in this field for petty political reasons that override scientific evidence.

Sorry to be blunt.


1, Actually it is up to you to justify action not the other way around. It is you who has the burden of proof.

2, The people who live in India making cloaths that you wear need cheap transportation to allow them to do this in return for food exported by America. Simplistically.

The huge productivity of the American paries is due to the use of science in producing high yeald crops that are then supplied with fertilisers. If they cannot be grown and then distributed by efficient transport networks to farmers who's customers are all over the world the sysyem will not work in the massively productive way it does today.

We are able to do the stuff like having very very specialist scientists producing better crops and an education system that takes vertually all young farmers to colledge and makes them better farmers due to our wealth. This wealth is the ability to choose to be an artist or a farmer or a scientist specialising in high level physics. Without that we don't get to do those things.

How do you run a 45 tonne truck without fossil fuel?

One day soon we will have a good answer to this. Solar power and cracking CO2 out of the air to get liquid hydrocarbons are technologies which are very close to being ecconomic. Next couple of decades. This is why we should never talk about what happens in a 1000 years. Things will change.

Once we have better ways of doing things we will change. Untill then we should carry on using the best availible because that will not be wanted in the future.
08-04-2017 15:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Profound was my own word and an assertion, however I stand by it. The climate is changing noticeably I could link even more stuff or tell you about what I have noticed in my shortish life. If you are so well informed on this subject you think people should be taking your advice you should know about the facts backing up my argument.

Of course whether the Sahara was a jungle or a savanna in the past seems a trivial thing but if you want to influence policy and be thought of as credible I think you should take the time to inform yourself.

I don't think you know how climate sensitivity is calculated I think that your information comes from blogs to be honest. You say nobody knows but I think although we don't perfectly know what be the reaction to putting so much CO2 in the atmosphere I think we have a better idea then you think, Also saying we don't know is not really reassuring how can you be sure that errors will be on the less extreme side?

I am touched by your concern for the poor, I'm sure substance farmers in marginal land for example are grateful for your concern but I am disappointing in the fact that I have been offered no explanation of how exactly transitioning away from fossil fuels to technology already available and being used now will bring about economic doom. I am confused as to how exactly this will happen. All I have is a restatement your belief that it will.

It is you that is making a proposal, that we should do nothing, it is up to you to back it up. I think what you advise is unwise and the future will curse you and people like you who have already and continue to retard progress in this field for petty political reasons that override scientific evidence.

Sorry to be blunt.


1, Actually it is up to you to justify action not the other way around. It is you who has the burden of proof.

2, The people who live in India making cloaths that you wear need cheap transportation to allow them to do this in return for food exported by America. Simplistically.

The huge productivity of the American paries is due to the use of science in producing high yeald crops that are then supplied with fertilisers. If they cannot be grown and then distributed by efficient transport networks to farmers who's customers are all over the world the sysyem will not work in the massively productive way it does today.

We are able to do the stuff like having very very specialist scientists producing better crops and an education system that takes vertually all young farmers to colledge and makes them better farmers due to our wealth. This wealth is the ability to choose to be an artist or a farmer or a scientist specialising in high level physics. Without that we don't get to do those things.

How do you run a 45 tonne truck without fossil fuel?

One day soon we will have a good answer to this. Solar power and cracking CO2 out of the air to get liquid hydrocarbons are technologies which are very close to being ecconomic. Next couple of decades. This is why we should never talk about what happens in a 1000 years. Things will change.

Once we have better ways of doing things we will change. Untill then we should carry on using the best availible because that will not be wanted in the future.


India's food is mostly grown domestically, as you would know if you bothered to look it up, another Tim the Plumber factoid. And the argument has been made, the fact that some are too obtuse to understand it does not make the issue go away.

Yes there are problems and challenges but I'm sure nothing will get solved as long as we give credence to ignorant and stupid objections to change.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
Edited on 08-04-2017 15:48
08-04-2017 17:37
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Spot,
We have nothing right now than can compete with gas and oil for energy. Tell me one product or service that sees a price reduction due to using an inferior fuel, or "green" method of production and service. The lifeblood of the world economy is cheap energy. One example please?
08-04-2017 17:50
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

In general, science cannot prove anything 100%. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.
08-04-2017 22:22
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

You're confusing science with logic. Courts of law recognize the burden of proof issue and the negative proof fallacy.
Surface Detail wrote:
In general, science cannot prove anything 100%.

Science cannot prove anything at any percent.
Surface Detail wrote:
Science deals in probabilities,

No, gamblers and mathematicians deal with probabilities.
Surface Detail wrote:
not certainties.

Science doesn't deal with that either, except for the formalization of a theory.
Surface Detail wrote:
There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.

Pascal's Wager...a fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-04-2017 00:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

In general, science cannot prove anything 100%. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.


I do not demand proof but decent evidence with a decent mechanism that stands up to decent scrutiny.

It is upon those who want others to change to provide such.

So far I have not even been presented with weak evidence of a slightly convincing mechanism that has stood up to even 10 minutes scrutiny.
09-04-2017 00:25
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

In general, science cannot prove anything 100%. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.


I do not demand proof but decent evidence with a decent mechanism that stands up to decent scrutiny.

It is upon those who want others to change to provide such.

So far I have not even been presented with weak evidence of a slightly convincing mechanism that has stood up to even 10 minutes scrutiny.

That mechanism would be the well-known greenhouse effect that results from the absorption of IR radiation by greenhouse gases. Given that it has stood up to over 100 years of scrutiny by the scientific community since its proposal by Svante Arrhenius, I suspect that your lack of conviction is due not to any lack of evidence but rather to your failure to understand the evidence.
09-04-2017 12:33
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Tim has laid this out rather perfectly. Specifically, burden of proof. The alarmists are the accusers, and at least in my country, the prosecutor must provide evidence beyond a shadow of a doubt.

You're confusing law with science.

In general, science cannot prove anything 100%. Science deals in probabilities, not certainties. There will never be proof that human emissions will bring about dangerous climate change, but that is not a reason to ignore it. We make our decisions based on probabilities of certain outcomes, not proofs.


I do not demand proof but decent evidence with a decent mechanism that stands up to decent scrutiny.

It is upon those who want others to change to provide such.

So far I have not even been presented with weak evidence of a slightly convincing mechanism that has stood up to even 10 minutes scrutiny.

That mechanism would be the well-known greenhouse effect that results from the absorption of IR radiation by greenhouse gases. Given that it has stood up to over 100 years of scrutiny by the scientific community since its proposal by Svante Arrhenius, I suspect that your lack of conviction is due not to any lack of evidence but rather to your failure to understand the evidence.


I do not know enough to comment upon that so I never do.

The next mechanism is the bit where the direct effect of the green house effect is multiplied by additional feedback factors. Do you have good hypothesis which stand up for that???

Then there is the mechanis by which this increase in temperature has bad effects on the world. This I can and do comment upon because the effect of a slight (still is after the adding of wished for not appearing additional effects) upon Greenland's ice sheet is easy to model. And it will do very little.

The you have to explain why a slightly warmer year willcause agricultural meltdown. It never does at the moment so why would it do so if it was the norm?

Then you will need to tell me why it is so hard to build a 3 foot high sea defense.

Good luck.
09-04-2017 17:58
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Tim;

Answering your first question is what the whole field of climatology is about, for a sensible answer I see what a climatologist has said on the matter, and see if it fits with what little physics I know, It does, and you should read up on it, it's a fascinating subject.

About the effects on Greenland's ice, there is a field called Glaciology, with a little bit of research you can find out the methods they use to model the effect on Glaciers, from memory your conclusions are radically different from theirs. Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate? Why should we think yours will turn out more accurate?

As for the ease or difficulty of protecting against flooding I would ask someone in a profession called; "Civil engineering" If its so easy why aren't you a civil engineer? (my brother is) Why take your council over qualified civil engineers?

Why should your side get to ask all the questions and answer none?
Edited on 09-04-2017 18:03
09-04-2017 18:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim;

Answering your first question is what the whole field of climatology is about, for a sensible answer I see what a climatologist has said on the matter, and see if it fits with what little physics I know, It does, and you should read up on it, it's a fascinating subject.

About the effects on Greenland's ice, there is a field called Glaciology, with a little bit of research you can find out the methods they use to model the effect on Glaciers, from memory your conclusions are radically different from theirs. Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate? Why should we think yours will turn out more accurate?

As for the ease or difficulty of protecting against flooding I would ask someone in a profession called; "Civil engineering" If its so easy why aren't you a civil engineer? (my brother is) Why take your council over qualified civil engineers?

Why should your side get to ask all the questions and answer none?


I am happy to answer any of the bits I have said that I am capable of doing so, the sea level bit, which is Greenland ice melt and building a concrete wall 1m high over the next 83 years.

How much heat energy do you think glacial ice can absorb from sunshine? From this data we can work out the maximum possible ice melt and the net change in ice mass of Greenland.

If you do this maths with me you will have to recognise that Greenland is in fact gaining ice.

There are other similarly plain observations we can do from our own computers which also show that Greenland is gaining ice mass.

The climate scientist I attempted to question on this ran away as soon as I asked what the max heat energy per meter absorbsion rate is.
09-04-2017 19:02
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
But what is observed is different to what you say is happening.

And you and me have previous, you have a habit of just making shit up to back your argument.

Tell me again why listen to you?
09-04-2017 19:35
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Spot wrote
Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate?


I could be more accurate sticking my finger in the wind as no warming model has ever been close to right. No prediction has been true. Funny, they were all on the doom and gloom side, pointing to scare tactics driven by gov funded studies.

I don't listen to local weathermen who love the big story. You know, the guy that's always predicting 10-12" inches of snow and usually verifies at 40-50% of forecast. And I won't listen to "scientists" that are always wrong either.
09-04-2017 21:14
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote
Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate?


I could be more accurate sticking my finger in the wind as no warming model has ever been close to right. No prediction has been true. Funny, they were all on the doom and gloom side, pointing to scare tactics driven by gov funded studies.

I don't listen to local weathermen who love the big story. You know, the guy that's always predicting 10-12" inches of snow and usually verifies at 40-50% of forecast. And I won't listen to "scientists" that are always wrong either.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're completely wrong. Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on, as have later predictions of enhanced Arctic warming, rising sea level and melting ice. No prediction can be perfect, but the trend is certainly in line with expectations.

Predicting future climate is a bit like earthquake prediction in California. No-one can say exactly where and when a quake will strike or how big it will be, but the underlying science shows that quakes will happen. No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?
10-04-2017 05:54
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
Surface Detail wrote:
Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on


Not too difficult to predict after seeing the temps do this for the previous 80 years.

No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?


2 reasons..

1. Quakes kill hundreds of thousands and do massive damage...neither of which has 1 degree done..and one more degree will not do. Like Tim said, build a sea wall and I think we're good. (if you actually think we'll need it.)

2. Some money studying climate isn't so bad. We should understand what we live in. Spent money in an effort to change the climate is ludicrous.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
Edited on 10-04-2017 06:34
10-04-2017 12:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
But what is observed is different to what you say is happening.

And you and me have previous, you have a habit of just making shit up to back your argument.

Tell me again why listen to you?


What has been observed that contradicts my statements?

I note that you will not go down the road of looking at the nuimbers with me.
10-04-2017 12:24
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Spot wrote
Do you really think that your predictions will turn out more accurate?


I could be more accurate sticking my finger in the wind as no warming model has ever been close to right. No prediction has been true. Funny, they were all on the doom and gloom side, pointing to scare tactics driven by gov funded studies.

I don't listen to local weathermen who love the big story. You know, the guy that's always predicting 10-12" inches of snow and usually verifies at 40-50% of forecast. And I won't listen to "scientists" that are always wrong either.

I don't know where you're getting your information from, but you're completely wrong. Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on, as have later predictions of enhanced Arctic warming, rising sea level and melting ice. No prediction can be perfect, but the trend is certainly in line with expectations.

Predicting future climate is a bit like earthquake prediction in California. No-one can say exactly where and when a quake will strike or how big it will be, but the underlying science shows that quakes will happen. No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?


If it's 0.1c per decade why do we have predictions of 4.2c by 2100?
10-04-2017 12:26
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on


Not too difficult to predict after seeing the temps do this for the previous 80 years.

No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?


2 reasons..

1. Quakes kill hundreds of thousands and do massive damage...neither of which has 1 degree done..and one more degree will not do. Like Tim said, build a sea wall and I think we're good. (if you actually think we'll need it.)

2. Some money studying climate isn't so bad. We should understand what we live in. Spent money in an effort to change the climate is ludicrous.


Yep.

I think it is a divider between those who deal with unexpected change and difficulties on a general life basis vs those who have lived lives without facing challenges outside the totally predictable.
10-04-2017 15:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
But what is observed is different to what you say is happening.

And you and me have previous, you have a habit of just making shit up to back your argument.

Tell me again why listen to you?


What has been observed that contradicts my statements?

I note that you will not go down the road of looking at the nuimbers with me.


I'm on my phone so linking things is difficult, but Google "greenland glacier mass".

I've been down the road of looking at numbers as far as I could tell you pulled the numbers out of your arse.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
10-04-2017 16:44
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
But what is observed is different to what you say is happening.

And you and me have previous, you have a habit of just making shit up to back your argument.

Tell me again why listen to you?


What has been observed that contradicts my statements?

I note that you will not go down the road of looking at the nuimbers with me.


I'm on my phone so linking things is difficult, but Google "greenland glacier mass".

I've been down the road of looking at numbers as far as I could tell you pulled the numbers out of your arse.


Maybe I can help;

NASA says that the ice mass loss of Greenland is 300Gt/yr.

At that rate it will add 69mm to the sea level by 2100. Does that count as scary?

That rate of ice mass loss is impossible due to the amount of heat energy that the ice can possibly absorb and the snow fall on it.

That rate of ice mass loss is not happening as is evidenced by the lack of 45 or so times the flow rate of the Mississippi river coming out of Greenland in the summer 4 weeks it gets.

Again, you will have to do some numbers yourself to tackle this issue.

Edited on 10-04-2017 16:45
10-04-2017 19:13
spot
★★★★☆
(1019)


As we can see it is decreasing despite your protests that it's impossible, we can also see that it losing mass for a longer period then 4 weeks, so your flat wrong on that point.

I am reminded of the bumblebee, apparently it's impossible for it to fly according to some peoples understanding of the laws of aerodynamics.

It does fly, some peoples understanding of the laws of aerodynamics is wrong.
10-04-2017 19:51
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
I am reminded of the bumblebee, apparently it's impossible for it to fly according to some peoples understanding of the laws of aerodynamics.

It does fly, some peoples understanding of the laws of aerodynamics is wrong.


It's so cold out due to global warming.

It's so dry due to the increased precipitation.

There's so much flooding due to the increased drought.

There's more moisture in the air, therefore we have "drier airs from differing places". (favaorite Lifebeer quote
)

But now we have a new one that just beats all.

We are so wrong that we're right.


I think people screw me over because they don't want to see someone willing to put out the effort that they won't.~James~
10-04-2017 22:40
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
Hansen's prediction back in 1981 of a temperature rise of about 0.1C per decade has turned out just about spot on


Not too difficult to predict after seeing the temps do this for the previous 80 years.

No rational person would suggest that the fact that quakes cannot be predicted with precision means that money spent on earthquake-proofing infrastructure is wasted. So why the different attitude towards money spent on reducing the effects of climate change?


2 reasons..

1. Quakes kill hundreds of thousands and do massive damage...neither of which has 1 degree done..and one more degree will not do. Like Tim said, build a sea wall and I think we're good. (if you actually think we'll need it.)

2. Some money studying climate isn't so bad. We should understand what we live in. Spent money in an effort to change the climate is ludicrous.

I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do. That already has to be planned for, as, for example, the Dutch are doing. Their plan includes more than €100 billion in new spending to the year 2100 for measures such as broadening coastal dunes and strengthening sea and river dikes.

The actions we take now regarding greenhouse gas will dictate whether the sea level will be rising at an increasing rate in 2100 or whether it is starting to level off. Business as usual means a sea level rise that continues to accelerate over the coming centuries until all the polar ice is gone and the sea level is about 65 metres higher than now.
10-04-2017 22:46
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
all the polar ice is gone and the sea level is about 65 metres higher than now.


Get a good look now and pick out your new fishing spots for later.

Edited on 10-04-2017 22:47
10-04-2017 23:47
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
all the polar ice is gone and the sea level is about 65 metres higher than now.


Get a good look now and pick out your new fishing spots for later.

On the plus side, I presume that my home city of Birmingham (UK) will become the new capital of the British Archipelago, given that London and most of the other big cities will be underwater.
11-04-2017 00:45
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make
11-04-2017 01:20
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Frescomexico wrote:
Surface detail wrote: "I think there has been some misunderstanding here. The 1 metre or so rise by the end of the century is virtually inevitable, whatever we do."


There is a problem with deriving "virtual inevitability" from model output, which resulted in the 1 meter prediction.

https://www.researchgate.net/figure/222551635_fig1_Fig-1-Means-and-techniques-of-recording-or-estimating-sea-level-changes-and-make

That paper was published in 2004 and considered only 7 years of satellite records from 1993 to 2000, which wasn't long enough to establish a trend. The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year, that is, the facts have proven the paper wrong.

The lesson from this is that simply projecting past trends forwards (as in this paper) is not a good guide to the future. You need to take the physics responsible for the change into account, as do the scientists who predict an accelerating rate of sea level rise.
11-04-2017 01:26
GasGuzzler
★★★★☆
(1314)
The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,


So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.
11-04-2017 01:36
Frescomexico
★★☆☆☆
(179)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,


So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.


Don't worry, luckily fish don't use models to decide where to feed.
11-04-2017 01:51
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The satellite record is now 24 years long and shows an unmistakably steeper trend of about 3.4 +/- 0.4 mm/year,


So...roughly 20,000 years to reach our goal of 65 meters? Damn it, I had a sweet fishing spot picked out for high water.

No, because the models, based on the physics, don't predict a constant rate of increase; they predict an accelerating rate of increase. It's not just models, though. Geological evidence indicates that equilibrium sea level is closely dependent on temperature. During the warmest parts of the last (Eemian) interglacial period, for example, the global sea level appears to have reached a few metres higher than today's sea level.
Page 2 of 8<1234>>>





Join the debate Consensus of Scientists and Proof:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Consensus607-08-2019 05:33
What makes IPCC scientists sure warmer air hundreds of millions of years ago due to7106-06-2019 23:39
If it's so important why don't some climate scientists kill themselves?028-03-2019 02:21
Climate change is creating toxic crops and poisoning some of world's poorest people, scientists warn022-03-2019 17:30
This is New York City's $10 billion plan to 'climate-proof' itself920-03-2019 13:02
▲ 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