Remember me
▼ Content

Tipping point



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
07-11-2015 23:50
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Totototo wrote:
How will more abundant crops cause people to suffer? I presume you are referring to more CO2 in the atmosphere that will spark a corresponding increase in plant growth.


Well, how about other Greenhouse gases? If I'm not mistaken it's the most harmless of the GHG listed. Something called Global Warming Potential or somenthing like that I'm not sure. If someone can explain how scientist came up with Global Warming Potential please answer.

What about all the barren deserts on the earth. How would changing those to food-producing regions cause people to suffer?


That's a big assumption stated as a fact. Please provide info IB.

@ClimateScientist -
Into the Night said
You guys have been claiming this stuff is going to come true for decades now. You guys have claimed it would be hell on Earth by 2000. None of it has happened. You claimed it would be by 2010. None of it has happened. Neither of any of your predictions for 1970, 1980, or 1990 happen.


If science is the way to predict and understand nature, and the predictions pointed out by Into the Night were made (which I don't know for sure, I have to do some browsing), what went wrong in that prediction? What factor wasn't considered? If we still can't accurately predict this, should it be considered a science and why?

I'd be fascinated to see where Into the Night got those ridiculous 'predictions' because they certainly aren't in any of the IPCC reports or by any science institution. They sound more hysterical strawman claims made by shock jocks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in the US or on conspiracy blogs.

To me, it doesn't look like either IB or ITN have ever read any of the IPCC reports or any scientific literature at all. Their posts show they've never even read any textbooks in the foundational sciences.



Edited on 07-11-2015 23:51
08-11-2015 01:46
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Speaking of 'predictions'*

From Exxon's report in 1982 based on their own research:

What they projected could happen:



What actually occurred since 1982:




Hmmm.... That's rather spot on.



(*it's more appropriate to use the word projections than predictions when referring to the different scenarios in the IPCC reports)



Edited on 08-11-2015 01:51
08-11-2015 04:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Ceist wrote:
Speaking of 'predictions'* ....
What they projected could happen:

It has to have the word "will" to be a prediction. The word "could" identifies it as merely one of the possible outcomes.


Ceist wrote:(*it's more appropriate to use the word projections than predictions when referring to the different scenarios in the IPCC reports)


"Projection" and "prediction" are the same thing. IPCC reports list only possible outcomes (as if we didn't already know) or unfalsifiable predictions by virtue of the fruition being guessed to be too far in the future.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
08-11-2015 12:13
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Another doom and gloom report starting from rash assumptions. This one seems to propose placing everyone under a European 'carbon tax'.

You guys have been claiming this stuff is going to come true for decades now. You guys have claimed it would be hell on Earth by 2000. None of it has happened. You claimed it would be by 2010. None of it has happened. Neither of any of your predictions for 1970, 1980, or 1990 happen. You are a false prophet.


I am not an economist, and I have made no attempt to say whether the Stern report is valid or not. I simply thought it might be of interest.

Yet another unsubstantiated claim by ITN. No one has ever claimed that things will become hell on Earth because of climate change. Or at least no scientific body has ever claimed this. The IPCC was only established in 1998, so I am not sure what the 1970 and 1980 predictions are that you referred to. I have never attempted to say what will happen in the future. All I have said is that the planet has warmed, it is warming now, and based on the evidence and scientific understanding, it is likely to warm in the future.

How can you possibly have any idea if you haven't the vaguest idea of the mysterious ways in which "climate" supposedly changes?


In which case, how can you be so sure that it does not change...

@ Ceist - nice plots! I haven't come across those before. And a good example of how something can be accurate, but not precise.

And yes, I agree with your statement about projection vs prediction. The IPCC makes projections of future climate change, which, amongst other things, are based on assumptions relating to how human activities will change in the future.
08-11-2015 14:45
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:
For me there seems little point in arguing about it. The prediced maximum changes are trivial and benifical so why the fuss?


Climate change will be beneficial for some, but there are likely to be far more 'losers' than 'winners'. For example, those living in Bangladesh, and the Netherlands, will very likely suffer adverse consequences. Similarly, people who rely on particular weather conditions in order to eat and drink, because they live off the land, will also likely suffer. If storms, cyclones, hurricanes and heat waves do increase due to climate change, then there will also be financial burdens. I am not an economist, but you may be interested in reading the Stern report, if you have not already: http://www.wwf.se/source.php/1169157/Stern%20Report_Exec%20Summary.pdf


Bangladesh gets 2cm a year of silt deposited on it and that's 10km away from the rivers. There is almost no such land as the rivers are everywhere. Bangladesh will be bigger than now in 2100.

The Netherlands is half lower than sea level now. I think they will manage to put an extra meter on the sea defences. Using less money than they spend on traffic lights.

Can you be more specific about the particular weather conditions you refer to and how much of the world's food production will be adversely effected please? Will it be as much as 10% of the amount that is used as fuel today?

I have read such reports, perhaps this one, I find them drivel. This is because they will happily roll all the smallest problem into the maximun and then not count any benefits.

The idea that reducing the temperature gradients across the world will cause monster storms is as solid as the models they have used to predict that the artic ocean will be ice free by 2012. In fact they are often the same models. In previous warm times there does not seem to have been this link to increased storms and there has been no such increase now. Dispite the continious warnings of such.

How long will you be giving any of this to happen before you think that the hypothesis is wrong?
08-11-2015 14:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Ceist wrote:
Speaking of 'predictions'*

From Exxon's report in 1982 based on their own research:

What they projected could happen:



What actually occurred since 1982:




Hmmm.... That's rather spot on.



(*it's more appropriate to use the word projections than predictions when referring to the different scenarios in the IPCC reports)


Your graph looks a little bit iffy, the last bit of the red line looks to be more upward than the data has it but..

2.5 degree c. I hope so. Sounds very nice.
08-11-2015 14:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
climate scientist wrote:, it is warming now, and based on the evidence and scientific understanding, it is likely to warm in the future.

As far as you know, the earth could be cooling right now.

What makes you such an idiot is that you won"t admit this because of your religious devotion to unfalsifiable Global Warming dogma.

You're also an utter moron for believing that you can simply write the words "science" or "scientific" and transform your religious paraphernalia into science.

The only assuredness anyone has that the earth is warming in overall average atmospheric temperature is religious in nature. You have nothing scientfic to support your assertions.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
08-11-2015 15:27
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Bangladesh gets 2cm a year of silt deposited on it and that's 10km away from the rivers. There is almost no such land as the rivers are everywhere. Bangladesh will be bigger than now in 2100.

The Netherlands is half lower than sea level now. I think they will manage to put an extra meter on the sea defences. Using less money than they spend on traffic lights.

Can you be more specific about the particular weather conditions you refer to and how much of the world's food production will be adversely effected please? Will it be as much as 10% of the amount that is used as fuel today?

I have read such reports, perhaps this one, I find them drivel. This is because they will happily roll all the smallest problem into the maximun and then not count any benefits.

The idea that reducing the temperature gradients across the world will cause monster storms is as solid as the models they have used to predict that the artic ocean will be ice free by 2012. In fact they are often the same models. In previous warm times there does not seem to have been this link to increased storms and there has been no such increase now. Dispite the continious warnings of such.

How long will you be giving any of this to happen before you think that the hypothesis is wrong?


Do you have a link to back up your statement about Bangladesh? Your claim disagrees with what the unep say: http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article146.html

Weather predictions, storms, and global food are not really my area of expertise. I would have to do some research. The IPCC reports have never claimed there will be monster storms. The IPCC attach a level of certainty to all their statements. I think at the moment that it is likely with not very high certainty that storm frequency and intensity will increase, but I have not looked up the IPCC statements on this, I am trying to remember off the top of my head. I would advise you to find the AR5 WG1 section that refers to storms and weather changes, if you wish to know more. Or I will need more time to do some research.

As far as you know, the earth could be cooling right now.


@ IBdaMann. I suggest that you look at the NOAA temperature record. Or the GISS and CRU temperature records, which are independent from each other and from NOAA. Or, you could refer to the satellite temperature record, which is about 40 years long now.

Does anyone else hear that strange sound?? It sounds to me like a troll stampeding around an internet forum...
08-11-2015 16:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
climate scientist wrote:@ IBdaMann. I suggest that you look at the NOAA temperature record. Or the GISS and CRU temperature records, which are independent from each other and from NOAA. Or, you could refer to the satellite temperature record, which is about 40 years long now.

I have. Since I am an atheist, I don't view the completely inadequate (and fudged) trivia as any sort of sign from on high.

Oh, that's right, you like to inject the word "scientific" into every facet of your faith. What I should have written is "I'm not scientifically mesmerized by woefully inadequate scientific trivia such that I consider it to be a science miracle from my unfalsifiable scientific pantheon.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
08-11-2015 16:16
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
climate scientist wrote:
Does anyone else hear that strange sound?? It sounds to me like a troll stampeding around an internet forum...

You know when someone overinflates a balloon and tries to tie it off with a knot and it slips out of their hands and shoots wildly across the room making a kind of long squealing farting raspberry noise? Imagine 632 of them, one after the other.



Edited on 08-11-2015 16:18
08-11-2015 17:59
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:
Do you have a link to back up your statement about Bangladesh? Your claim disagrees with what the unep say: http://www.unep.org/dewa/vitalwater/article146.html

Weather predictions, storms, and global food are not really my area of expertise. I would have to do some research. The IPCC reports have never claimed there will be monster storms. The IPCC attach a level of certainty to all their statements. I think at the moment that it is likely with not very high certainty that storm frequency and intensity will increase, but I have not looked up the IPCC statements on this, I am trying to remember off the top of my head. I would advise you to find the AR5 WG1 section that refers to storms and weather changes, if you wish to know more. Or I will need more time to do some research.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/7532949.stm

This is not conclusive I will try to find the information i found last time.

And this is for Northern Thailand, which I know is not the same but you get the idea.


http://www.hydrol-earth-syst-sci.net/12/959/2008/hess-12-959-2008.pdf

The mass of dry sediment (32.4 kg m
−2), measured over a
0.32-km2 area of the floodplain is relatively high compared
to reports from European and North American river floods.
Average wet sediment thickness over the area was 3.3 cm.
Sediment thicker than 8 cm covered 16 per cent of the area,
and sediment thicker than 4 cm covered 44 per cent of the
area.

Have to go now I will have another go at it and try to find the info I did last time...
08-11-2015 22:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
I'd be fascinated to see where Into the Night got those ridiculous 'predictions' because they certainly aren't in any of the IPCC reports or by any science institution. They sound more hysterical strawman claims made by shock jocks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in the US or on conspiracy blogs.

You might try reading the news stories of the period. I didn't say scientists predicting. I said "You guys", meaning the climate paranoid that happened to make the news.
Ceist wrote:
To me, it doesn't look like either IB or ITN have ever read any of the IPCC reports or any scientific literature at all. Their posts show they've never even read any textbooks in the foundational sciences.

We have. It's why we have the position we have.
08-11-2015 22:25
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
I'd be fascinated to see where Into the Night got those ridiculous 'predictions' because they certainly aren't in any of the IPCC reports or by any science institution. They sound more hysterical strawman claims made by shock jocks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in the US or on conspiracy blogs.

You might try reading the news stories of the period. I didn't say scientists predicting. I said "You guys", meaning the climate paranoid that happened to make the news.
Ceist wrote:
To me, it doesn't look like either IB or ITN have ever read any of the IPCC reports or any scientific literature at all. Their posts show they've never even read any textbooks in the foundational sciences.

We have. It's why we have the position we have.
No, you clearly haven't. Or you didn't understand what you were reading, because you think science textbooks are 'wrong', and you are 'right'.


"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell



Edited on 08-11-2015 22:26
08-11-2015 22:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
climate scientist wrote:
Another doom and gloom report starting from rash assumptions. This one seems to propose placing everyone under a European 'carbon tax'.

You guys have been claiming this stuff is going to come true for decades now. You guys have claimed it would be hell on Earth by 2000. None of it has happened. You claimed it would be by 2010. None of it has happened. Neither of any of your predictions for 1970, 1980, or 1990 happen. You are a false prophet.


I am not an economist, and I have made no attempt to say whether the Stern report is valid or not. I simply thought it might be of interest.

When you start quoting the 'problems' presented by such a report, you've made the attempt.
climate scientist wrote:
Yet another unsubstantiated claim by ITN. No one has ever claimed that things will become hell on Earth because of climate change. Or at least no scientific body has ever claimed this. The IPCC was only established in 1998, so I am not sure what the 1970 and 1980 predictions are that you referred to. I have never attempted to say what will happen in the future. All I have said is that the planet has warmed, it is warming now, and based on the evidence and scientific understanding, it is likely to warm in the future.

You should read the news articles of the period and where they get their information from. I don't limit my statement to the IPCC or even to scientists. I refer to the climate paranoid (or Warmaholics for the current generation).
One interesting starting point for these news articles is http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm.

climate scientist wrote:
How can you possibly have any idea if you haven't the vaguest idea of the mysterious ways in which "climate" supposedly changes?


In which case, how can you be so sure that it does not change...

I never said it doesn't. I do say it hasn't changed in the catastrophic way that is constantly being suggested.
climate scientist wrote:
@ Ceist - nice plots! I haven't come across those before. And a good example of how something can be accurate, but not precise.

And yes, I agree with your statement about projection vs prediction. The IPCC makes projections of future climate change, which, amongst other things, are based on assumptions relating to how human activities will change in the future.

Projection and predictions are things any fortune teller does.
Any science fiction writer makes projections based on assumptions relating to how human activities will change in the future.
08-11-2015 22:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
I'd be fascinated to see where Into the Night got those ridiculous 'predictions' because they certainly aren't in any of the IPCC reports or by any science institution. They sound more hysterical strawman claims made by shock jocks like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh in the US or on conspiracy blogs.

You might try reading the news stories of the period. I didn't say scientists predicting. I said "You guys", meaning the climate paranoid that happened to make the news.
Ceist wrote:
To me, it doesn't look like either IB or ITN have ever read any of the IPCC reports or any scientific literature at all. Their posts show they've never even read any textbooks in the foundational sciences.

We have. It's why we have the position we have.
No, you clearly haven't. Or you didn't understand what you were reading, because you think science textbooks are 'wrong', and you are 'right'.


"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand." - Bertrand Russell

Divisional fallacy. You are attempting to include all science textbooks as being exactly the same. They aren't. Some are right, others are mostly right but have wrong parts, others are mostly wrong but have a few right parts, others are just flat wrong.

Reading doesn't necessarily mean accepting.

I believe I am right...of course, just as you believe you are right...of course.
Edited on 08-11-2015 22:45
08-11-2015 23:21
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
When you start quoting the 'problems' presented by such a report, you've made the attempt.


I didn't quote anything from the Stern report.

You should read the news articles of the period and where they get their information from. I don't limit my statement to the IPCC or even to scientists. I refer to the climate paranoid (or Warmaholics for the current generation).
One interesting starting point for these news articles is http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm.


I deliberately try to avoid media articles, because I know that the media sensationalizes factual information to make more of a story. I would advise you to do the same, when it comes to collating information and evidence with respect to climate change.

I never said it doesn't. I do say it hasn't changed in the catastrophic way that is constantly being suggested.


Yes, I know, I was quoting IBdaMann, not you. I have never said that climate change is catastrophic. For a start, this is a very ambiguous term. I mean, what does catastrophic actually mean? If you are referring to the end of humanity or the end of the world, then of course, climate change is very unlikely to be catastrophic. But an individual whose home is flooded, and is forced to leave their country, might well consider climate change to be catastrophic.

Projection and predictions are things any fortune teller does.
Any science fiction writer makes projections based on assumptions relating to how human activities will change in the future.


Not really. Climate change projections are based on physical principles, not artistic license. For example, we can say that if GHG emissions increase by X amount, and nothing else unusual happens (such as a significant change in solar activity, an asteroid impact, a supervolcano eruption), then it is likely that the climate will warm by Y degrees C. It doesn't mean that this is what is going to happen. Because it is entirely possible that something else might intervene. And the projection itself is only likely, not certain. This is why it is a projection, and not a prediction. The IPCC do not try to say what will happen in the future. They try to say what is likely to occur if certain things happen, and other things do not happen.
09-11-2015 11:54
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:Not really. Climate change projections are based on physical principles, not artistic license. For example, we can say that if GHG emissions increase by X amount, and nothing else unusual happens (such as a significant change in solar activity, an asteroid impact, a supervolcano eruption), then it is likely that the climate will warm by Y degrees C. It doesn't mean that this is what is going to happen. Because it is entirely possible that something else might intervene. And the projection itself is only likely, not certain. This is why it is a projection, and not a prediction. The IPCC do not try to say what will happen in the future. They try to say what is likely to occur if certain things happen, and other things do not happen.


For purposes outside of very dry scientific discussions prediction and projection are the same thing.
09-11-2015 14:41
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
For purposes outside of very dry scientific discussions prediction and projection are the same thing.


If you like. But either way, the IPCC projections/predictions are based on data.
09-11-2015 16:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:
For purposes outside of very dry scientific discussions prediction and projection are the same thing.


If you like. But either way, the IPCC projections/predictions are based on data.


The data may be suspect. I don't really know. I would like it examined in a more legally robust process.

Which bits of the predictions worries you?

And again, what would it take for you to decied that it is not going to be a problem?
09-11-2015 20:35
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Greg wrote:Well, OK. Give me something to read then.


http://www.topix.com/forum/news/global-warming/TK8OFVLNETQS2HSGA/p373#c7807

Awesome. I asked for a cite from peer-reviewed science literature that the greenhouse effect violated the first law of thermodynamics, and you gave me ... another forum where you also make that claim.

You asked my version of the greenhouse effect. Of course, I don't have a version of my own, but the only version I know of is greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation coming up from the earth's surface, then re-emit it in all directions, including some back towards earth. You say that means the greenhouse gasses would have to create energy, but really all it says is that less energy makes it into space, and more is returned to earth. Usually, your arguments, even when running counter to reality, have a sort of internal logic to them. I'm failing to see even that in this case.

Let me try to cram an extra point into this post. You say we shouldn't believe the subjective opinions of scientists in their published research, specifically in regards to the atmospheric greenhouse effect. However, you do believe in the first law of thermodynamics, which came out of the exact same process. Why do you call one finding the ravings of religious fanatics and the other inviolate science?
09-11-2015 22:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Greg wrote:
Awesome. I asked for a cite from peer-reviewed science literature that the greenhouse effect violated the first law of thermodynamics, and you gave me ... another forum where you also make that claim.

You asked for an explanation. I gave you a link to where I had already explained it.

If you want literature then I recommend Beowulf. "Peer-reviewed" does not make science. No one's opinion trumps science. I gave you science, not my opinion. If your faith doesn't agree with the science I gave you, your faith is out of luck.


Greg wrote:You asked my version of the greenhouse effect. Of course, I don't have a version of my own, but the only version I know of is greenhouse gasses absorb infrared radiation coming up from the earth's surface, then re-emit it in all directions, including some back towards earth.

I just made a thread for you, listing the big four models. Your version is an amalgam of two of them.

Greg wrote: You say that means the greenhouse gasses would have to create energy, but really all it says is that less energy makes it into space, and more is returned to earth.

Before you claim that I don't make any sense, realize that your religion violates several laws of physics.

Greg wrote: You say we shouldn't believe the subjective opinions of scientists in their published research, specifically in regards to the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Correct. Subjective opinion has no role in science.

Greg wrote: However, you do believe in the first law of thermodynamics, which came out of the exact same process. Why do you call one finding the ravings of religious fanatics and the other inviolate science?

The 1st LoT is a falsifiable model that has survived the scientific method. It is not subjective; it's truth is inherent.

The "greenhouse effect" is religious blathering that has nothing to do with science. There is no falsifiable "greenhouse effect" model that can withstand the scientific method.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
09-11-2015 22:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
climate scientist wrote:
When you start quoting the 'problems' presented by such a report, you've made the attempt.


I didn't quote anything from the Stern report.
Technically correct. You paraphrased it instead. You used a lot of phrases written the same as the report, though.
climate scientist wrote:
You should read the news articles of the period and where they get their information from. I don't limit my statement to the IPCC or even to scientists. I refer to the climate paranoid (or Warmaholics for the current generation).
One interesting starting point for these news articles is http://www.lowerwolfjaw.com/agw/quotes.htm.


I deliberately try to avoid media articles, because I know that the media sensationalizes factual information to make more of a story. I would advise you to do the same, when it comes to collating information and evidence with respect to climate change.

Fine. Again, I was referring to the climate paranoid, not necessarily limiting it to the IPCC or to scientists. Despite your claims, there are scientists that believe this stuff they read in the press. I submit you are one of them.
climate scientist wrote:
I never said it doesn't. I do say it hasn't changed in the catastrophic way that is constantly being suggested.


Yes, I know, I was quoting IBdaMann, not you. I have never said that climate change is catastrophic. For a start, this is a very ambiguous term. I mean, what does catastrophic actually mean? If you are referring to the end of humanity or the end of the world, then of course, climate change is very unlikely to be catastrophic. But an individual whose home is flooded, and is forced to leave their country, might well consider climate change to be catastrophic.

Yes, you have. Anytime you are talking about the effects of global warming, rising seas, increased hurricane activity, droughts, relocation of people, someone losing their house to floods, or any of that, you are talking catastrophic change.
You really should realize, dude, that weather events happen. They've happened since there's been weather. None of it is due to 'climate change'.
climate scientist wrote:
Projection and predictions are things any fortune teller does.
Any science fiction writer makes projections based on assumptions relating to how human activities will change in the future.


Not really. Climate change projections are based on physical principles, not artistic license.

You are taking artistic license on the physical principles.
climate scientist wrote:
For example, we can say that if GHG emissions increase by X amount, and nothing else unusual happens (such as a significant change in solar activity, an asteroid impact, a supervolcano eruption), then it is likely that the climate will warm by Y degrees C.

Here you describing the classic greenhouse trap. Such a trap is not possible due to the conservation of energy law. Any amount of trapped energy must build a feed forward loop that results in the destruction of the trap catastrophically (and the Earth with it).
climate scientist wrote:
It doesn't mean that this is what is going to happen. Because it is entirely possible that something else might intervene.

Irrelevant.
climate scientist wrote:
And the projection itself is only likely, not certain. This is why it is a projection, and not a prediction.

It is exactly the same with a fortune teller.
climate scientist wrote:
The IPCC do not try to say what will happen in the future. They try to say what is likely to occur if certain things happen, and other things do not happen.

So the IPCC is no better than a fortune teller.
Edited on 09-11-2015 22:13
09-11-2015 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
climate scientist wrote:
For purposes outside of very dry scientific discussions prediction and projection are the same thing.


If you like. But either way, the IPCC projections/predictions are based on data.


What data? What instrumentation was used? What is the source of that data? Where and when was it measured? Who measured it? How was it measured?

You realize, of course, that I created the Data Mine for exactly that purpose. To separate the vague claim of 'data' from the real thing.
Edited on 09-11-2015 22:17
09-11-2015 22:27
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
The data may be suspect. I don't really know. I would like it examined in a more legally robust process.

Which bits of the predictions worries you?

And again, what would it take for you to decied that it is not going to be a problem?


The InterAcademy Council conducted a review of the IPCC process and produced a report. See here:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html

As for worrying, I don't really deal with the impacts of climate change. My research is about quantifying carbon fluxes between the different carbon reservoirs (e.g. ocean, land, ff, atmosphere). According to the IPCC projections, I will probably live long enough to see the Arctic become ice-free in the summer. This is concerning to me. The Arctic has not been ice-free in the summer for a very long time. I also think that 0.5 m of sea level rise will cause a lot of problems for a lot of people, and this concerns me. If in the next 10 years or so, we see that atmospheric temperatures level off, sea level stops rising, the Arctic sea ice stops declining, and ocean heat content stabilises, then I will think that climate change is not going to manifest as the IPCC are currently projecting it will.
09-11-2015 22:43
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Technically correct. You paraphrased it instead. You used a lot of phrases written the same as the report, though.


Well, I haven't actually read the report, so I'm not sure how I paraphrased it! Although I do know what the key finding was.

Despite your claims, there are scientists that believe this stuff they read in the press. I submit you are one of them.


I am normally actually quite shocked at how badly climate science is represented in the media, and then I start to wonder how much other stuff is poorly reported, which I don't even know about.

You are taking artistic license on the physical principles.


Firstly, it is not me. I do not make climate projections as part of my research. Secondly, do you have any evidence to suggest that climate scientists make up the physical principles that are inherent in the GCMs? Or is this just another wild accusation that is based on no evidence whatsoever?

Here you describing the classic greenhouse trap. Such a trap is not possible due to the conservation of energy law. Any amount of trapped energy must build a feed forward loop that results in the destruction of the trap catastrophically (and the Earth with it).


If you are so convinced that you are right, then why are you posting here? Why not just take it to the press, and expose the biggest conspiracy theory ever? It would definitely make headline news. Or maybe you are not so confident after all...

I have never met a fortune teller who knew much about physics. I will say it again - the IPCC projections are based on data. Do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?

What data? What instrumentation was used? What is the source of that data? Where and when was it measured? Who measured it? How was it measured?


I would suggest that you read the 5th IPCC report, WG1. It is all in there. I could make a list, but it would be very long. FF emission data, population growth data, atmospheric CO2 data, sea ice data, atmospheric temperature data, atmospheric humidity data, incoming solar radiation data, outgoing IR data, ocean temperature data, ocean CO2 data, ocean phytoplankton data, land biomass data, land respiration and photosynthesis data, albedo data, soil carbon data, ice sheet data, rainfall data, ocean circulation data, ocean salinity data, etc, etc, etc....
10-11-2015 00:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
climate scientist wrote:
Technically correct. You paraphrased it instead. You used a lot of phrases written the same as the report, though.


Well, I haven't actually read the report, so I'm not sure how I paraphrased it! Although I do know what the key finding was.

??? what??? NOW you claim you've never read the report you posted a link to???? NOW you claim the statements you made in that post were not drawn from that report???
climate scientist wrote:
Despite your claims, there are scientists that believe this stuff they read in the press. I submit you are one of them.


I am normally actually quite shocked at how badly climate science is represented in the media, and then I start to wonder how much other stuff is poorly reported, which I don't even know about.

Your career of measuring 'greenhouse' gases is based upon it, dude. However, I agree. The media does badly represent pretty much any science in general. They are just as bad with describing anything engineered.
climate scientist wrote:
You are taking artistic license on the physical principles.


Firstly, it is not me. I do not make climate projections as part of my research. Secondly, do you have any evidence to suggest that climate scientists make up the physical principles that are inherent in the GCMs? Or is this just another wild accusation that is based on no evidence whatsoever?

You are making predictions right here on this forum and have done so for awhile. Whether you call it part of your research is irrelevant. I have already described to you how so many scientists and researches can get themselves twisted up with this stuff by starting from a biased stem. I have already described to you that this argument is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is your burden to prove the magick qualities of 'greenhouse' gases. Not mine.

climate scientist wrote:
Here you describing the classic greenhouse trap. Such a trap is not possible due to the conservation of energy law. Any amount of trapped energy must build a feed forward loop that results in the destruction of the trap catastrophically (and the Earth with it).


If you are so convinced that you are right, then why are you posting here? Why not just take it to the press, and expose the biggest conspiracy theory ever? It would definitely make headline news. Or maybe you are not so confident after all...

You are denying your own argument here. 'nuff said.
climate scientist wrote:
I have never met a fortune teller who knew much about physics. I will say it again - the IPCC projections are based on data. Do you have any evidence that suggests otherwise?

Shifting the burden of proof again. I do not need evidence to suggest otherwise. The IPCC must show this. They haven't.
climate scientist wrote:
What data? What instrumentation was used? What is the source of that data? Where and when was it measured? Who measured it? How was it measured?


I would suggest that you read the 5th IPCC report, WG1. It is all in there. I could make a list, but it would be very long. FF emission data, population growth data, atmospheric CO2 data, sea ice data, atmospheric temperature data, atmospheric humidity data, incoming solar radiation data, outgoing IR data, ocean temperature data, ocean CO2 data, ocean phytoplankton data, land biomass data, land respiration and photosynthesis data, albedo data, soil carbon data, ice sheet data, rainfall data, ocean circulation data, ocean salinity data, etc, etc, etc....

No, it is NOT all in there. Nowhere do they answer for the source of their data that can answer these questions. Most of what they quote is composite, fudged, or purely manufactured 'data'. I've already covered some of these and exposed them as purely manufactured data.
10-11-2015 04:34
Totototo
★☆☆☆☆
(117)
Most of what they quote is composite, fudged, or purely manufactured 'data'. I've already covered some of these and exposed them as purely manufactured data.

How can one distinguish which data is manufactured?
10-11-2015 10:05
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
??? what??? NOW you claim you've never read the report you posted a link to???? NOW you claim the statements you made in that post were not drawn from that report???


Like I said, I posted the link because I thought it might be interesting for other people to read, if they have not come across it already. I'm not sure what statements specifically you are referring to. The report is an economic analysis. I am not an economist. My statements on this forum have mainly been about the science of climate change. If you re-post my statements that you would like to know the source of, then I am happy to tell you where they are from. I have yet to see where any of your statements are from.

Your career of measuring 'greenhouse' gases is based upon it, dude. However, I agree. The media does badly represent pretty much any science in general. They are just as bad with describing anything engineered.


Absolutely not. I originally did a degree in oceanography. I could well have ended up working for an oil company. Several of my peers have done so. I came across climate science and climate change during my degree. Then decided to do a Masters in climate change, and that was that. The media has had no role in deciding my career path. Greenhouse gases were discovered about 100 years ago. I measure CO2, because it is interesting to do so. The fact that it is a greenhouse gas, makes it more interesting. I measure other gases too, such as O2, even though O2 is not a greenhouse gas. This is because measurements of O2 and CO2 together can tell us more about the carbon cycle than measurements of CO2 alone.

You are making predictions right here on this forum and have done so for awhile. Whether you call it part of your research is irrelevant. I have already described to you how so many scientists and researches can get themselves twisted up with this stuff by starting from a biased stem. I have already described to you that this argument is nothing more than an attempt to shift the burden of proof. It is your burden to prove the magick qualities of 'greenhouse' gases. Not mine.


I have not made any predictions. I have reported on what the IPCC projections are. I have not made up any information myself. It all comes from the scientific literature. Funny how I am the one who is supposedly trying to shift the burden of proof, and yet I am happy to tell you exactly where my information and statements come from, and on what evidence they are based. Yet you refuse to provide such information. Why are you evading the question? What are you afraid of?

You are denying your own argument here. 'nuff said.


Lol. You still think this is a trial, right? Go on. Send your theory to the press. See what they do with it. If it is so obvious that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, they will listen to you.

Shifting the burden of proof again. I do not need evidence to suggest otherwise. The IPCC must show this. They haven't.


The IPCC have shown that their projections are based on data. It is all in the reports. If you let me know which sections are unclear to you, then I can help to provide some additional information. If you make a wild claim, such as the IPCC are fudging their numbers, or that their GCMs only produce random numbers, then it is not unreasonable to ask where such a claim comes from. What is the evidence for these claims? Or do you not have any evidence?

No, it is NOT all in there. Nowhere do they answer for the source of their data that can answer these questions. Most of what they quote is composite, fudged, or purely manufactured 'data'. I've already covered some of these and exposed them as purely manufactured data.



Have you read the reports? Most of the sentences contain at least one citation. The data is from the published literature. If you tell me exactly which part of the report that you think is not based on data, then I can help you find the original source data.

You still have not answered my question. On what is your view of climate change based? You claim that you are not influenced by your political views, and you do not believe the IPCC, because you think they are fudging the data, even though you have no evidence for this. In which case, on what evidence have you come to the conclusion that there is no greenhouse effect? Can you post any links? Or did you come to this conclusion entirely yourself?

The IPCC reports are written by volunteer scientists from the global community. Thousands of them. Their names are written in the reports as authors. You can Google them all to find out more information about where they work, and what their field of expertise is. You can normally also see what publications they have. They are not politicians. Politicians only have input on the wording of the summary for policy makers documents, not on the actual main reports themselves. The IPCC reports are now reviewed by an independent panel. The reviews are published on their website. The IPCC process is published on their website. The IPCC process was reviewed independently by the InterAcademy Council, and was found to be largely a successful process. The IPCC are not trying to hide anything, they are trying to make it all as transparent as possible.
10-11-2015 12:00
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
climate scientist wrote:The InterAcademy Council conducted a review of the IPCC process and produced a report. See here:

http://reviewipcc.interacademycouncil.net/report.html

As for worrying, I don't really deal with the impacts of climate change. My research is about quantifying carbon fluxes between the different carbon reservoirs (e.g. ocean, land, ff, atmosphere). According to the IPCC projections, I will probably live long enough to see the Arctic become ice-free in the summer. This is concerning to me. The Arctic has not been ice-free in the summer for a very long time. I also think that 0.5 m of sea level rise will cause a lot of problems for a lot of people, and this concerns me. If in the next 10 years or so, we see that atmospheric temperatures level off, sea level stops rising, the Arctic sea ice stops declining, and ocean heat content stabilises, then I will think that climate change is not going to manifest as the IPCC are currently projecting it will.


I think we have got to the basic difference between us.

I don't see much trouble with a foot and a half sea level rise over the next 90 years. The last century saw 6 inches and no cities were swept away. As long as we can use mechanical diggers to build the very occaisional sea defenss it will be an insignificant issue, loads cheaper than traffic lights.

Are you aware of the numbers of deaths this GW meam has caused?

Thank you for answering the question (really, it does not happen often, I have increased my respect for you) though and please rember that if by 2025 there has not been a significant temperature rise you have drawn your line in the sand.
10-11-2015 17:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
climate scientist wrote: My statements on this forum have mainly been about the science of climate change.

Your statements have been a funny demonstration of your desperate need to refer to your deep religious faith as "science."

If someone so much as recites a Global Warming prayer, you refer to it as "scientific research."

If anyone writes the words to a Global Warming prayer, you refer to it as a "peer-reviewed scientific study."

If anyone asks you for the actual science you insist you have, you shift into "speak for countless, unnamed others" mode and claim that your religion is a scientific consensus of the scientists based on the scientific evidence showing The Science is real and active in our lives.

climate scientist wrote: Then decided to do a Masters in climate change, and that was that.

Was it an accredited university that awarded you a Masters of Climate Change?

In any event, which institution thusly awarded you this title?


climate scientist wrote: Greenhouse gases were discovered about 100 years ago.

Jesus was discovered long before that.

climate scientist wrote: I measure other gases too, such as O2, even though O2 is not a greenhouse gas.

How do you know this? What makes O2 not a "greenhouse gas"?

climate scientist wrote: This is because measurements of O2 and CO2 together can tell us more about the carbon cycle than measurements of CO2 alone.

What cycle does carbon have?

climate scientist wrote: I have reported on what the IPCC projections are.

Pure semantic games.

How is a projection not a prediction?

What falsifiable/verifiable/testable projections does the IPCC actually make?

climate scientist wrote: The IPCC have shown that their projections are based on data.

So you acknowledge they are not based on any science?

climate scientist wrote: Have you read the reports?

I have. There's no science.

climate scientist wrote:On what is your view of climate change based?

The complete lack of science perhaps?

climate scientist wrote: The IPCC reports are now reviewed by an independent panel.

Who chooses the people on the panel? I know I was never asked to provide an independent review nor has any person I know who is not a Global Warming worshiper. Someone in my position can only presume that this panel is either a group of warmizombie activists or was hired for their rubber stamps.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
10-11-2015 18:34
Greg
☆☆☆☆☆
(13)
IBdaMann wrote:
If you want literature then I recommend Beowulf.


Beowulf ... nice. You're Grendel! Good comeback, huh? I bet you didn't see that coming.


OK, fine:

literature (n) --
3. the writings dealing with a particular subject:

I'm sure you knew that though, and were just trying to give me a hard time.

IBdaMann wrote:
"Peer-reviewed" does not make science. No one's opinion trumps science. I gave you science, not my opinion. If your faith doesn't agree with the science I gave you, your faith is out of luck.


I see a certain cognitive dissonance there. The main difference between you and scientists is that they use observations and measurements to test theories, and have their peers review their work prior to publishing it to help catch errors in methodology and logic. However, you say what they publish is only opinion, but what you publish is science.

In any case, I see you're trying to bait me by calling my arguments "faith". I'm not going to rise to the bait though. I may not be able to convince you of what I say (and vice versa), but there's no reason to descend into insults.

IBdaMann wrote:
I just made a thread for you, listing the big four models. Your version is an amalgam of two of them.


Cool. I'll check it out.
10-11-2015 20:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4926)
Greg wrote: I see a certain cognitive dissonance there.

Cognitive dissonance is certainly coming from one of us...and we can eliminate me as one of the possibilities.

Greg wrote: The main difference between you and scientists is that they use observations and measurements to test theories, and have their peers review their work prior to publishing it to help catch errors in methodology and logic.

The main difference between you and scientists is that they understand science.

For someone to be a scientist s/he must work with science, i.e. falsifiable models that predict nature. Researchers who simply gather data are researchers (although Climate Scientist would insist that those who preach Global Warming are "science" researchers). Police detectives look into "theories" every day but that doesn't make them scientists (unless they preach Global Warming in which case Climate Scientist will insist they are practicing law enforcement "science").

...and people of all industries who write have others check their work for content, spelling, grammar, logic, tone, clarity and every other aspect of writing. There is nothing particular about this to science. I have a friend who reviews movie and television scripts, but that doesn't make him a scientist (except Climate Scientist would want to know if he preaches Global Warming and if he thus engages in entertainment "science").

Greg wrote: However, you say what they publish is only opinion, but what you publish is science.

What is your native language? You don't seem to be understanding my points. You should ask questions if you don't understand something rather than pretend to speak for me and misstate my position.

Greg wrote: In any case, I see you're trying to bait me by calling my arguments "faith". I'm not going to rise to the bait though. I may not be able to convince you of what I say (and vice versa), but there's no reason to descend into insults.

It's only an insult if you take it that way. I can tell Christians that they have faith in Christ and they don't take offense. I don't expect you to take offense at being told you have faith in your religion. But if you do, that's your choice.

Answer me this: Do you believe Global Warming is real and active in our lives?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

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
10-11-2015 20:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Totototo wrote:
Most of what they quote is composite, fudged, or purely manufactured 'data'. I've already covered some of these and exposed them as purely manufactured data.

How can one distinguish which data is manufactured?

Any data quoting a global temperature (which is not possible), any data quoting ocean levels (which is not possible), any data arising from computer models of any kind, etc.
10-11-2015 20:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
climate scientist wrote:
??? what??? NOW you claim you've never read the report you posted a link to???? NOW you claim the statements you made in that post were not drawn from that report???


I have yet to see where any of your statements are from.

My statements are my own. No one else is making them. If you want to see why I make them, I suggest you search out the Data Mine and other conversations in this forum.
climate scientist wrote:
Absolutely not. I originally did a degree in oceanography. ...

Irrelevant. Your degree is not your career. Your chosen career is your career.
You were not around 100 years ago when 'greenhouse' gases were supposedly 'discovered'.
climate scientist wrote:
I have not made any predictions.
I have reported on what the IPCC projections are. I have not made up any information myself. It all comes from the scientific literature. Funny how I am the one who is supposedly trying to shift the burden of proof, and yet I am happy to tell you exactly where my information and statements come from, and on what evidence they are based. Yet you refuse to provide such information. Why are you evading the question? What are you afraid of?
Yes, you have.

Already answered this. There is no need to continue to answer this again and again. Why are you asking this again and again?
climate scientist wrote:
[quote]You are denying your own argument here. 'nuff said.


Lol. You still think this is a trial, right? Go on. Send your theory to the press. See what they do with it. If it is so obvious that there is no such thing as the greenhouse effect, they will listen to you.

You have denied your own argument yet again. Why do you continue to do so? Once you figure out what you're doing here, this question will answer itself.

climate scientist wrote:
Shifting the burden of proof again. I do not need evidence to suggest otherwise. The IPCC must show this. They haven't.


The IPCC have shown that their projections are based on data. It is all in the reports. If you let me know which sections are unclear to you, then I can help to provide some additional information. If you make a wild claim, such as the IPCC are fudging their numbers, or that their GCMs only produce random numbers, then it is not unreasonable to ask where such a claim comes from. What is the evidence for these claims? Or do you not have any evidence?

What part of shifting the burden of proof doesn't make sense to you? I have already shown why the 'data' they use is useless. Why do you keep asking me to present information I've already presented?
climate scientist wrote:
No, it is NOT all in there. Nowhere do they answer for the source of their data that can answer these questions. Most of what they quote is composite, fudged, or purely manufactured 'data'. I've already covered some of these and exposed them as purely manufactured data.



Have you read the reports?

I have already answered this question. Why do you keep asking it again and again? Yes...I have read the reports.
Edited on 10-11-2015 21:00
11-11-2015 09:41
climate scientist
★★☆☆☆
(257)
Was it an accredited university that awarded you a Masters of Climate Change?


Yes, absolutely. A very well respected University in fact.

In any event, which institution thusly awarded you this title?


Why is this relevant to the discussion? I have asked you about your qualifications, and you have not replied.

How do you know this? What makes O2 not a "greenhouse gas"?


We have been through this before on a previous thread. You are welcome to go back and read my response.

What cycle does carbon have?


If you do not know what the carbon cycle is, then you might want to try Google-ing 'carbon cycle'.

The thought of you being on any kind of review panel is quite scary.

@ITN - I can't reply in full now, but here is some food for thought. The UK Met Office are likely soon to announce that we have reached 1 deg C of warming since the 1850-1900 average. Why do you think that global temperature cannot be measured? Why do you think that there has been no warming?
11-11-2015 10:17
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:My statements are my own. No one else is making them.


Well yes, we already know that you just make stuff up and don't base your assertions on evidence or known science.

I just don't see why you believe your personal, evidence-free, science-free, pseudo-science Sky Dragon Slayer opinions would be at all convincing.



Edited on 11-11-2015 10:20
11-11-2015 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
climate scientist wrote:

@ITN - I can't reply in full now, but here is some food for thought. The UK Met Office are likely soon to announce that we have reached 1 deg C of warming since the 1850-1900 average. Why do you think that global temperature cannot be measured? Why do you think that there has been no warming?


Lack of instrumentation.

The instrumentation we do have is not showing any tendency toward warming or cooling.
11-11-2015 21:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:My statements are my own. No one else is making them.


Well yes, we already know that you just make stuff up and don't base your assertions on evidence or known science.

I just don't see why you believe your personal, evidence-free, science-free, pseudo-science Sky Dragon Slayer opinions would be at all convincing.


Links are not authority. Google is not God. Learn to think for yourself, dude.
11-11-2015 22:34
Ceist
★★★☆☆
(592)
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:My statements are my own. No one else is making them.


Well yes, we already know that you just make stuff up and don't base your assertions on evidence or known science.

I just don't see why you believe your personal, evidence-free, science-free, pseudo-science Sky Dragon Slayer opinions would be at all convincing.


Links are not authority. Google is not God. Learn to think for yourself, dude.
I don't believe in imaginary deities, dude. Learn some science and how to back up your claims with evidence from valid sources, dude.



12-11-2015 00:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9597)
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Ceist wrote:
Into the Night wrote:My statements are my own. No one else is making them.


Well yes, we already know that you just make stuff up and don't base your assertions on evidence or known science.

I just don't see why you believe your personal, evidence-free, science-free, pseudo-science Sky Dragon Slayer opinions would be at all convincing.


Links are not authority. Google is not God. Learn to think for yourself, dude.
I don't believe in imaginary deities, dude. Learn some science and how to back up your claims with evidence from valid sources, dude.


But you do. Q.E.D.
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate Tipping point:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why don't one of the climate scientists commit suicide to make a point?127-02-2019 04:22
Is there a Jewish Point of View?302-02-2019 18:36
Why the silence on zero point energy?311-04-2018 19:59
Whatever happened to the Global Warming "Tipping Points?"1405-10-2015 20:23
We passed the tipping point on climate change in 1901201-10-2015 18:07
▲ 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