Topic: Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland - page 11. (Read 20356 times)
February 04, 2012, 06:40:00 PM
Completely independent of any ambiguity regarding cloud layer feedback loops, there are ice albedo feedback loops, which have no ambiguity with regard to their processes.
February 04, 2012, 06:39:02 PM
The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is
1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.
I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture ->
net effect on clouds
2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.
All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.
1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.
I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture ->
net effect on clouds2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.
All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.
February 04, 2012, 06:36:11 PM
You recited a list of related topics... nowhere have you indicated any understanding, or lack of (for that matter), these topics. So I honestly don't know.
It is not my responsibility to prove that I have any knowledge on these subjects. But by clearly stating that I do, it would be obvious that I am inviting discussion on those topics if you would only engage, rather than harp.
February 04, 2012, 06:33:57 PM
The main problem with concluding we know the cause of global warming is
1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.
I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture -> net effect on clouds
2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.
All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.
At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.
1) No one really understands clouds, which can either reflect light back into space (cooling), or reflect it back down to earth (heating) depending on various factors.
I.e. increased heat -> increased moisture ->
net effect on clouds2) The body of evidence that warming is occurring is actually showing pretty small scale changes so far (far, far less than what occurs during the yearly cycle). Whether the theorized positive feedback loop occurs depends on what the clouds do... which no one really understands.
All the models ASSUME clouds will work as a positive feedback factor. There is some basis for this but also preliminary satellite evidence that the opposite is true. Even a decade of perfect climate data isn't enough to tell either way since there are so many long and medium scale cycles overlapping each other.
At the very least, the idea that there is "incontrovertible proof" CO2 is the cause is overblown and likely a political move. The correlation is there for sure, causation not so much.
This is what I think. I would update it to include that the "incontrovertible proof" phrasing was not with regards to CO2, I was lazy and didn't check primary sources. My bad, and the climate change researchers got a big plus in credibility for that. Other than that, nothing in this thread or what I've been reading elsewhere has changed my mind.
The above statement is dripping with troll excrement. I clearly stated earlier that I do know about the following: ice albedo feedback loops, water density as it relates to global sea level rise, Milankovitch Cycles, and species extinction as caused by climate change. You willfully put on your blinders then.
You recited a list of related topics... nowhere have you indicated any understanding, or lack of (for that matter), these topics. So I honestly don't know.
February 04, 2012, 06:29:20 PM
Ok, so you have refused to indicate you know anything about climate science. You have refused to indicate you understand what I am saying (e.g. know what my opinion is). What is your purpose here?
The above statement is dripping with troll excrement. I clearly stated earlier that I do know about the following: ice albedo feedback loops, water density as it relates to global sea level rise, Milankovitch Cycles, and species extinction as caused by climate change. You willfully put on your blinders then.
As for what you are saying, perhaps my refusal to acknowledge exactly what your opinion is is because you have not been effective at articulating it.
Why don't you clearly state what your opinion is instead of asking us to guess it?
As to my purpose, thus far it has been to indicate the severe effects climate change will have upon our ecosystem if we choose to ignore it, and point out that you indeed are a victim of the propaganda put forth by libertarian think tanks, despite you not knowing it.
As a supplement to my primary purpose here, it would appear that my secondary purpose is to defend myself against your trollish remarks.
February 04, 2012, 06:27:57 PM
In this thread:
- deniers trying to argue with 99% of the scientific community because 1% of the 99% did something questionable
- deniers selectively choosing evidence because of confirmation bias
Wow, who is doing this? Was it me? Please provide an example.
Well, is it obvious hes a troll or ignorant yet to anyone who will come to read this? I'm not sure.
What I meant is: who cares what you think? Sorry to dissapoint you, but you are no one special. Like me, FirstAscent is responding to your posts, not to what anyone would guess goes on in your mind. I dont give a hoot what you secretly think.
Ah, sorry for misunderstanding. You should care about what I think just as much as I care about what you think I guess. I have no idea what you mean by "secretly think". I have stated what my opinion is multiple times.
February 04, 2012, 06:26:24 PM
Well, is it obvious hes a troll or ignorant yet to anyone who will come to read this? I'm not sure.
What I meant is: who cares what you think? Sorry to dissapoint you, but you are no one special. Like me, FirstAscent is responding to your posts, not to what anyone would guess goes on in your mind. I dont give a hoot what you secretly think.
February 04, 2012, 06:23:33 PM
In this thread:
- deniers trying to argue with 99% of the scientific community because 1% of the 99% did something questionable
- deniers selectively choosing evidence because of confirmation bias
February 04, 2012, 06:21:00 PM
There are zero problems with the timeline outlined above. I think your desire to skip over it (sweep it under the rug, so to speak) is because it's an outrageously true and embarrassingly inconvenient summary of my dialog with you.
There are numerous problems with this we can skip over if you just tell me what you think my opinion is.
Quite frankly: who cares?
Well, is it obvious hes a troll or ignorant yet to anyone who will come to read this? I'm not sure.
February 04, 2012, 06:18:17 PM
There are numerous problems with this we can skip over if you just tell me what you think my opinion is.
Quite frankly: who cares?
February 04, 2012, 06:16:42 PM
Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.
It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.
Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.
Please state what you think my opinion is.
I already stated something true about you that you didn't even know. Go reread the thread. It goes like this:
1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.
2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.
3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.
4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.
5. LOL.
There are numerous problems with this we can skip over if you just tell me what you think my opinion is.
There are zero problems with the timeline outlined above. I think your desire to skip over it (sweep it under the rug, so to speak) is because it's an outrageously true and embarrassingly inconvenient summary of my dialog with you.
February 04, 2012, 06:12:08 PM
Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.
It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.
Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.
Please state what you think my opinion is.
I already stated something true about you that you didn't even know. Go reread the thread. It goes like this:
1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.
2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.
3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.
4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.
5. LOL.
There are numerous problems with this we can skip over if you just tell me what you think my opinion is.
February 04, 2012, 06:09:54 PM
Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.
It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.
Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.
Please state what you think my opinion is.
I already stated something true about you that you didn't even know. Go reread the thread. It goes like this:
1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.
2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.
3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.
4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.
5. LOL.
February 04, 2012, 06:07:38 PM
Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.
It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.
Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.
Please state what you think my opinion is.
In case it got missed due the fast pace of this thread... I really want to know this.
If that's not what you believe, then you are just simply trolling, and trying to push false ideas on Internet for whatever incentive (money?) it may be...
February 04, 2012, 06:05:15 PM
Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.
It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.
Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.
Please state what you think my opinion is.
In case it got missed due the fast pace of this thread... I really want to know this.
February 04, 2012, 06:04:09 PM
Epic thread. 
February 04, 2012, 06:02:23 PM
By stereotyped I meant you appeared unable to adapt your ideas to be relevant to the conversation at hand or who you were talking to. You were arguing with a strawman. With this post:
You have shown you now understand.
Please show some compelling science that is not in favor of AGW.
You have shown you now understand.
Sorry, but my posts have been very relevant to the post you have quoted from me above, as they have built the foundation which helps define and guide what compelling science really is.
Nothing appears to be more indicative of a strawman argument than this statement:
By stereotyped I meant you appeared unable to adapt your ideas to be relevant to the conversation at hand or who you were talking to. You were arguing with a strawman.
Sad.
February 04, 2012, 05:58:35 PM
Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.
It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.
Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.
Please state what you think my opinion is.
February 04, 2012, 05:56:39 PM
By stereotyped I meant you appeared unable to adapt your ideas to be relevant to the conversation at hand or who you were talking to. You were arguing with a strawman. With this post:
You have shown you now understand.
Please show some compelling science that is not in favor of AGW.
You have shown you now understand.
February 04, 2012, 05:52:03 PM
Yes, there we go. That is what this thread has been about. It only took you three pages to get beyond your stereotyped way of reasoning. Unfortunately consuming this info takes time, and I am still only reading introductions. Honestly there are some similarities between pharmacology and climate science (response of a system to an external forcing), perhaps I will try to move my career in that direction.
There is nothing stereotyped about my reasoning. I'm pointing out the connections between the source material which makes claims that AGW is not real and why that material is not real science, but rather generally, deceptive propaganda masquerading as science. That's rather serious. It's rather unfortunate that you must belittle it because it's been demonstrated that that propaganda has indeed swayed your opinion.
Actually it makes sense - in order to cover up the embarrassment of you having fallen for said propaganda (Richard Lindzen), confusing it for real science, you now feel the need to indicate that the information I have provided is of no consequence to this thread.
Jump to: