Can I be on "the list" too?
You're going on the list. I'm surprised you fell for it.
Oh goody! So, what happens when we're all gathered up? Do we get a train ride?
Are you ever going to answer those questions?
Topic: This should give FirstAscent a stroke... - page 5. (Read 7367 times)
You're going on the list. I'm surprised you fell for it.
Oh goody! So, what happens when we're all gathered up? Do we get a train ride?
Are you ever going to answer those questions?
Presumedly, once the ice is completely gone, the rate of warming would rapidly increase.
Do you know why it would?
The controversy really is a manufactured thing. I have a question for you. Please answer it. In order to answer it though, you'll have to do a little digging. Here's the question: why does the Oregon Petition exist in the form in which it is in?
I haven't done this much of a digging, just looked up the wikipedia page on it.
It seems that the credibility is very questionable. There is something about fake signatures and wrong credentials along with the majority of signers in the wrong fields of science.
That is usual in anything to be considered "fringe" and is to be expected in every field of science on any topic. I've seen similar articles on physics, economics, geology and even math.
I am even sceptical about things like special relativity, capital, subduction and algebraic structures. The difference is that climatology has evolved to the point where it affects politics.
But I try not to let that affect my judgement.
Who funded it? And what was the document manufactured to look like? And why do you feel the parties made it all? If there's no consensus, there's no consensus, right? But what it there is a consensus? Then maybe some parties would want to manufacture doubt, right? But why? Why would they want to manufacture doubt?
Now, regarding that consensus: what was the consensus prediction on Arctic melting back then (in the '90s)?
Can I be on "the list" too?
You're going on the list. I'm surprised you fell for it.
The controversy really is a manufactured thing. I have a question for you. Please answer it. In order to answer it though, you'll have to do a little digging. Here's the question: why does the Oregon Petition exist in the form in which it is in?
I haven't done this much of a digging, just looked up the wikipedia page on it.
It seems that the credibility is very questionable. There is something about fake signatures and wrong credentials along with the majority of signers in the wrong fields of science.
That is usual in anything to be considered "fringe" and is to be expected in every field of science on any topic. I've seen similar articles on physics, economics, geology and even math.
I am even sceptical about things like special relativity, capital, subduction and algebraic structures. The difference is that climatology has evolved to the point where it affects politics.
But I try not to let that affect my judgement.
Can I be on "the list" too?
Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.
Let us quote this for posterity as a splendid example of a brainwashed libertarian climate change denier engaging in either manipulative deception or malignant stupidity. I invite any and all who wish to support myrkul in his statement above so that we may aggregate the lot of you into a single group. Don't be so quick to jump on his bandwagon without some consideration of what he's saying though.
Melting ice doesn't absorb heat in your world?
I'm not saying there isn't more heat energy. I'm saying it would make sense that the temperature stays roughly the same, even with the added heat energy, because melting ice absorbs heat energy in changing phase from ice at 32° to water at 32°.
Now, let me ask you: Let's assume this heat energy is directly or indirectly added by human action. What do you propose to do about it?
So you're going to defend your statement? I think that's great. Keep it up.
I agree with his statement, and am no ashamed to say so. It's this very principle that climate alarmists are depending upon while pointing to the min/max ice extent over the years. Presumedly, once the ice is completely gone, the rate of warming would rapidly increase.
If the topic is as controversial I try to stay in a state of agnosticism. It's better for my mental health.
I don't think we have enough data to form a valid conclusion on the effects of greenhouse gases in relation to temperature. Quite simply I think that the signal to noise ratio is too high for something done so far to be called a measurement.
I don't think we have enough data to form a valid conclusion on the effects of greenhouse gases in relation to temperature. Quite simply I think that the signal to noise ratio is too high for something done so far to be called a measurement.
Where is the controversy? Because I don't really see any. Pretty much all the disagreements I've seen have been shown to be falsified reports, funding for some rogue scientists from Exxon/Mobil, general silly statements easily debunked (stuff like myrkul's comment), self fulfilling memes popularized by propaganda artists, etc.
The controversy really is a manufactured thing. I have a question for you. Please answer it. In order to answer it though, you'll have to do a little digging. Here's the question: why does the Oregon Petition exist in the form in which it is in? It's up to you to determine that form.
If you're a little confused, here's a little more info:
- Look at the printed format of it, it's heading, declarations, etc.
- Look at the signed names on it. Google those people.
- Look at the history of the creator of it.
- Look at the source of funding of the institute behind it.
Now, why would someone create such a thing known as the Oregon Petition? Please explain this to me.
I may be wasting my time here but did both of you actually read the whole paper? (I admit it I haven't)
If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?
If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?
Honestly, there are thousands and thousands of papers on climate change. Not to mention excellent summaries on global warming written by very knowledgeable authors. Read some good books on the subject, and keep abreast of general reporting on the subject. You'll never be in a position to evaluate climate change effectively by looking at one paper. Just because myrkul posted doesn't make me interested in it.
But I do find his posts interesting, as in the one I've pointed out. If he can't get that right, then it makes on wonder why he even said it. We'll see if we can find even one person who supports it.
If the topic is as controversial I try to stay in a state of agnosticism. It's better for my mental health.
I don't think we have enough data to form a valid conclusion on the effects of greenhouse gases in relation to temperature. Quite simply I think that the signal to noise ratio is too high for something done so far to be called a measurement.
Nevertheless I am against being affected by legislations imposed because of a consensus inside the most influential group.
So I am against carbon credits. And I am highly against the way it is popularized by television an print media.
I may be wasting my time here but did both of you actually read the whole paper? (I admit it I haven't)
If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?
If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?
Honestly, there are thousands and thousands of papers on climate change. Not to mention excellent summaries on global warming written by very knowledgeable authors. Read some good books on the subject, and keep abreast of general reporting on the subject. You'll never be in a position to evaluate climate change effectively by looking at one paper. Just because myrkul posted it doesn't make me interested in it.
But I do find his posts interesting, as in the one I've pointed out. If he can't get that right, then it makes one wonder why he even said it. We'll see if we can find even one person who supports it.
Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air.
Actually, it does. When the air melts the ice, it transfers heat energy from the air to the ice/water mixture. What do we call it when heat is transferred out of something?
Of course, it all depends on the amount of air and water there is in the system. Since neither of you run computational models of the earth you both have it on.
That's a fair point, and if new heat energy were added to the system faster than the phase change was absorbing it, the temperature of the entire system would increase.
I may be wasting my time here but did both of you actually read the whole paper? (I admit it I haven't)
If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?
If so how about you both post one specific quote from it of which you think is accurate/fallacious?
Wouldn't a list imply multiple subjects?
We're building the list right now. It may be that in reality, nobody wants to admit to being so stupid as to agree with his statement, in which case, the list will only contain him. Time will tell.
Wouldn't a list imply multiple subjects?
Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.
Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.
No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.
I'm happy for you. You will not be put on the list. So far, only myrkul is on the list.
Oh no! THE LIST.
Sucks that he didn't it support your statement, doesn't it? Will anyone? Let's find out.
Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.
Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.
No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.
I'm happy for you. You will not be put on the list. So far, only myrkul is on the list.
Oh no! THE LIST.
Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.
Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.
No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.
I'm happy for you. You will not be put on the list. So far, only myrkul is on the list.
Arctic ice melting actually supports a steady temperature model, because of the phase change cooling. All the water in a glass of icewater stays at 32° until all the ice has melted.
Do you support his statement? I'm not seeing a lot of confidence from you. Try to answer: yes or no.
No.
The latter sentence however is a fact.
Well, if the surrounding air heats up around an ice water mixture the mixture will stay at the freezing point of water while it doesn't make any statement about the temperature of the air.
Actually, it does. When the air melts the ice, it transfers heat energy from the air to the ice/water mixture. What do we call it when heat is transferred out of something?
Of course, it all depends on the amount of air and water there is in the system. Since neither of you run computational models of the earth you both have it on.
Jump to: