Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

Status
Not open for further replies.
that the deniers here refuse to anwer questions while posing questions that have been answered many times is very very telling.
 
DC said:
we already have climate models that work. and they get better and better.

i already provided a link twice that shows this very well.
Click to expand...

No...these models haven't been work and you haven't proven a thing.

Now...when someone makes a Climate Model that makes some really good medium and long-term predictions based on some well described and documented mechanisms...then I'll be a believer.

Sorry Man...I'm just too much of a scientist to be sucked in by a "Texas Sharpshooters Fallacy".
 
Jules Galen said:
Again and again the Climate Modelers assume gross positive feedback and consistently fail.
Click to expand...

Contrary to the fact. Simply put: false.

That you invented the sentence because it serves to your dialectical ends, that is clear, but I'm curious what are you making here play the role of "dialectical-adjective positive feedback". For your previous post on the matter is seems you have an awful mix up of CO2 and feedback.
 
DC said:
that the deniers here refuse to anwer questions while posing questions that have been answered many times is very very telling.
Click to expand...

I know what you mean. But sooner or latter we can maybe get these AGW people to better understand science - and then perhaps they'll stop being deniers of the Scientific Method.
 
Why are you avoiding a simple question Jules.?
Why are you ignoring evidence proving you wrong about models and AGW..

Should be conclude you are just trolling here to no purpose other than disruption?
Evidence would point that way.
 
Jules Galen said:
No...these models haven't been work and you haven't proven a thing.

Now...when someone makes a Climate Model that makes some really good medium and long-term predictions based on some well described and documented mechanisms...then I'll be a believer.

Sorry Man...I'm just too much of a scientist to be sucked in by a "Texas Sharpshooters Fallacy".
Click to expand...

no, you are not. and you will fool nobody here beside your denier buddies.

so tell me, what did Rahmstorf get wrong in his paper? it shows that the models sofar are spot on when it comes to projections of SAT.
why do you disagree? what is not working? do you have a scientific study showing this? can you pls link to it?
 
Jules Galen said:
I know what you mean. But sooner or latter we can maybe get these AGW people to better understand science - and then perhaps they'll stop being deniers of the Scientific Method.
Click to expand...

well if you want to understand science as well as many of the posters here, you have alot of reading ahead of you.

and will you now answer questions ? why are you afraid of answering those questions? why do you expect others to answer your questions when you yourself do not answer simple questions?
is watervapor a GHG?
you know what Watervapor is?
you know what GHGs are?
 
DC said:
i think it only misses an "ing" to be gramatically correct.

but needs alot of changes to be factually correct.
Click to expand...

Thanks, your right. I had forgotten prove can be regular or irregular and just allocated space for proven (adjective).

I also think the sentence is factually a stretch. JG -or r.j.bis- is very intuitive about dialectics and he plays with ambiguities and shades of adjectives. He suggests "all" but he doesn't say "all" as "these models" can be a couple or anything. Contrary to the original r.j, the one of early today, who has no problem in making it categorical even when it's not needed.
 
Well better we are dealing with irregular than irrational ;)

This must be giving the sea level wonks fits....

Researchers say they have discovered a large reservoir of melt water that sits under the Greenland ice sheet all year round.

The scientists say the water is stored in the air space between particles of ice, similar to the way that fruit juice stays liquid in a slush drink.

The aquifer, which covers an area the size of Ireland, could yield important clues to sea level rise.

The research is published in the journal, Nature Geoscience.

The melting of the Greenland ice sheet has been a significant contributor to a rise in sea levels over the past 100 years.

The water is stored in the air space between the ice particles, like the juice in a snow cone”

Prof Rick Forster
University of Utah

According to the latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the ice sheet lost 34 billion tonnes of ice per year between 1992 and 2001 - but this increased to 215 billion tonnes between 2002 and 2011

Scientists still have many unanswered questions about the direction and speed and ultimate destination of this melted water.
Click to expand...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25463647

I wonder if this leads to the kind of jaggies we see at the end of an ice age?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom