Merged Global Warming Discussion II: Heated Conversation

[aleCcowaN]

The pair of you deserve each other....

Yes ... Pair

The almost total lack of science, and the constant focus on people is far more irritating than the occasional language barrier.

I can usually tell what the person, drunk as they might be, is trying to say. It's pedantry in the extreme to pretend not to get the point.

How many times are you going to quote the same of me with false pretences?

By the way, I have reported the sockpuppety activity during the last days.

 

[ideogram]

A nice cover-up that saved the careers of a lot of people who routinely would not share the raw data they used for their research so that others could confirm their findings and who conspired to destroy evidence of their wrongdoings.

As a result of the incident, Michael Mann's "Secret Raw Data" was released, and then we found out that the "hockey stick warming" he had derived from it was so shoddy science as to beggar belief.

In the end, the the "Global Warming" religion lost a lot of faithful.

Conspiracy theory.

 

[Jules Galen]

By the way, I have reported the sockpuppety activity during the last days.

Has serially losing so many arguments distressed you so?

You sound very angry...it's a bit frightening, actually.

 

[ideogram]

Has serially losing so many arguments distressed you so?

You sound very angry...it's a bit frightening, actually.

Still waiting for a real argument.

 

[Jules Galen]

Still waiting for a real argument.

Thanks, but not until aleCcowaN stops posting on the thread for awhile. I'll be back later.

 

[ideogram]

Thanks, but not until aleCcowaN stops posting on the thread for awhile. I'll be back later.

Just because I'm a nice guy, I'll let you know you can avoid reading someone's posts by putting them on your "Ignore List", which you can find by clicking on their Name at the top left of their post.

 

[macdoc]

back later?? ...don't bother.
Jules you have made no arguments of a science nature...just exposed your blistering ignorance and paraded discredited conspiracy crap.
Are you afraid of dealing with a scientist? ...Alec after all is one.

And you have not answered the question ....

Is water vapor a GHG.?

If you keep on the conspiracy and off topic political crap the entire section will be binned which would be welcome from most posters here as it has added zero value to any climate science discussion.
I suspect that was and is your entire goal to disrupt as you will not answer the simplest of questions regarding global warming.

The conclusion reached by your not answering that simple question is that you are trolling for the purpose of disruption and have no value to add to the thread or the forum. I will continue to throw the question in your face and report any posts of yours that do not deal directly with global warming science.

I've been here 5 years going into the 6th...your ilk have come and gone. You are merely a tooth cleaner served up by the fossil fuel interests until you show otherwise. You've not.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The Climate Solution: Got Cows?

What’s Stopping Us?
...With climate activists, here’s what my surprising experience has been: they can’t hear it. The obsession with chasing green and profitable technofixes and/or reducing emissions drowns out other thinking – they smile, say it sounds interesting, look quizzical and change the subject, e.g., what about Lackner’s proposed carbon eating machines?[viii] It’s as if we can’t imagine that nature could ever be so clever without human invention. I must say, though, that as climate disruption accelerates, activists and others are slowly opening to the possibilities of soil sequestration of carbon.

 

[macdoc]

Science discussion of climate change based on mainstream science

This thread is for discussing the science of climate change.
It has the operating assumptions that climate change is happening, and that it has an anthropogenic origin. From the 2007 IPCC Summary for Policymakers:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change wrote:
Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, as is now evident from observations of increases in global average air and ocean temperatures, widespread melting of snow and ice and rising global average sea level...

Observational evidence from all continents and most oceans shows that many natural systems are being affected by regional climate changes, particularly temperature increases...

Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations...

Updated from the 2013 IPCC report

Observations of the climate system are based on direct measurements and remote sensing from satellites and other platforms. Global-scale observations from the instrumental era began in the mid-19th century for temperature and other variables, with more comprehensive and diverse sets of observations available for the period 1950 onwards. Paleoclimate reconstructions extend some records back hundreds to millions of years. Together, they provide a comprehensive view of the variability and long-term changes in the atmosphere, the ocean, the cryosphere, and the land surface.

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased (see Figures SPM.1, SPM.2, SPM.3 and SPM.4). {2.2, 2.4, 3.2, 3.7, 4.2–4.7, 5.2, 5.3, 5.5–5.6, 6.2, 13.2}

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGI_AR5_SPM_brochure.pdf

•••••••

By participating in this thread you acknowledge the mainstream view on anthropogenic warming and it's role in climate change.

If you deny the mainstream view you can discuss it here.
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=9715737#post9715737

By participating in this thread you accept the science underlying AGW
- posts denying that will be reported as off topic.

Here are some basics for review to new posters and to familiarize yourself with basic terms and established physics underlying AGW....

Background/history
http://www2.ucar.edu/atmosnews/opinion/9574/five-things-know-about-carbon-dioxide

Carbon cycle
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/research/themes/carbon/

http://agwobserver.wordpress.com/category/agw-evidence/

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-global-warming.htm

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/human-caused

Current over view

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013...eport-is-out-its-warmer-and-were-responsible/

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013...-the-new-ipcc-climate-change-report-answered/

Merged into general Global Warming thread. The OP does not have veto power to decide what is on or off-topic. Nor is threatening to report people particularly civil.

Posted By: Loss Leader

 

[DC]

Let's see how that went. In reference to what I had been saying, DC wrote "...its not only smart people understanding it, its dumb and ignorant people not udnerstanding it."

So...according to DC, anyone not seeing the subject DC's way is "Dumb and Ignorant" because - and wait for it - according to DC they are not "udnerstanding it."

Seriously, when I saw what DC posted I almost fell out of my chair laughing. To call someone ignorant and dumb because of their lack of "udnerstanding" makes their poor choice of manners and words a most appealing target.

Anyways, I hope this gives you all a better "udnerstanding" of the issue.

Anyways...back to Global Warming.

What did you guys think about the scandal at east Anglia University where the Climate Scientists got caught "hiding the decline" in Global Temps, telling lies about their research, and smearing the good names of anyone who dared disagree with them?

dyslexia has nothing to do with intelligence or ignorance.
and i have no problem with wrong spelling or gramatics, im interested in the content and factuality.

what decline did they hide?

 

[DC]

Thanks, but not until aleCcowaN stops posting on the thread for awhile. I'll be back later.

so you are running....

 

[aleCcowaN]

Seriously, when I saw what DC posted I almost fell out of my chair laughing. To call someone ignorant and dumb because of their lack of "udnerstanding" makes their poor choice of manners and words a most appealing target.

So you laugh as your boat sinks. Well, I'm not gonna say I'm surprised.

It's not a surprise either that you manage dialectics and ignore the basics of the scientific method -as your r-j also does-. It's a common mental feature, I mean, failing at one and succeeding at the other. As far as I followed your words -not reading all of yours- you have failed to answer about greenhouse gases and other basic elements, and you appeal to lame rhetoric excuses to avoid any scientific engagement.

You preferred to engage in Barroque philippics and resort to categorical bits full of negative feelings:

Am I wrong or wasn't you who talked of "the compiled list of inanities attributed to Global Warming" some time ago? Let's see:

No...AGW is not a fact. The models these scientists have never proven to be accurate and assume a lot of unjustified positive feedback of rising carbon dioxide levels. This all demonstrates that the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is appreciably warming the earth is unfounded.

No one doubts this is true. However, the unjustified positive feedbacks that many Climate Scientists use in their models is deplorable when they claim these models represent truth. These so-called Climate Scientists have made a mockery of the Scientific Method and have done a lot to hurt the reputation of all scientists.

Why use the Positive Feedbacks at all? What is the justification?

Listen...it is you and your ilk that are claiming knowledge of AGW...not me. So justify yourselves!

No...these models have not proven to be accurate. The IPCC uses a lot of models in typical "Shotgun" approach that covers the whole range of possibilities - so something is bound to be right.

It's the old "Texas Sharpshooter's Fallacy" where the rifleman shoots into the side of a barn and then paints a bullseye on whatever groupings he's made.

I've probably read more about the issue than all of you put together....so I don't need to go waste my time reading some tome that you are free to summarize on this forum.

Again and again the Climate Modelers assume gross positive feedback and consistently fail. But...they insist on carrying on with the same mistake in thier little models instead of actually going out into the field and doing some real research! OMG...just imagine a Climate Scientist Modeler actually exposed to the Outdoors!

Though you're completely ambiguous as always***, I'll suppose you were speaking of computational climate models using quantitative methods for simulation of interactions in the atmosphere. As models don't have "positive feedbacks" -that is denialist mithology- nor climate depends on computational models to prove there is an AGW, your preach is clearly a byproduct of denialist blogs written in 2006 or 2009.

It would be so simple: take two or three specific models, point to the "feedbacks" and explain what is wrong. If you were an informed person we could say you're a bit lazy and you wouldn't bother in doing so. But you and we know that you are ignorant in these matters and it's not only easy but the only way available to you to insist in your primitive bit adding adornments. When presented with the right information you would resort to the «I've probably read more about the issue than all of you put together....so I don't need to go waste my time reading some tome that you are free to summarize on this forum» which translates to a) you haven't read an iota, b) you need the Cliffs Notes version made by us c) you wouldn't understand even those Cliffs notes but d) you would give another turns of screw to the litany of posts of yours dealing with models but taking a few elements of the "cliffs notes" to keep the illusion you have some modicum understanding in the subject.

You certainly seem to be taking me pretty seriously.

A man who can tell me what I have, and haven't done. What...are you Santa Clause, or God...or some other omniscient creature?

Now...go make us a Climate Model that works!

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".

Now this strategy of yours is becoming repetitive and increasingly identifiable and the air is becoming stale, so you have to resort to new tricks; what would they be?

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.

Let's see how that went. In reference to what I had been saying, DC wrote "...its not only smart people understanding it, its dumb and ignorant people not udnerstanding it."

So...according to DC, anyone not seeing the subject DC's way is "Dumb and Ignorant" because - and wait for it - according to DC they are not "udnerstanding it."

Seriously, when I saw what DC posted I almost fell out of my chair laughing. To call someone ignorant and dumb because of their lack of "udnerstanding" makes their poor choice of manners and words a most appealing target.

Anyways, I hope this gives you all a better "udnerstanding" of the issue.

Anyways...back to Global Warming.

What did you guys think about the scandal at east Anglia University where the Climate Scientists got caught "hiding the decline" in Global Temps, telling lies about their research, and smearing the good names of anyone who dared disagree with them?

Well, it looks like only the diatribe remains

Thanks, but not until aleCcowaN stops posting on the thread for awhile. I'll be back later.

Hey...this looks like an ad Hominem attack.

You sure you want to go there?

Yes, it surely looked like it -and of course nothing to do with the argumentum ad hominem in Logics-.

The fact is you don't want me here because your dialectics have a shorter stride when I'm here.

By the way I am most interested in what you say here

What did you guys think about the scandal at east Anglia University where the Climate Scientists got caught "hiding the decline" in Global Temps, telling lies about their research, and smearing the good names of anyone who dared disagree with them?

Please, tell us about that, and don't save any detail. Show us examples of what was hid by showing how it looked before and how it looks now once the "hiding" was averted. Use public records and if they're not available, use other material explaining carefully why there are not public records available. Conspiracy theories are welcome provided the name of the conspirators, offices, places and dates are provided too. Any other use of it would be just a lame loophole.


*** [Don't take me wrong: you're quite clear in the rhetorical twists yet completely confounded and loosely worded in the scientific bits]

 

[r-j]

The Climate Solution: Got Cows?

I know just what they are talking about. Climate "activists" are some of the most closed minded and uneducated people on the planet, about some things.

 

[Trakar]

I know just what they are talking about. Climate "activists" are some of the most closed minded and uneducated people on the planet, about some things.

You, obviously, realize that the term "climate activist" applies to those who argue and advocate against the predominant scientific position and evidence, not just those who support and advocate for climate change amelioration.

 

[aleCcowaN]

You, obviously, realize ...

I'm afraid he doesn't.

 

[Trakar]

The Climate Solution: Got Cows?

If all anthropogenic carbon emissions stopped today (instead of accelerating in their increase) and we were merely dealing with a static problem and no feedback effects, then yes, there are many practices and policies we could engage in that would, over a period of centuries, gradually bring our climate back toward equilibrium. I see no sign that either of those two conditionals are being realized. There may be other benefits that would make these practices and policies attractive, but under the current circumstances, cows (aka revised farming practices and new policies and restrictions regarding land use) are not going to thwart that which is already in play.

 

[Trakar]

I'm afraid he doesn't.

given his reference to closed-minds and a lack of education, my assumption was an easy mistake to make.

 

[r-j]

You, obviously, realize that the term "climate activist" applies to those who argue and advocate against the predominant scientific position and evidence, not just those who support and advocate for climate change amelioration.

And here I thought you didn't remember my blistering attacks on the fossil fuel cabal, as well as those who try to defraud the public.

 

[DC]

If only you would do that with all the other posts, including your own, posts that are just personal commentary, insulting, rude and avoid discussing what is on the table.

Like your post I just quoted. Nothing about the science at all. But a lot of insults.

There are several very interesting science questions still hanging, that none of the regulars ever even mentioned. One of them was yours, about the old projections.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/04/evaluating-a-1981-temperature-projection/

Quit wasting time by being personal and insulting. Stick to the science, it's far more interesting than long opinions about other people.

and once again you refused to answer the questions posed to you, that is very very telling.

 

[Trakar]

A nice cover-up that saved the careers of a lot of people who routinely would not share the raw data they used for their research so that others could confirm their findings and who conspired to destroy evidence of their wrongdoings.

As a result of the incident, Michael Mann's "Secret Raw Data" was released, and then we found out that the "hockey stick warming" he had derived from it was so shoddy science as to beggar belief.

In the end, the the "Global Warming" religion lost a lot of faithful.

There is a separate forum for the discussion of global conspiracy theories, I'm surprised this has not already been moved to that location.