Global Warming Scientists Trapped in Antarctic Ice

[werepossum]

Regarding the Science of global warming.... it is really tottering at the moment. The purveyors of it are perplexed. Wait another 5 years and their models will be completely discredited. Surely that isn't too long to wait.

Notice that this dimwit who says global warming will destroy humanity thinks it is "unpleasant" that the measured warming is falling far short of expected warming. The sick bastard wants the world to suffer.

Yeah, I would think both explanations would be pleasant for any human being. Granted, their models are wrong, but models are always being revised anyway. Climate models are pretty much useless except for predicting the past, so the pain of being wrong should be overshadowed by the joy of not being on a world which is melting down.

 

[dainthomas]

No, it's really not, and the idea that global warming has 'paused' is obviously false as well. Failing to account for the amount of heat the oceans are absorbing simply means that you are going to overestimate land temperatures, not the overall warming of the Earth's climate. People who talk about the 'pause' omit this information because it is inconvenient.

What's really sick is that you want to condemn future generations in order to preserve a way of life now that is clearly unsustainable.

So we're supposed to now accept the word of people who forgot to take into account the fact that water absorbs heat as gospel? Why not, I'm sure they haven't forgotten any other giant obvious details.

 

[fskimospy]

So we're supposed to now accept the word of people who forgot to take into account the fact that water absorbs heat as gospel? Why not, I'm sure they haven't forgotten any other giant obvious details.

Wait, you actually think they forgot water absorbs heat?

Seriously, how much dumber are the climate change denial arguments going to get? This is embarrassing.

 

[schmuckley]

Oh,It's "Climate Change" now..and not "Global Warming"
Why is that i wonder? LOL
Maybe because the temperature is going in the opposite direction?
If all Al Gore said was true;The polar icecaps would be gone by now.

 

[boomerang]

What Catastrophe?

If Lindzen is right about this and global warming is nothing to worry about, why do so many climate scientists, many with résumés just as impressive as his, preach imminent doom? He says it mostly comes down to the money—to the incentive structure of academic research funded by government grants. Almost all funding for climate research comes from the government, which, he says, makes scientists essentially vassals of the state. And generating fear, Lindzen contends, is now the best way to ensure that policymakers keep the spigot open.

 

[Jaskalas]

Wasn't there huge amounts of evidence of global cooling in the 70's.

There sure wasn't...

*cough

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

This one is quite lovely. Climatologists proposed solutions to the new Ice Age, melting the polar ice caps.

 

[werepossum]

*cough

http://denisdutton.com/newsweek_coolingworld.pdf

This one is quite lovely. Climatologists proposed solutions to the new Ice Age, melting the polar ice caps.

There were some papers circulating in my college about the coming ice age, along with speculation that man-made pollution was causing it. It also fit what I had read in agricultural magazines about how the hardiness zones had been adjusted southward. For instance, in the 60s and 70s Citrus County Florida was having massive difficulty actually raising citrus due to colder temperatures and quicker freezes/shorter growing seasons. Eventually the citrus industry there collapsed and moved south. Now I believe citrus is returning to Citrus County. At least, the last couple times I've been down there, the abandoned trees were heavy with fruit.

For most people, history begins with their own birth. If it's getting colder during their lives, the world is cooling. If it's getting warmer during their lives, the world is warming. I was guilty of that as well. However, I think CO2 is a separate issue. Even if the current warming is merely part of a natural cycle, I see no reason to think CO2 levels will mitigate short of damaging levels unless we produce much less. Most terrestrial plants are simply not CO2-limited. In fact, if CO2 doubles, many plants will be inhibited. Aquatic and marine plants and algae often are CO2-limited, but once CO2 increases, nutrients and micronutrients typically become limiting fairly rapidly. And given the rate of CO2 diffusion into water and especially through water, high atmospheric CO2 does not necessarily provide much of a boost to submerged plants, although most plants with emergent growth can use it if they are not limited by something else.

 

[Darwin333]

You're over-thinking this.

Global warming scientists, studying global warming. Stuck in the ice.

Its global warming not global microwave set on high. Haven't ever heard anyone say that global warming removes ice from existence on earth.

Is it equally as ironic when a global warming denier puts a breaks out in a sweat or bitches that its hot in August? Don't overthink now....

Frankly I don't think that I am overthinking, I am just thinking in general.

 

[Darwin333]

So youre 100% certain that our model for global warming is completely accurate? There are no pieces of missing data or parts that might not work the way we think they do?

Of course not, that isn't the way science works. It is almost a given that the above will NEVER be the case despite a few centuries of scientific advancement. Hell we don't have a 100% accurate model and understanding of gravity but I don't see many people saying that jumping out of a plane without a parachute will probably kill you is complete and total bullshit.

 

[werepossum]

Of course not, that isn't the way science works. It is almost a given that the above will NEVER be the case despite a few centuries of scientific advancement. Hell we don't have a 100% accurate model and understanding of gravity but I don't see many people saying that jumping out of a plane without a parachute will probably kill you is complete and total bullshit.

Insisting that your temperature proxies are accurate everywhere except anywhere they can be verified is a BIG step away from not jumping from a plane without a parachute.

 

[Darwin333]

You should check out how many Americans believe that the Theory of Evolution is a myth and that should, if you are even remotely intelligent, tell you how valid that public poll on science that the people polled don't understand is.

 

[Darwin333]

But if it is science, real and true science, it creates a hypothesis and tests it to see if its true. The hypothesis is that it will be 5 degrees warmer in 70 years. The scientific method dictates that we wait 70 years and then test to see if the hypothesis was correct. They have dispensed with the testing part of science and declared the science as settled. That is just plain wrong. There is nothing scientific about it at all, it is 100% political.

PS. How did they derive their 95% probability? Did they just pull it out of their asses?

On the other hand your hypothesis is that 95% of the planets experts on the subject are just trying to bullshit you. I personally don't know the science at all, I didn't get a phd in anything and I don't know much about how the weather works beyond a few days. I also don't know how most medical things work but when my doctor says shit I take his word. If I don't I get a second opinion and then I really listen. I don't go to every doctor on the planet and then still say they are all full of shit when I don't get the answer I want.

 

[fskimospy]

This entire debate is simply about whether you accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who are experts in a field on an issue.

If you do, the answer is easy.

If you don't, the answer is also easy.

One of these two opinions is much more defensible than the other.

 

[fskimospy]

On the other hand your hypothesis is that 95% of the planets experts on the subject are just trying to bullshit you. I personally don't know the science at all, I didn't get a phd in anything and I don't know much about how the weather works beyond a few days. I also don't know how most medical things work but when my doctor says shit I take his word. If I don't I get a second opinion and then I really listen. I don't go to every doctor on the planet and then still say they are all full of shit when I don't get the answer I want.

Exactly. People are searching for opinions that validate what they want to believe as opposed to facts that tell them how the world works.

It is always interesting for me to see people who log onto a tech website abandon science so entirely.

 

[Darwin333]

Depends on what is wrong with me. Both have their place.

If I'm sick? Physically sick? Doctor, every time. There are certain things though that a man of the cloth is more suited to help with. Loss. Grief. Despair.

Why do you "believe" the doctor if you can't quantify what he is telling you? If you could quantify it why do you need the doctor in the first place? That goes double with the man of the cloth since its practically impossible to prove what he is saying, despite the fact that he is an expert in his field why do you trust him?

 

[Darwin333]

Insisting that your temperature proxies are accurate everywhere except anywhere they can be verified is a BIG step away from not jumping from a plane without a parachute.

Shrug, we are talking about math. 100% is 100% regardless of what we are talking about. If you care to argue otherwise I would be really interested in hearing your argument.

Edit: Keep in mind the person I was responding to repeatedly spoke about responding to EXACTLY what he said, which is what I did. You are a hellofa lot more intelligent than him so this isn't necessarily a debate that I wished to engage in with you. Simply making a point my friend.

 

[werepossum]

Shrug, we are talking about math. 100% is 100% regardless of what we are talking about. If you care to argue otherwise I would be really interested in hearing your argument.

Edit: Keep in mind the person I was responding to repeatedly spoke about responding to EXACTLY what he said, which is what I did. You are a hellofa lot more intelligent than him so this isn't necessarily a debate that I wished to engage in with you. Simply making a point my friend.

Fair enough.

 

[Jaskalas]

This entire debate is simply about whether you accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who are experts in a field on an issue.

If you do, the answer is easy.

If you don't, the answer is also easy.

One of these two opinions is much more defensible than the other.

It helps that you misrepresent them.

Example, I would be among the 97% consensus, which should tell you the worth of your "vast majority". Your consensus is trash, along with whatever claim you think you hold on the scientists.

 

[fskimospy]

It helps that you misrepresent them.

Example, I would be among the 97% consensus, which should tell you the worth of your "vast majority". Your consensus is trash, along with whatever claim you think you hold on the scientists.

No you wouldn't be. The consensus is fine, your continuing attempts to misrepresent the science aside.

 

[bshole]

This entire debate is simply about whether you accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who are experts in a field on an issue.

If you do, the answer is easy.

If you don't, the answer is also easy.

One of these two opinions is much more defensible than the other.

Not really. The debate is whether we make MULTI-TRILLION dollar decisions that could cause millions of deaths, impoverish millions more and enrich a few BEFORE WE REALLY KNOW WHAT THE THREAT (if any) IS.

For 10 years now, climate measurements have been veering off of climate predictions. If the trend continues, within the next decade the measurements will fall completely BELOW the error bars for ALL climate models. Why the hell are AGW adherents so frigging impatient? Why do they want to act before their models are verified/refuted by actual measurements?

The earth is warming slightly and is a net benefit to mankind as attested to by the yearly increase in crop yields and net greening of the planet.

AGW is just another scam by powerful monied interests looking to fuck over the masses while lining their own pockets. It is always the rich. Bastards.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You should check out how many Americans believe that the Theory of Evolution is a myth and that should, if you are even remotely intelligent, tell you how valid that public poll on science that the people polled don't understand is.

Your comment is completely irrelevant and, if you were "even remotely intelligent", you would understand this. The graphic was used as an example of irony....nothing more, nothing less.

(Clue: The percentages don't add up to 100%.)

 

[monovillage]

It helps that you misrepresent them.

Example, I would be among the 97% consensus, which should tell you the worth of your "vast majority". Your consensus is trash, along with whatever claim you think you hold on the scientists.

He knows the 97% consensus figure is bullshit, he's just lying about it because that's what he does.

http://judithcurry.com/2012/10/28/climate-change-no-consensus-on-consensus/

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/26/the-97-consensus/

http://judithcurry.com/2013/07/27/the-97-consensus-part-ii/

 

[Moonbeam]

Your comment is completely irrelevant and, if you were "even remotely intelligent", you would understand this. The graphic was used as an example of irony....nothing more, nothing less.

(Clue: The percentages don't add up to 100%.)

Do you think it a coincidence that the same people with the same brain defect think the earth is 6000 years old and God controls the climate? That would take a pretty big brain defect to deny, it seems to me.

 

[ralfy]

"The Polar Vortex Explained in 2 Minutes"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eDTzV6a9F4

Related:

"Why Climate Deniers Have No Scientific Credibility: Only 1 of 9,136 Recent Peer-Reviewed Authors Rejects Global Warming"

http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/01/0...y-1-9136-study-authors-rejects-global-warming

 

[schmuckley]

You simply cannot be serious.

This argument is the equivalent of when evolution deniers try to equate evolution being a theory with when their grandma says 'I have a theory that your grandpa is going to be late to dinner'.

Name 1 organism that has evolved within the period of recorded history.

This entire debate is simply about whether you accept the opinion of the vast majority of scientists who are experts in a field on an issue.

If you do, the answer is easy.

If you don't, the answer is also easy.

One of these two opinions is much more defensible than the other.

Hmm..I think 95% of global warming scientists would want to support the notion that there is global warming.
That might keep the funding flowing. :whiste: