Uh-oh, a mini ice age is coming

[Greenman]

Good, you should soon then be forced to conclude I'm right. As I said, I have not taken a stand on climate change, I just point out that your nonsense about what has happened to peer review is a bunch of garbage. What is the point of having an opinion that is obviously ridiculous? You don't like the conclusions of peer reviewed science so you make up shit to attack the process. That's defective thinking. Opinions that two plus two equals five don't count for anything. You only delude yourself when you think that way. When the delusions get bad enough you could get locked up. I wouldn't trouble you but I like you and we need more sane people. Moral responsibility makes it vital that I try to help you. My effort doesn't come from any personal need to be right.

You missed just about every point.
I should be forced to conclude that everyone that's disagrees with you actually has a brain defect? Why on earth would I agree to such a foolish statement?
My comment on peer review was a condemnation of the process, not a particular result. I don't know why the process is so dear to you, but I find it lacking controls. Science is about careful study, measurement, data gathering and analysis. Anything that foreshortens that process has to be suspect. Also, I'm a skeptic, I don't have faith in collective reasoning, I don't believe that two heads are better than one. A hundred misinformed people won't make better decisions than one misinformed person.
It's easy enough to imagine that Schrodinger's cat exists as a probability field, buy I'd put my money on the guy that looks the box.

 

[MongGrel]

If they turn out to be correct they'll have a far better prediction record than the current group of climate change scientists.

You are just mind numbingly ridiculous.

 

[MongGrel]

When the End of Human Civilization Is Your Day Job
Among many climate scientists, gloom has set in...
Must be tough. I mean knowing that Global Warming err Climate Change is going to kill us all...

Seriously, believers need to get some counselling. And remember, the first step in recovery is admitting that you have a problem...

Feeling pretramatic stress/Climate trauma? Lucky for you, here is a link to 16 steps to avoiding climate burnout.

Best of luck with that gloom and the accompanying "anger, panic, and obsessive intrusive thoughts."

Remember, there is no shame in asking for help.

Uno

"Ignorance is Bliss"

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

You are just mind numbingly ridiculous.

Please post some accurate predictions of the AGW climate scientists.
fyi, I won't hold my breath waiting for a response though because we all know their predictions have sucked serious ass for years, and years, and years.

btw, I agree that some sort of climate change is happening. After all, unlike so many in here, I actually have a bit of training and experience in climatology and weather. Unfortunately, a lack of training in those disciplines doesn't deter the many hacks in here.

 

[Moonbeam]

Greenman: ]You missed just about every point.
I should be forced to conclude that everyone that's disagrees with you actually has a brain defect? Why on earth would I agree to such a foolish statement?

M: You said you consider other people's points of view and if you do that with me you will be forced to conclude I am right.

G: My comment on peer review was a condemnation of the process, not a particular result.

M: A condemnation that is defective.

G: I don't know why the process is so dear to you, but I find it lacking controls.

M: You aren't qualified to find anything. You are spouting ignorant bunk.

G: Science is about careful study, measurement, data gathering and analysis. Anything that foreshortens that process has to be suspect.

M: Of course, but you are not the person able to do that.

G: Also, I'm a skeptic, I don't have faith in collective reasoning, I don't believe that two heads are better than one. A hundred misinformed people won't make better decisions than one misinformed person.

M: This is utter rubbish. Your motion of collective reasoning is out to lunch. It makes no difference what you believe because what you believe is unrelated to anything under discussion. You are out in la la land..

You have painted yourself in a corner with illogical notions that are only ridiculous opinions.

G: It's easy enough to imagine that Schrodinger's cat exists as a probability field, buy I'd put my money on the guy that looks the box.

M: When you open Schrodinger's box you will find a fortune cookie that says you have defective thinking.

Please stop imagining you know something. All that shit you believe is a dream.

 

[Paratus]

Please post some accurate predictions of the AGW climate scientists.
fyi, I won't hold my breath waiting for a response though because we all know their predictions have sucked serious ass for years, and years, and years.

btw, I agree that some sort of climate change is happening. After all, unlike so many in here, I actually have a bit of training and experience in climatology and weather. Unfortunately, a lack of training in those disciplines doesn't deter the many hacks in here.

• Reduction in polar ice
• Melting Permafrost
• Rising Sea Level

To name a few


But I'm sure with your climate science background you knew those already.

 

[dank69]

Control? Or Affect?

Don't expect boomerang to EVER approach any discussion with honesty or accuracy.

 

[werepossum]

• Reduction in polar ice
• Melting Permafrost
• Rising Sea Level

To name a few


But I'm sure with your climate science background you knew those already.

Reduction in polar ice and rising seal levels are arguable, and melting permafrost was detected long before CAGW became a thing.

I would point out that it isn't difficult predicting things that have already begun, but the polar ice reductions that stopped kind of invalidates that point.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

• Reduction in polar ice
• Melting Permafrost
• Rising Sea Level

To name a few


But I'm sure with your climate science background you knew those already.

The key word you seemed to have overlooked when I asked for predictions was "accurate." Thanks for trying though.

btw, your background in climate science or meteorology is?

 

[Greenman]

Greenman: ]You missed just about every point.
I should be forced to conclude that everyone that's disagrees with you actually has a brain defect? Why on earth would I agree to such a foolish statement?

M: You said you consider other people's points of view and if you do that with me you will be forced to conclude I am right.

G: My comment on peer review was a condemnation of the process, not a particular result.

M: A condemnation that is defective.

G: I don't know why the process is so dear to you, but I find it lacking controls.

M: You aren't qualified to find anything. You are spouting ignorant bunk.

G: Science is about careful study, measurement, data gathering and analysis. Anything that foreshortens that process has to be suspect.

M: Of course, but you are not the person able to do that.

G: Also, I'm a skeptic, I don't have faith in collective reasoning, I don't believe that two heads are better than one. A hundred misinformed people won't make better decisions than one misinformed person.

M: This is utter rubbish. Your motion of collective reasoning is out to lunch. It makes no difference what you believe because what you believe is unrelated to anything under discussion. You are out in la la land..

You have painted yourself in a corner with illogical notions that are only ridiculous opinions.

G: It's easy enough to imagine that Schrodinger's cat exists as a probability field, buy I'd put my money on the guy that looks the box.

M: When you open Schrodinger's box you will find a fortune cookie that says you have defective thinking.

Please stop imagining you know something. All that shit you believe is a dream.

We're back at square one. I'm in lala land, my thinking is rubbish, I have defective thinking. You've responded to everything I've said with contempt and anger. All of this because I expressed an opinion that you don't like. My very first statement still stands, isn't it interesting that everyone that disagrees with you has a mental disorder.

 

[Paratus]

Reduction in polar ice and rising seal levels are arguable, and melting permafrost was detected long before CAGW became a thing.

I would point out that it isn't difficult predicting things that have already begun, but the polar ice reductions that stopped kind of invalidates that point.

Ice loss is only arguable if you don't understand the difference between sea ice extent (surface area) and sea ice volume.

Not sure how sea level rise is arguable either:

The key word you seemed to have overlooked when I asked for predictions was "accurate." Thanks for trying though.

btw, your background in climate science or meteorology is?

Increasing sea level rise, decreasing polar ice and permafrost are accurate. Could you be more specific in what you are looking for?

My background? I'm not a climate scientist. Academically I've had masters level heat-mass transfer classes. Job experience I work for NASA and was responsible for the ISS electrical power systems (solar) and external thermal control.

So 15 years of engineers doing energy balance based thermal analysis and solar flux calculations/measurements.

How about you? Meteorology?

 

[unokitty]

Climate change threat must be taken as seriously as nuclear war – UK minister

In foreword to Foreign Office report, Baroness Joyce Anelay highlights holistic risks of global warming, including food security, terrorism and lethal heat levels


More Climate Doom from the usual sources... Nuclear Climate Change anyone?


Uno

 

[sm625]

Useless propaganda. Everyone knows that the sun has no impact on climate. Only CO2 affects climate. The temperate MUST rise every year. If it doesnt, then the raw data MUST be altered to show a rise. You must pay a carbon tax to your favorite wall street bank. Any mention of falling temperatures is akin to making terroristic threats.

 

[Moonbeam]

We're back at square one. I'm in lala land, my thinking is rubbish, I have defective thinking. You've responded to everything I've said with contempt and anger. All of this because I expressed an opinion that you don't like. My very first statement still stands, isn't it interesting that everyone that disagrees with you has a mental disorder.

Oh good, now we can start over. Nobody can disagree with me because I have no position and didn't take one. All I did was look at the things you and others say and see that you and they have no idea what you are talking about. How do I know this. I know it because the positions you take are logically defective, they are simply made up rubbish. You mistake the truths you tell yourself as if they had real applicability while in fact they have nothing to do with anything. You have manufactured a delusion and think you see reality. You can't accept the notion that you don't know anything so you make up shit that's preposterous. You take all kinds of hypotheticals and pretend they arte actually happening. Every time you rationalize you fuck up. Lying to yourself is a mental disorder. It reveals an insecure ego. Maybe try living without opinions to weaken the hold your ego has on your thinking. Accept the fact that everything I say here is true and live with it.

Nothing I say here is contemptuous and nothing is said in anger. You hate the person I describe and don't want to be that person. You hate the messenger because you hate the message. I don't hate that person because that person used to be me and is no longer. I suffered a very painful death. There's an afterlife and it's a big surprise. I want you to have it. The war is over. We lost and all the armor is just dead weight. Cast it off.

 

[Moonbeam]

Useless propaganda. Everyone knows that the sun has no impact on climate. Only CO2 affects climate. The temperate MUST rise every year. If it doesnt, then the raw data MUST be altered to show a rise. You must pay a carbon tax to your favorite wall street bank. Any mention of falling temperatures is akin to making terroristic threats.

Greenman, perhaps this lunatic can help you see yourself. If all of this were true it would be terrible and terrible things aren't what any sane mind would want, so this person sees himself as a good guy and he's right that there is a good. But the story he made up that is terrible is ridiculous. Everybody knows the sun affects climate. Nobody wants the temperature to rise every year and nobody is manipulating the data for the purpose of showing that. Science is not where a push for a carbon tax is coming. Nobody sees the mention of falling temperatures as terrorist attacks. When I say nobody and everybody, I am speaking generally. Nobody in his right mind believes this nonsense is real but obviously the poster does.

This is the invention of an emotionally compelling, emotionally driven diatribe and altered reality I am talking about. The poster believes what is only bull shit.

I know two people who were bitten by dogs. Dogs are vicious. This isn't logic. It's the crazed hysteria of a person with emotional scars from being bitten. Such a person will have to go through the pain of deconditioning by widening his experience with dogs and facing down that fear. People like that miss out on the joy and love dogs can bring to ones life. Would you hate the person who was in this condition or would you try to help them with it? Is the person bad because they have a defective reaction to dogs?

 

[IGBT]

the cooling / warming / sky is falling eco-KOOKS need to re-spin their hoax.

 

[werepossum]

Ice loss is only arguable if you don't understand the difference between sea ice extent (surface area) and sea ice volume.

Not sure how sea level rise is arguable either:

Increasing sea level rise, decreasing polar ice and permafrost are accurate. Could you be more specific in what you are looking for?

My background? I'm not a climate scientist. Academically I've had masters level heat-mass transfer classes. Job experience I work for NASA and was responsible for the ISS electrical power systems (solar) and external thermal control.

So 15 years of engineers doing energy balance based thermal analysis and solar flux calculations/measurements.

How about you? Meteorology?

Nope, by training electrical engineer. Not a licensed engineer though.

Interesting that you mentioned sea ice. When antarctic sea ice was predicted to virtually disappear and instead increased, we were told that it was very thin so the mass was actually less - just as predicted. Studies and satellites proved it. Yet when checked by submarine, the ice was actually thicker - much thicker. http://www.livescience.com/48880-antarctica-sea-ice-thickness-mapped.html

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Ice loss is only arguable if you don't understand the difference between sea ice extent (surface area) and sea ice volume.

Not sure how sea level rise is arguable either:

Increasing sea level rise, decreasing polar ice and permafrost are accurate. Could you be more specific in what you are looking for?

I'm not saying that the sea level isn't rising. What I am asking for is an accurate prediction of how much it is going to rise and how much the temperature is going to rise. So far we haven't gotten accurate predictions which indicates pretty clearly that climate change is not fully understood. How can we apply fixes to a system we don't really understand?

My background? I'm not a climate scientist. Academically I've had masters level heat-mass transfer classes. Job experience I work for NASA and was responsible for the ISS electrical power systems (solar) and external thermal control.

So 15 years of engineers doing energy balance based thermal analysis and solar flux calculations/measurements.

How about you? Meteorology?

Yes, back in the day. For the past 25 years I've worked as a technical writer creating documentation for the medical and engineering industries. Primarily my work has been in engineering, running the gamut from mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical, control, and audio systems and even creating maintenance and overhaul manuals for commuter rail trains and standard locomotives. Lately though I've been moving towards retirement and working infrequently. Been playing a lot of golf.

 

[Paratus]

Nope, by training electrical engineer. Not a licensed engineer though.

Interesting that you mentioned sea ice. When antarctic sea ice was predicted to virtually disappear and instead increased, we were told that it was very thin so the mass was actually less - just as predicted. Studies and satellites proved it. Yet when checked by submarine, the ice was actually thicker - much thicker. http://www.livescience.com/48880-antarctica-sea-ice-thickness-mapped.html

You need to be careful using the term "proved". Studies and satellite measurements support loss of Antarctic ice. (BTW it was artic ice that was supposed to disappear according to skeptics)

This new data may or may not change things. Satellites gravity measurements showed movement of the ice indicating melt. Maybe this is where it ended up. This data will be added to the rest to make more accurate predictions.

But by itself it would have some localized effects on surface absorption and surface radiation terms.

It still doesn't change the greenhouse gas back radiation terms.

And werepossum, while I don't use the actual climate models in my job, I use analyses from models produced by a similar method. I used them to successfully protect several billion dollars of national asset and your tax payer dollars over the last several years. So when people post "we don't know anything" I know that's bullshit.

 

[Paratus]

I'm not saying that the sea level isn't rising. What I am asking for is an accurate prediction of how much it is going to rise and how much the temperature is going to rise. So far we haven't gotten accurate predictions which indicates pretty clearly that climate change is not fully understood. How can we apply fixes to a system we don't really understand?


Yes, back in the day. For the past 25 years I've worked as a technical writer creating documentation for the medical and engineering industries. Primarily my work has been in engineering, running the gamut from mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical, control, and audio systems and even creating maintenance and overhaul manuals for commuter rail trains and standard locomotives. Lately though I've been moving towards retirement and working infrequently. Been playing a lot of golf.

Well the IPCC has sea level projections.

The complex nature of the system means short term local predictions are going to have a lot of error in them. Long term statistical averages will be more descriptive.

But direct measurements show an imbalance of a couple of tenths of W/m^2. Thermodynamics says the Earth must warm to a higher steady-state temperature to balance. At higher temperature thermal expansion will raise the ocean level. More ice will melt raising the ocean level. The IPCC predictions above are our guess at how much.

That prediction leads to other predictions that can help us adapt. For example low lying communities who get the water from the ground will need to be concerned with saltwater intrusion.


We never ended up doing what we went to college for, do we? I went for mechanical engineering and ended up doing electrical/thermal real-time flight operations and now I'm moving into astronaut/flight controller training. Don't have much time for golf yet though.

 

[etrigan420]

Yes, back in the day. For the past 25 years I've worked as a technical writer creating documentation for the medical and engineering industries. Primarily my work has been in engineering, running the gamut from mechanical, pneumatic, hydraulic, electrical, control, and audio systems and even creating maintenance and overhaul manuals for commuter rail trains and standard locomotives. Lately though I've been moving towards retirement and working infrequently. Been playing a lot of golf.

Soooo, fuck all about climatology, geophysics, geology, paleoclimatology, oceanography then?

Biology, physics? No?

A vague reference to the possibility of maybe some form of education with regards to weather prediction from 25 years ago?

Color me not impressed with your resume with regards to the subject.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Well the IPCC has sea level projections.

The complex nature of the system means short term local predictions are going to have a lot of error in them. Long term statistical averages will be more descriptive.

But direct measurements show an imbalance of a couple of tenths of W/m^2. Thermodynamics says the Earth must warm to a higher steady-state temperature to balance. At higher temperature thermal expansion will raise the ocean level. More ice will melt raising the ocean level. The IPCC predictions above are our guess at how much.

That prediction leads to other predictions that can help us adapt. For example low lying communities who get the water from the ground will need to be concerned with saltwater intrusion.

The problem that I have with IPCC predictions is that they have been consistently revising them downwards for years. Instead of being reasonable initially they cried wolf, made fatal predictions, and now it is difficult to believe anything that they claim.

We never ended up doing what we went to college for, do we? I went for mechanical engineering and ended up doing electrical/thermal real-time flight operations and now I'm moving into astronaut/flight controller training. Don't have much time for golf yet though.

In college I majored in women and parties and minored in tennis and surfing.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Soooo, fuck all about climatology, geophysics, geology, paleoclimatology, oceanography then?

Biology, physics? No?

A vague reference to the possibility of maybe some form of education with regards to weather prediction from 25 years ago?

Color me not impressed with your resume with regards to the subject.

Yet I still have more experience in the subject than many in here who try to claim expertise.

Nor do I give a single fuck if you are impressed or not. So what point were you trying to make?

 

[werepossum]

You need to be careful using the term "proved". Studies and satellite measurements support loss of Antarctic ice. (BTW it was artic ice that was supposed to disappear according to skeptics)

This new data may or may not change things. Satellites gravity measurements showed movement of the ice indicating melt. Maybe this is where it ended up. This data will be added to the rest to make more accurate predictions.

But by itself it would have some localized effects on surface absorption and surface radiation terms.

It still doesn't change the greenhouse gas back radiation terms.

And werepossum, while I don't use the actual climate models in my job, I use analyses from models produced by a similar method. I used them to successfully protect several billion dollars of national asset and your tax payer dollars over the last several years. So when people post "we don't know anything" I know that's bullshit.

I think you are relying too much on the greenhouse gas radiation absorption equations. If that was the whole answer, then Earth would have become Venus 2: The Revenge long before humans when CO2 and especially methane concentrations were much higher. Earth has exquisite feedback systems to make the planet hotter or cooler as needed; it has to, to have remained habitable (as we understand habitable.)

Your point on what we know is well taken, but allow me to point out that the ICN effect predictions have consistently proven too catastrophic and have continuously been revised downward. Even the simplest things in climate science are grossly oversimplified. Just look at ocean levels. It's true that rising temperatures cause higher sea levels. They also cause more water to be stored in clouds and as rainfall runoff, which in turn cause less solar radiation to penetrate, which mitigates rising temperatures. Put it this way: I understand quite a lot about nuclear plants. Absolutely no one would want to live near a nuclear plant built to my design. To paraphrase and extend Rumsfeld's words, I know what I know I don't know, but what I don't know that I don't know could have catastrophic results. Climate science seems much the same to me.

1. The science is settled!
2. Hmm, that didn't work out as predicted.
3. This could explain why our predictions were off.
4. Okay, NOW the science is settled!
5. Loop to 1.

 

[boomerang]

the cooling / warming / sky is falling eco-KOOKS need to re-spin their hoax.

It helps to remember that it's more religion than science. It requires faith. Or lacking faith, fear is a good substitute.