Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Mar '15 16:07
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-evidence-positive-feedback-climate.html

    More BS for the climate change deniers?
  2. 30 Mar '15 16:55 / 5 edits
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-evidence-positive-feedback-climate.html

    More BS for the climate change deniers?
    I thought such evidence for positive feedback was already found long ago from ice core data.
    The thing that actually appears new here to me is the much greater accuracy of the estimate they can make to the extent one thing causes the other (thus more accurately separate out man made from natural causes ) but, still, this is still more BS evidence for the man made global warming deniers to deny.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    30 Mar '15 18:18
    Originally posted by humy
    I thought such evidence for positive feedback was already found long ago from ice core data.
    The thing that actually appears new here to me is the much greater accuracy of the estimate they can make to the extent one thing causes the other (thus more accurately separate out man made from natural causes ) but, still, this is still more BS evidence for the man made global warming deniers to deny.
    I gather the new accuracy is due to the newer math model. Did you look at the video of the attractors?
  4. 31 Mar '15 00:42
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://phys.org/news/2015-03-evidence-positive-feedback-climate.html

    More BS for the climate change deniers?
    I pointed this out to you before. I referred to it as "CO2 lag" and I referred you to the Vostok cores for more information on it. I also provided a link that suggested the lag was closer to 200 years instead of 600.

    That hokey skeptical science link claimed it did not exist. Later they changed it to confine the claim to ice ages or something silly like that. Apparently the link embarrassed some people that used the false info to try and prove something in vain. They also said the glaciers of Antarctica on land were shrinking but omitted that the melting was caused by a volcano (natural cause) under the ice.

    BTW, I am not a climate change denier. Very few people are.

    http://www.nationaljournal.com/energy/jim-inhofe-ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-just-voted-to-say-climate-change-is-real-20150121
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    31 Mar '15 18:46
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    I pointed this out to you before. I referred to it as "CO2 lag" and I referred you to the Vostok cores for more information on it. I also provided a link that suggested the lag was closer to 200 years instead of 600.

    That hokey skeptical science link claimed it did not exist. Later they changed it to confine the claim to ice ages or something silly l ...[text shortened]... com/energy/jim-inhofe-ted-cruz-and-marco-rubio-just-voted-to-say-climate-change-is-real-20150121
    I know you are not a climate change denier. I also know you are an anthrogenic climate change denier. Nothing by insignificant mankind can do will have any effect on the climate according to that theory.
  6. 01 Apr '15 01:33
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    I know you are not a climate change denier. I also know you are an anthrogenic climate change denier. Nothing by insignificant mankind can do will have any effect on the climate according to that theory.
    "I also know you are an anthrogenic climate change denier."

    Wrong again. I'm not that either. You don't pay much attention to my statements.
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Apr '15 01:00 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "I also know you are an anthrogenic climate change denier."

    Wrong again. I'm not that either. You don't pay much attention to my statements.
    What I keep hearing you say is climate predictions are unreliable. So are you now saying that mankind is upsetting the applecart and we should in fact be worried the climate may kill millions of people in a hundred years?

    Do you study any other science? How much actual study have you done on atmospheric science? Do you have a degree in meteorology or some such?
  8. 04 Apr '15 16:26
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What I keep hearing you say is climate predictions are unreliable. So are you now saying that mankind is upsetting the applecart and we should in fact be worried the climate may kill millions of people in a hundred years?

    Do you study any other science? How much actual study have you done on atmospheric science? Do you have a degree in meteorology or some such?
    Climate models are unreliable. It is a fact, not a theory. They have failed too many times and have done so in recent years.

    The assertion that climate change will kill millions of people is baseless. People will adapt to climate change like they always have. An ice age is worse than warming and man adapted to that while being very primitive. To assert that man will fail to adapt with modern technology is completely ridiculous!

    You need to work on your critical thinking skills. You have heard myths so often you believe the absurd. Stop and think for a moment. Is man adaptable or not? Think!
  9. 04 Apr '15 16:36
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Climate models are unreliable. It is a fact, not a theory. They have failed too many times and have done so in recent years.

    The assertion that climate change will kill millions of people is baseless. People will adapt to climate change like they always have. An ice age is worse than warming and man adapted to that while being very primitive. To asse ...[text shortened]... hs so often you believe the absurd. Stop and think for a moment. Is man adaptable or not? Think!
    You have such a funny arguments, dear Metal Brain, you really have. Do you invent them as you go along, or are you just desperate to hide that you are losing every debate?
  10. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    04 Apr '15 16:48
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    Climate models are unreliable. It is a fact, not a theory. They have failed too many times and have done so in recent years.

    The assertion that climate change will kill millions of people is baseless. People will adapt to climate change like they always have. An ice age is worse than warming and man adapted to that while being very primitive. To asse ...[text shortened]... hs so often you believe the absurd. Stop and think for a moment. Is man adaptable or not? Think!
    It's not just about the plight of humans. Humans are a big part of this change.

    There is already started a mass extinction of animal and plant life on Earth.

    Polar bears for instance, cannot adapt to permanent above freezing temperatures which is one likely outcome of climate warming.

    That is just one example.

    I guess you figure the reduction in diversity is just fine.

    Forests will die also, I guess that doesn't bother you either.

    The world will be a far different place than it is today if the the Oceans rise one or 2 meters in the next 100 years. The total land area of the world will go down which means a lot less agricultural land available.

    If you don't see that as a problem, you are really being dense and obtuse.

    I only hope you live long enough to see the suffering that will result from all this climate change.

    What will you say when the first million die as a result of starvation?
  11. 04 Apr '15 16:53
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    What will you say when the first million die as a result of starvation?
    He would say: "Not my fault!"

    Or perhaps: "I don't see any millions of dead people, so I don't believe that!"
  12. 05 Apr '15 14:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It's not just about the plight of humans. Humans are a big part of this change.

    There is already started a mass extinction of animal and plant life on Earth.

    Polar bears for instance, cannot adapt to permanent above freezing temperatures which is one likely outcome of climate warming.

    That is just one example.

    I guess you figure the reduction in ...[text shortened]... r different place than it is today if the the Oceans rise one or 2 meters in the next 100 years.
    "There is already started a mass extinction of animal and plant life on Earth."

    Yes, man causes species to go extinct. The Dodo Bird, the Tasmanian Tiger and a lot of others. What does that have to do with global warming?

    "Polar bears for instance, cannot adapt to permanent above freezing temperatures which is one likely outcome of climate warming."

    That is ridiculous. What is your source of information?

    "Forests will die also, I guess that doesn't bother you either."

    Forests die from man cutting them down, not from GW. Forests will do better from more CO2 in the atmosphere. Your gripe is with rednecks with chainsaws if you want to protect the forests.

    "The world will be a far different place than it is today if the the Oceans rise one or 2 meters in the next 100 years."

    Simply impossible. Laughable really.

    Are you making all this stuff up as you go along? Seriously. You can't prove any of those claims. Even most climate scientists would laugh at how bad your rhetoric is.
  13. 05 Apr '15 14:23
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    "There is already started a mass extinction of animal and plant life on Earth."

    Yes, man causes species to go extinct. The Dodo Bird, the Tasmanian Tiger and a lot of others. What does that have to do with global warming?

    "Polar bears for instance, cannot adapt to permanent above freezing temperatures which is one likely outcome of climate warming. ...[text shortened]... prove any of those claims. Even most climate scientists would laugh at how bad your rhetoric is.
    You really have answer to everything! When will you come up with the right answers?
  14. 05 Apr '15 14:24
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    You have such a funny arguments, dear Metal Brain, you really have. Do you invent them as you go along, or are you just desperate to hide that you are losing every debate?
    LOL!

    I'm winning this debate and you know it. That is why you took an instant disliking to me as soon as you saw how well I am doing on these GW threads. You would not be so hostile towards me if you didn't see me as a credible threat to your long held opinion based on misleading info some ignorant fool fed you.

    All you have to do is prove that the vast majority of climate scientists think millions of people will DIE because of MMGW. Why is that so darn hard for you 3 to do? I'm just one guy. You would think between the 3 of you (and probably more) it would be easy to prove me wrong, yet none of you can do that.

    I know you would rather be evasive and never present any proof (since there is none) and confine yourself to vague criticism since that is all you are capable of, but don't you feel foolish doing that for everyone to see? They can tell you are avoiding a true debate. This isn't their first time at the rodeo. They all know.
  15. 05 Apr '15 14:30
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    LOL!

    I'm winning this debate and you know it. That is why you took an instant disliking to me as soon as you saw how well I am doing on these GW threads. You would not be so hostile towards me if you didn't see me as a credible threat to your long held opinion based on misleading info some ignorant fool fed you.

    All you have to do is prove that the ...[text shortened]... an tell you are avoiding a true debate. This isn't their first time at the rodeo. They all know.
    You think you are a winner? Let me tell you - you are a loser.

    Only a loser think that he is a winner with lousy arguments. Whenever you lose a debate you put fundamentalistic rhetorics into play, a clear sign of a loser.