25 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you can continue to support climate deniers so they can keep their political power just long enough so they can die rich and give the problems to their grandchildren. Nice.
"That would make more sense given the physical models actually generally do predict positive feedback effects to global warming."
There you go again pretending model predictions are reliable when they are not. Science is not about faith which is all you have. Faith is for fanatics. Take it to the spiritual forum.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
25 Jul 15
Originally posted by EladarNo, because the forecast melt is not linear, and as the whole paper [as opposed to one out of
[b] melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.
So if nothing is done that sea levels do not rise a foot in the next 5 years do we get to say that global warming is much to do about nothing and people who preach about it are liars?[/b]
context line] makes clear, the feedback cycle might not kick in that soon.
Which is why it said "in as little as" and not simply "in" "fifty years.
The prediction, which I stress has not yet been peer reviewed, is for exponential feedback which
means accelerating ice loss leading to accelerating sea level rise which means that the majority
of the melt and sea level rise would be towards the end of that time scale and not towards the beginning.
And even if thy got everything wrong [which I doubt] this is not a paper on whether global warming is
happening or not, this is a paper looking at predictions of potential effects of global warming.
Which means that the accuracy of this research says next to nothing about the veracity of human induced
climate change.
As a comparison, claiming that this paper being wrong invalidates climate change would be akin to looking
at a computer model of an asteroid impact and saying that because this model is inaccurate, that means that
we are not going to be hit by an asteroid...
This research is into potential effects of global warming, specifically on the very hard to model and poorly understood
effects of climbing temperatures on our ice sheets. Whether it's right or wrong has no bearing on whether global
warming is happening or not. That wasn't the question they were trying to answer.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThe "models" I was referring to for positive feedback effects to global warming are things supported by proven basic physics such as, for example, the physical model that predicts that less sea ice means more solar energy being absorbed by the sea due to less of it being reflected back into space by the white sea ice thus, with all else being equal, causing more warming and more melting of sea ice which means even more solar energy being absorbed by the sea etc. Such a model must be reliable since basic physics (not even to mention the empirical evidence! ) tells us that ocean water not covered by ice will reflect less solar energy into space than sea ice and, with all else being equal, less sea ice will cause the ocean to warm due to greater absorption of solar energy.
"That would make more sense given the physical models actually generally do predict positive feedback effects to global warming."
There you go again pretending model predictions are reliable when they are not. Science is not about faith which is all you have. Faith is for fanatics. Take it to the spiritual forum.
No "faith" required there; just knowledge of basic physics, which you are too ignorant to have and too lacking in curiosity and too arrogant to consider the need to learn, and logic, which you are far too stupid to use or even consider using.
Which part of that 'sea ice' model do you object to and what is the premise/argument for that objection? Tell us which part of the physics involved in that model is wrong and why so...
25 Jul 15
Originally posted by googlefudgeexcellent points.
No, because the forecast melt is not linear, and as the whole paper [as opposed to one out of
context line] makes clear, the feedback cycle might not kick in that soon.
Which is why it said "in as little as" and not simply "in" "fifty years.
The prediction, which I stress has not yet been peer reviewed, is for exponential feedback which
means a ...[text shortened]... ether global
warming is happening or not. That wasn't the question they were trying to answer.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by humyLOL!
The "models" I was referring to for positive feedback effects to global warming are things supported by proven basic physics such as, for example, the physical model that predicts that less sea ice means more solar energy being absorbed by the sea due to less of it being reflected back into space by the white sea ice thus, with all else being equal, causing mor ...[text shortened]... that objection? Tell us which part of the physics involved in that model is wrong and why so...
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
Sea ice is increasing at this time. Not much positive feed back. Try again.
Originally posted by Metal BrainNope. It says:
LOL!
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
Sea ice is increasing at this time. Not much positive feed back. Try again.
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that"
Thus a longer term positive feed back is NOT ruled out.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by humyA trick of his. Failed again. He just cannot admit that he is wrong. Lack of knowledge.
Nope. It says:
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that"
Thus a longer term positive feed back is NOT ruled out.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by humyOnce again, the long term trend is natural, not man made. FAIL!
Nope. It says:
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that"
Thus a longer term positive feed back is NOT ruled out.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainSo you figure mankind should just let the chips fall where they may, let all those 'natural' causes take their course and who gives a crap if some islands disappear. Of course there is this thing about NYC, Florida, New Orleans, but hey, if they want to build on low lying land, tough titty.
Once again, the long term trend is natural, not man made. FAIL!
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonhouseYour rhetoric is getting worse. Sea level rise has been mild and consistent despite CO2 increase. Look at the long term graph of sea levels. The rise is very predictable just by looking at the graph and where it is going.
So you figure mankind should just let the chips fall where they may, let all those 'natural' causes take their course and who gives a crap if some islands disappear. Of course there is this thing about NYC, Florida, New Orleans, but hey, if they want to build on low lying land, tough titty.
Your assertion that sea level will increase substantially is not supported by the facts. It certainly is not CO2 that can be blamed since CO2 increases have not had that effect. James Hansen is a liar who has been discredited many times. If you continue to believe his lies you will continue to make a fool of yourself.
Show me where sea levels have increased because of anthropogenic causes or admit you have been duped by Hansen fabrications. I'm sick of you repeating the same nonsense without anything credible to back it up.....and you are making yourself look stupid. NYC, Florida and New Orleans will not be underwater anytime soon. My great grandchildren will be vacationing to Florida 100 years from now. You are just silly.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWe all hope we are wrong. It will be tragic if we are right. Time will tell.
Your rhetoric is getting worse. Sea level rise has been mild and consistent despite CO2 increase. Look at the long term graph of sea levels. The rise is very predictable just by looking at the graph and where it is going.
Your assertion that sea level will increase substantially is not supported by the facts. It certainly is not CO2 that can be blamed ...[text shortened]... n. My great grandchildren will be vacationing to Florida 100 years from now. You are just silly.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou are lying again. I am stating facts, not rhetoric. It is your rhetoric that has failed.
Please, don't comment on other rhetorics. It makes *you* look silly.
Remember how many time you have failed in your rhetoric tries.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/nobel-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming/?page=all
Mr. Giaever, an institute professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and professor at the University of Oslo, said it was time to scrap the global-warming theory, which he described as a “new religion.”
“If you’re a physicist, for heaven’s sake, and here is the experiment, and you have a theory, and the theory doesn’t agree with the experiment, then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” he said.
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou know I don't discuss anything other than rhetorics with you.
You are lying again. I am stating facts, not rhetoric. It is your rhetoric that has failed.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/nobel-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming/?page=all
Mr. Giaever, an institute professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and professor at the University of Oslo, said it was time to scrap the ...[text shortened]... h the experiment, then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” he said.
And when you say that your rhetorics are perfect and everyone elses, not agreeing with you, are wrong - that really proves that you are wrong, dead wrong.
Do you really think that rhetorics is about who shouts highest? The one insulting the other one most is the winner? Really? Don't you know anything about rhetorics?
Why do you show yourself as a loser, when in your mind you're the only one who win *every* thread?
You give me a link, that I don't read of course, to fool me into a discussing things other than rhetorics with me? You fail! Big time, you fail!