2015, the beginning of ice free arctic?

[Old Rocks]

Ian C -

The issue here is (still) SSDD's refusal to read the research from the British Antarctic Survey.

Apparently, the research is not academic - surprising given the team included 4 professor's and 4 other Phd's.

Now, it seems research can only be considered research if it was originally published by a scientific journal. This research has been covered widely by the media, but apparently that means it can not be considered science.

I recommend going through the thread if you're in need of a laugh.

4 professor's and 4 other Phd's, and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment

That's some track record

Nearly 40 thousand posts, and not a sign of intellect yet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian C -

The issue here is (still) SSDD's refusal to read the research from the British Antarctic Survey.

Apparently, the research is not academic - surprising given the team included 4 professor's and 4 other Phd's.

Now, it seems research can only be considered research if it was originally published by a scientific journal. This research has been covered widely by the media, but apparently that means it can not be considered science.

I recommend going through the thread if you're in need of a laugh.

4 professor's and 4 other Phd's, and still not one single repeatable laboratory experiment

That's some track record

Nearly 40 thousand posts, and not a sign of intellect yet.

26,000 posts and never once have we seen a single repeatable lab experiment showing how a wisp of CO2 causes "Global warming" much less "Climate Change"

And so, we will never in all eternity be treated to a video that shows the experiment that proves how decreasing the wisp of CO2 will reverse Warming and climate change

 

[SSDD]

There is strong evidence that the warming of the Earth over the last half-century has
been caused largely by human activity, such as the burning of fossil fuels and changes
in land use, including agriculture and deforestation.

What form does this "strong evidence" take? Is it observable? Repeatable? Measurable?

How about you show us some of this "strong evidence", and before you post a link to some dogma which is going to prompt me to ask you which part you consider to be evidence of anything, why not simply admit that no such evidence actually exists and the above statment is issued entirely for the benefit of the duped.

 

[Saigon]

What form does this "strong evidence" take? Is it observable? Repeatable? Measurable?

Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it.

Measurable - yes, of course. This would not be considered scientific fact if it were not measurable.

Repeatable - probably not. The world and climate are simply too complex a system to build in a lab - but then so are many other scientific phenomena which you accept as fact.

Do keep in mind that because we have proven for a measurable, repeatable and observable fact that you will not read any science. However, here is everything you need to know. Pease note that a dozen studies are linked from this site - hence the actual research is available if you wish to...um....see it.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evidence-for-co2-enhanced-greenhouse-effect.htm

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

We know for a fact that nowhere did you comment on the science, the results, methdology or approach taken by the British Antarctic Survey, nor the two other papers linked.

You rebutted nothing, and did not attempt to. Providing a raft of alternative sources is NOT a rebuttal.

Therefore, it is safe to assume you did not read any of the actual studies.

The only lying on these threads has been your constant claim to be interested in facts, when you very clearly are interested only in denial.

 

[SSDD]

Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it.

There isn't a shred of actual evidence that man is causing global climate change. If there is, by all means, post it.

Measurable - yes, of course. This would not be considered scientific fact if it were not measurable.

Again, measurable evidence of climate change....no measurable evidence that man is the cause. If you think there is, again, post it.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

We know for a fact that nowhere did you comment on the science, the results, methdology or approach taken by the British Antarctic Survey, nor the two other papers linked.

You rebutted nothing, and did not attempt to. Providing a raft of alternative sources is NOT a rebuttal.

Therefore, it is safe to assume you did not read any of the actual studies.

The only lying on these threads has been your constant claim to be interested in facts, when you very clearly are interested only in denial.

I have asked you what you believe is there that represents proof of whatever point you were trying to make. You seem to be unable to answer the question. I didn't see anything there that appeared to be proof of anything and certainly nothing that even begun to state what brought about the 180 degree turnaround in the previous consensus view.

 

[Sarah G]

It's so warm in Antarctica the year's Sports Illustrated cover model went for a bikini shoot there.

 

[Saigon]

Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it.

There isn't a shred of actual evidence that man is causing global climate change. If there is, by all means, post it.
.

I just did.

You ignored it.

Just as you ignored all of the scientific material on the Antarctic. It is what you do, and at some point you may come to realise that yourself.

 

[Saigon]

It's so warm in Antarctica the year's Sports Illustrated cover model went for a bikini shoot there.

It is getting warmer, but I think it's a few steps away from becoming the next Tahiti!

The mean annual temperature of the interior is −57°C (−70°F). The coast is warmer. Monthly means at McMurdo Station range from −28°C (−18.4°F) in August to −3°C (26.6°F) in January. At the South Pole, the highest temperature ever recorded was −12.3°C (9.9°F) on December 25, 2011

Climate of Antarctica - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What form does this "strong evidence" take? Is it observable? Repeatable? Measurable?

Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it.

Measurable - yes, of course. This would not be considered scientific fact if it were not measurable.

Repeatable - probably not. The world and climate are simply too complex a system to build in a lab - but then so are many other scientific phenomena which you accept as fact.

Do keep in mind that because we have proven for a measurable, repeatable and observable fact that you will not read any science. However, here is everything you need to know. Pease note that a dozen studies are linked from this site - hence the actual research is available if you wish to...um....see it.

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

The amount of warming caused by the anthropogenic increase in atmospheric CO2 may be one of the most misunderstood subjects in climate science. Many people think the anthropogenic warming can't be quantified, many others think it must be an insignificant amount. However, climate scientists have indeed quantified the anthropogenic contribution to global warming using empirical observations and fundamental physical equations.

"The world and climate are simply too complex a system to build in a lab"

If it's too complex to build in a lab how can you possibly say with such confidence (unless you're a Cult) that CO2 is doing any, much less all the things you say it does?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Notice how Old Rocks still has not posted the experiment

 

[Saigon]

Frank -

Can you explain what you get out of spamming threads?

You never discuss issues, and concede defeat at any sign of a response...what's the point?

The proof of CO2 as the main agent of climate change has been posted. I would post the actual research documents, but we both know you aren't interested.

 

[IanC]

Observable - yes, without question, and I actually already posted material on this, but you refused to look at it.

There isn't a shred of actual evidence that man is causing global climate change. If there is, by all means, post it.

Measurable - yes, of course. This would not be considered scientific fact if it were not measurable.

Again, measurable evidence of climate change....no measurable evidence that man is the cause. If you think there is, again, post it.

there is all sorts of evidence and data but it doesnt prove one side or the other right.

both sides pluck out the pieces they like and try to ignore the leftovers that dont fit.

because the AGW side is the one making claims that the null hypothesis should be flipped to human causes then they should perhaps get their affairs in order by explaining why the hotspot is missing and why the Antarctic doesnt seem to be getting the CO2 multiplied effect because it is cold and dry down there.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

I would certainly agree that on this board both sides "pluck out the pieces they like" - it is rather the nature of discussion forums.

But it is not the role of science to do so, and I don't believe most respected scientists or scientific organisations do do so.

I also agree that given AGW climate change is the accepted scientific position, it is incumbunt upon those scientists to prove their case more than it is for sceptics. (I think that has been done, but unfortunately the science is extremely complex, and I don't pretend to have understood all I've read on the issue.)

That said, the fact that most scpetics can't think of any credible alternative theory does undermine their efforts tremendously.

 

[IanC]

saigon- Im sorry but I think the skeptical case that nature is the prime driver of climate, just like it always has been, is a pretty strong alternate theory.

your theory says the hotspot should be there and it is not, Santer's wind shear is ridiculous. the missing heat is not there, Trenberth's deep sea sequestration is ridiculous.

the poles are not behaving according to plan, the Artic too hot, the Antarctic too cold.

the models exaggerate the expected warming and natural events like volcanoes arent anything like what the models predict.

at every turn the details are simply wrong, and yet we are expected to believe the CO2 hypothesis.

you guys need to 'get your game up' if you want to convince people who dont have a personal investment in your fairy tale.

 

[Saigon]

Ian C -

I read a huge amount on the Antarctic last week when I was making the thread for SSDD to ignore, and I think the problem is more the complexity of the issues, rather than any lack of scientific conclusions. There are factors, such as ozone, which influence the Antarctic much more than they do any other part of the globe.

I haven't heard any theory about nature being the prime driver of climate - at least not one that would qualify as a theory. I'd need to see that laid about point by point before I could consider at a theory.

I don't know what you mean by needing to convince people - research shows that around the world the overwhelming majority of people believe that the climate is changing and that human beings play a role in that. I made a thread on this a couple of weeks back. Globally, around 2/3 people believe human activity influences the climate. I think that's a good number, all things considered.

 

[westwall]

Frank -

Can you explain what you get out of spamming threads?

You never discuss issues, and concede defeat at any sign of a response...what's the point?

The proof of CO2 as the main agent of climate change has been posted. I would post the actual research documents, but we both know you aren't interested.

NO, it hasn't. You have posted "studies" that merely show correlational support, but they show nothing that deals with other possible causes of that correlation.

They are laughable.

 

[westwall]

Ian C -

I would certainly agree that on this board both sides "pluck out the pieces they like" - it is rather the nature of discussion forums.

But it is not the role of science to do so, and I don't believe most respected scientists or scientific organisations do do so.

I also agree that given AGW climate change is the accepted scientific position, it is incumbunt upon those scientists to prove their case more than it is for sceptics. (I think that has been done, but unfortunately the science is extremely complex, and I don't pretend to have understood all I've read on the issue.)

That said, the fact that most scpetics can't think of any credible alternative theory does undermine their efforts tremendously.

The credible alternative theory is it is all natural variability that has been going on since time began. You can't point to anything that is happening now that hasn't happened in the past and more frequently and more violently in the past. This has been a remarkably stable period of history which exposes your assertions for the fraud they are.

 

[westwall]

Ian C -

I read a huge amount on the Antarctic last week when I was making the thread for SSDD to ignore, and I think the problem is more the complexity of the issues, rather than any lack of scientific conclusions. There are factors, such as ozone, which influence the Antarctic much more than they do any other part of the globe.

I haven't heard any theory about nature being the prime driver of climate - at least not one that would qualify as a theory. I'd need to see that laid about point by point before I could consider at a theory.

I don't know what you mean by needing to convince people - research shows that around the world the overwhelming majority of people believe that the climate is changing and that human beings play a role in that. I made a thread on this a couple of weeks back. Globally, around 2/3 people believe human activity influences the climate. I think that's a good number, all things considered.

You certainly hope so. Sadly for you the reality is it is around 25% and dropping in any unbiased survey.