AGW: atmospheric physics

[RollingThunder]

I sort of enjoy the near panicked handwaving, big letters and all. It is as if he is wearing a clown costume over a monkey costume. Great entertainment...and the fact that he actually believes he is making a good impression is......well, its just priceless.

Not really interested in "making a good impression" on worthless retards like you and your denier cult butt-buddies.

I am interested in debunking your lies and myths and I doing a great job on that. Not that a brainwashed retard like you would be able to comprehend just how badly you're getting your ass whipped. You do, after all, specialize in mindless denial of reality.

 

[Saigon]

Scientific fact has never made any difference to you. Your position is based on your political leanings.

Says the person flat out refusing to read a scientific article on ocean temperatures.

Give it up, SSDD, you won't read science. Fact.

I read the paper...the entire paper which you clearly didn't otherwise you would have realized that it was typical climate science slop and was in essence a statement on the output of computer models as I stated originally.

I provided plenty of information about your substandard paper on the thread where it was posted.

And I thank you for reading it - I think it is the first time in perhaps a year of posting here that you have read material posted by another poster.

Of course you only read it from a political perspective, but even so....progress!!

 

[SSDD]

I sort of enjoy the near panicked handwaving, big letters and all. It is as if he is wearing a clown costume over a monkey costume. Great entertainment...and the fact that he actually believes he is making a good impression is......well, its just priceless.

Not really interested in "making a good impression" on worthless retards like you and your denier cult butt-buddies.

I am interested in debunking your lies and myths and I doing a great job on that. Not that a brainwashed retard like you would be able to comprehend just how badly you're getting your ass whipped. You do, after all, specialize in mindless denial of reality.

Well...you have failed on both accounts. I am sure in your troubled mind you tell yourself that you are doing just fine. But what we see is a desperate little kid who can't hide his feelings of inferiority, intimidation, and fear from the grownups who grossly overcompensates at every chance.

 

[SSDD]

And I thank you for reading it - I think it is the first time in perhaps a year of posting here that you have read material posted by another poster.

Of course you only read it from a political perspective, but even so....progress!!

I read all that you post siagon and really can't understand why you continue to lie about it. I read it and that is why I can state specifically why it isn't convincing and ask you pointed questions that you remain unable to answer.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Right. If you actually read the science posted here, you would be able to discuss it sensibly.

By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.

You reaction to any science posted here is rarely more than "no,no,no,no,no". You have a very long list of reasons why you will not read any given document, and I have seen you once concede that a valid point might have been made.

That proves to me that your interest isn't actually in the science at all. If it was, you'd be keen to read, and keen to learn new things, no?

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I also have to say that your lack of apparentl interest in science is VERY apparent when you say things like drought not being consistent with climate change science. This shows VERY clearly that you simply aren't listening and aren't reading.

Closed-mindedness does not help you understand this at all, you know.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

Right. If you actually read the science posted here, you would be able to discuss it sensibly.

By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.

You reaction to any science posted here is rarely more than "no,no,no,no,no". You have a very long list of reasons why you will not read any given document, and I have seen you once concede that a valid point might have been made.

That proves to me that your interest isn't actually in the science at all. If it was, you'd be keen to read, and keen to learn new things, no?

Till you can answer my questions, there is no common ground. That is why I ask the questions. Provide reasonable, scientifically sound answers and perhaps there might be some common ground. But you can't do that, can you? You don't understand the paper. You just believe it because of your political leanings. To you, a discussion of the science is nothing more than a circle jerk where you and your buds talk about how great the science that you don't understand is.

And again, liar...I read it all and ask specific and pointed questions which you remain unable to answer.

At this point you are just mewling and trying unsuccessfully to cover the blatantly obvious fact that you don't get the science and aren't able to discuss it at even a basic level.

 

[IanC]

hey SSDD- TallBloke has gone over to the dark side. hahahahahaha

 

[SSDD]

hey SSDD- TallBloke has gone over to the dark side. hahahahahaha

I saw that Roger, Anthony and Joseph had a triangle going over Joseph's trashing of Willis's rediculous steel greenhouse mind experiment. I have to say that I think Joseph has them on the ropes because they can't explain the parts of the experiment that they simply assume to be true. There is a great deal with regards to the physics of radiation that climate science simply assumes to be true with no empirical evidence to support the belief whatsoever.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

Right. If you actually read the science posted here, you would be able to discuss it sensibly.

By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.

You reaction to any science posted here is rarely more than "no,no,no,no,no". You have a very long list of reasons why you will not read any given document, and I have seen you once concede that a valid point might have been made.

That proves to me that your interest isn't actually in the science at all. If it was, you'd be keen to read, and keen to learn new things, no?

Till you can answer my questions, there is no common ground. That is why I ask the questions. Provide reasonable, scientifically sound answers and perhaps there might be some common ground. But you can't do that, can you? You don't understand the paper. You just believe it because of your political leanings. To you, a discussion of the science is nothing more than a circle jerk where you and your buds talk about how great the science that you don't understand is.

Actually, you rarely ask questions at all.

What you do most is to refuse to read. I can't count how many excuses you have posted to not look at scientific studies, but either way it does ensure debate with you is generally pointless. You simply will not discuss the topic.

Refusing to read the work of the British Antarctic Survey is smply childish, as you realise yourself, I'm sure.

This isn't a political issue for me at all. Outside the US it rarely is political. Conservative parties here all back the science, and save the arguments for the solutions.

As for understanding, I don't claim to understand a great deal of physics, which is why I tend to be guided by what excellent professionals in the field tell me. I've met a couple personally, and found their hard work and ethical approach impressive. Certainly I lack the arrogance to assume I know more than the American society of physicists - if you were a little smarter you might wonder why you think you do.

 

[SSDD]

By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.

Actually, I ask qustions all the time. You just can't answer them. As to the conclusions, the conclusions are meaningless if the methodology is substandard. You clearly can't discuss the methodology which is the science, not the conclusions.

I ask you lots of questions and you simply move on as if they were never asked...we both know that it is because you can't discuss the science because you don't understand it.

This is a perfect example. You want to discuss conclusions because you assume them to be accurate. You can't discuss the "science" that was used to reach those conclusions.

 

[RollingThunder]

By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.

Actually, I ask qustions all the time. You just can't answer them. As to the conclusions, the conclusions are meaningless if the methodology is substandard. You clearly can't discuss the methodology which is the science, not the conclusions.

I ask you lots of questions and you simply move on as if they were never asked...we both know that it is because you can't discuss the science because you don't understand it.

This is a perfect example. You want to discuss conclusions because you assume them to be accurate. You can't discuss the "science" that was used to reach those conclusions.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL.....that is sooooo funny.....you are completely blind to the fact that you aren't any where near being scientifically qualified or competent to judge the methodologies being used by the real scientists, or to realistically "discuss the science". You tell Saigon that "you can't discuss the science because you don't understand it" but in fact, you are far too ignorant, retarded, misinformed and brainwashed to understand the science. You parrot the anti-science propaganda cooked up by the fossil fuel industry but you're too stupid and ignorant about science to realize how absurd that drivel actually is.

 

[Saigon]

SSDD -

I don't see the value in you pretending to know more science than anyone else in the room on one thread - and insisting drought is inconsistent with climate change on another.

This is not the first time you've shown that you have very little grasp of some fairly basic points - remember when you asked why the Arctic would behave differently from the Antarctic?!

It's like you demanding all sources are peer-reviewed, appear in scientific journals and are genuinely academic - and then using politicians blogs as sources yourself.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD -

I don't see the value in you pretending to know more science than anyone else in the room on one thread - and insisting drought is inconsistent with climate change on another.

This is not the first time you've shown that you have very little grasp of some fairly basic points - remember when you asked why the Arctic would behave differently from the Antarctic?!

It's like you demanding all sources are peer-reviewed, appear in scientific journals and are genuinely academic - and then using politicians blogs as sources yourself.

I don't pretend to know more than anyone in the room...that is your position. I do know from empirical evidence that I know more than you and thunder and rocks since none of you are capable of even beginning to discuss the topic in your own words.

If you had a grasp of the science you would know that a warmer world will be a more moist world and drought is not characteristic of a more moist world. Paleorecords show us this over and over. You are depending on notoriously inaccurate models which predict catastrophic drought in a warmer world because that is what they were told to predict.

 

[IanC]

By which I mean discussing the conclusions sensibly, and in particular finding common ground. With topics like Antartic Ice, probably 80% of the scientific facts are not disputed by anyone. With other posters I find we can often establish what we agree on, and very often respectfully disagree on the remainder based entirely on science.

Actually, I ask qustions all the time. You just can't answer them. As to the conclusions, the conclusions are meaningless if the methodology is substandard. You clearly can't discuss the methodology which is the science, not the conclusions.

I ask you lots of questions and you simply move on as if they were never asked...we both know that it is because you can't discuss the science because you don't understand it.

This is a perfect example. You want to discuss conclusions because you assume them to be accurate. You can't discuss the "science" that was used to reach those conclusions.

I'm not sure if we can accurately say that he is not capable of discussing the science in his own words. it may very well be that he is clever enough not to answer direct questions because he knows that he will quickly find himself painted into a corner. that is why there have not been any face-to-face debates since Gavin Schmidt was trounced in the IQ2 debate.

Global Warming is Not a Crisis


Pre-debate Poll Results
30% for | 57% against | 13% undecided
Post-debate Poll Results
46% for | 42% against | 12% undecided

Global Warming is Not a Crisis ? IQ2 Debates

 

[Saigon]

I do know from empirical evidence that I know more than you and thunder and rocks

And yet you didn't know that Antarctica is a land mass surrounded by water; and that the Arctic is an ocean surrounded by land.

Interesting.

Hilarious, and interesting.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

Globally, around 2/3 of people accept climate change science, rising to more than 90% in areas where the impact is very clear. Countries with stronger education systems show stronger acceptance of the science (Japan, Korea, Scandinavia).

A recent European survey of 30 countries asked people to list 3 threats facing humanity. Climate change was the 2nd most popular reply (after recession), with around 70% of people listing it.

Like it or not - the message IS getting through.

As for answering questions - I only answer those which seem genuine. That excludes almost all of SSDD's.

 

[IanC]

Ian -

Globally, around 2/3 of people accept climate change science, rising to more than 90% in areas where the impact is very clear. Countries with stronger education systems show stronger acceptance of the science (Japan, Korea, Scandinavia).

A recent European survey of 30 countries asked people to list 3 threats facing humanity. Climate change was the 2nd most popular reply (after recession), with around 70% of people listing it.

Like it or not - the message IS getting through.

As for answering questions - I only answer those which seem genuine. That excludes almost all of SSDD's.

concensus means nothing to me. I only care about what makes sense to me!

I believe the globe has warmed since the LIA. I believe that mankind has introduced CO2 into the air, that any disturbance of equilibrium causes change of some sort, therefore CO2 has some impact.

I also believe that climate has always changed, with the solar influence probably being the most powerful.

CO2 CAGW theory has been shown to be unskillful in describing reality. it produces large exaggerations, which lead to exaggerated conclusions, which lead to predictions of doom.

a question- if CO2 was to cause one degree warming this century would you be upset enough to spend trillions of dollars while making things worse on the poor of the world? or would you say "I dont like it but at least we will probably develop a new technology in that time to ameliorate conditions"?

do you know what I would do if I was in charge of climate science? even if I was a 'true believer'? I would replace the massively exaggerated predictions of methane with realistic ones that are consistent with reality, thereby knocking off a quarter of the doomsday projections, multiplied out to catastrope.

 

[Saigon]

Ian -

I don't disagree with much of your comments there - I would definitely agree that there have been exaggerations. Unfortunately I think some of those exaggerations led people to believe scientists were guessing or were lying, rather than simply seeing them as indicating a correct trend, but with more alarmism than was necessary.

The 1 degree shift will not influence our life times terribly much, and nor will rising sea levels. But they may have a profound impact on agriculture and infratructure - and already are having in some parts of the world. I don't think the concern about the climate is based on our lifetimes, though. For me it isnt, anyway. But I am concerned about what happens a couple of generations from now. What do our grandchildren need to know to live in their world in the year 2200, and what can we do to ensure their life is tolerable.

The fact is that rising temperatures already are having a profound effect on the way people live in Spain, Australia, Peru, Bangladesh and Mozambique. Those effects need to be managed, beginning in 2013.

I simply do not understand why this has become a political issue when the consequences of ignoring those effects amount to committing economic suicide. I'm so glad that in Finland the debate has simply never been a political one.

 

[Old Rocks]

While there are those that exagerate anything, the majority of the scientists making predictions concerning the effects of the warming have been far too conservative. The estimates for the polar ice melt 13 years ago were for an ice free Arctic Ocean by around 2100. Now it looks like that will be by 2020, if not sooner. The predictions for major weather affects on crops was for 2050. We are seeing that right now. Sea level rise is running right at the top of the worst case prediction.

But, as I have stated many times in the pasts, it will take a devastating catastrophe in this nation before the eyes will be opened to what is obvious. And when that happens, the very first thing out of the mouths of todays sceptics will be "Why didn't the scientists warn us?".