Page 123 of 134 FirstFirst ... 2373113119120121122123124125126127133 ... LastLast
Results 3,661 to 3,690 of 4001
  1. #3661
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,591
    Then they are not feedbacks.
    Either that or you lack the ability to think critically and see how things interrelate beyond what you have had your hand held throughout the explanation the whole way through.

    You lack intuition; that much is obvious.
    _____________________________
    "The man who does not do his own thinking is a slave, and is a traitor to himself and to his fellow-men." -George Ingersoll

    "Honor is simply the morality of superior men." -Henry Mencken

    Officially Noted By Agloco

    Fuzzy Fan Club: Cosmic Cowboy, TSA, Wild Cobra, Viva Las Espuelas, vy65, DarrinS, Skull-1
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  2. #3662
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,666
    In case you forgot, I asked where I can find evidence of strong, positive climate feedback and you replied this:

    Throw me a link. That's all I ask.
    https://www.google.com/



    Yuk, yuk, yuk.

    Tell me why I should bother first. I am convinced that you will ignore such evidence if I presented it to you, or dismiss it outright.

    (edit)

    This assumes you were qualified to evaluate it. You aren't.

    Hell, I'm not.

    Both are sort of beside the point.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-10-2012 at 04:39 PM.
    _____________________________
    Originally Posted by Wild Cobra:
    "it is possible that warming for windmills vs. CO2 is about equal, and that the windmills will change the wind/climate in ways worse than CO2 ever could."

    post6568713

    q: So, if I have a box, and I look in, see 3 dice in it, and someone comes along and says that his truth is that there are 4 dice in it, we cannot determine which truth is superior?
    vy65: "no, we cannot"

    QUOTE=vy65;6952966] I don't think harming other people is immoral. [/QUOTE

    QUOTE=robdiaz2191;7536012]I think hacking babies to death is ok sometimes.[/QUOTE
    RandomGuy is offline

  3. #3663
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,666
    RandomGuy is offline

  4. #3664
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    18,200


    http://climate.nasa.gov/uncertainties/


    State changes have triggers, or "tipping points," that are related to feedback processes. In what's probably the single largest uncertainty in climate science, scientists don't have much confidence that they know what those triggers are.
    DarrinS is offline

  5. #3665
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    18,200
    lol, just read the first hit from that Google search.

    It's all unsettled shit -- sorry to burst your bubble.
    DarrinS is offline

  6. #3666
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,666
    lol, just read the first hit from that Google search.

    It's all unsettled shit -- sorry to burst your bubble.
    Debunked specious argument.

    Sorry mouse. Saying it over and over doesn't make it a good argument the 99th time, any more than it was the first time.

    If you don't know why that argument is flawed, google is that way.

    I am not going to try to convince you. It is a waste of my time, and we both know it.

    You have made up your mind, and NOTHING will ever convince you otherwise.
    RandomGuy is offline

  7. #3667
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,666
    Debunked, specious argument.

    Sorry mouse, saying it 99 times doesn't make it a good argument the 99th time any more than it was the 1st time.
    RandomGuy is offline

  8. #3668
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    18,200
    Debunked specious argument.

    Sorry mouse. Saying it over and over doesn't make it a good argument the 99th time, any more than it was the first time.

    If you don't know why that argument is flawed, google is that way.

    I am not going to try to convince you. It is a waste of my time, and we both know it.

    You have made up your mind, and NOTHING will ever convince you otherwise.

    Now you are just lying. We need more data before we can say anything about feedbacks with any degree of confidence. Even the IPCC says they don't fully understand how to model clouds and how they change the Earth's albedo.
    DarrinS is offline

  9. #3669
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    18,200
    Nice to see that Random has resorted to this

    DarrinS is offline

  10. #3670
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,591
    Now you are just lying. We need more data before we can say anything about feedbacks with any degree of confidence. Even the IPCC says they don't fully understand how to model clouds and how they change the Earth's albedo.
    Again he has discussed handling uncertanties in risk analysis. weighting possible outcomes and all that sort of thing.

    thats not lying; thats you being stupid in not keeping up with the same fucking discussion we have had for years now.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  11. #3671
    DarrinS is offline

  12. #3672
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,591
    You going to make an argument on your own or you just going to throw more shit at the wall?

    A few questions.

    1) Does that satellite data include the adjustments made by the NSF?
    2) What model or models comprise the 'climate models' that he uses in his charts?
    3) What makes the determination of the 'BEST' estimate?
    4) Is the author capable of demonstrating climate 'trends' for the ocean for periods greater than 5 years?

    We have had this discussion before, sophist. And it was nice for you to once again contradict yourself with your regurgitation of the position that the warming is not happening.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  13. #3673
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,591
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0507151209.htm

    New Research Brings Satellite Measurements and Global Climate Models Closer

    ScienceDaily (May 7, 2012) One popular climate record that shows a slower atmospheric warming trend than other studies contains a data calibration problem, and when the problem is corrected the results fall in line with other records and climate models, according to a new University of Washington study.

    The finding is important because it helps confirm that models that simulate global warming agree with observations, said Stephen Po-Chedley, a UW graduate student in atmospheric sciences who wrote the paper with Qiang Fu, a UW professor of atmospheric sciences.

    They identified a problem with the satellite temperature record put together by the University of Alabama in Huntsville. Researchers there were the first to release such a record, in 1989, and it has often been cited by climate change skeptics to cast doubt on models that show the impact of greenhouse gases on global warming.

    In their paper, appearing this month in the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology, Po-Chedley and Fu examined the record from the researchers in Alabama along with satellite temperature records that were subsequently developed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and Remote Sensing Systems.

    Scientists like Po-Chedley and Fu have been studying the three records because each comes to a different conclusion.

    "There's been a debate for many, many years about the different results but we didn't know which had a problem," Fu said. "This discovery reduces uncertainty, which is very important."

    When they applied their correction to the Alabama-Huntsville climate record for a UW-derived tropospheric temperature measurement, it effectively eliminated differences with the other studies.

    Scientists already had noticed that there were issues with the way the Alabama researchers handled data from NOAA-9, one satellite that collected temperature data for a short time in the mid-1980s. But Po-Chedley and Fu are the first to offer a calculation related to the NOAA-9 data for adjusting the Alabama findings, said Kevin Trenberth, a distinguished senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

    "It should therefore make for a better record, as long as UAH accepts it," he said.

    To come up with the correction, Po-Chedley and Fu closely examined the way the three teams interpreted readings from NOAA-9 and compared it to data collected from weather balloons about the temperature of the troposphere.

    They found that the Alabama research incorrectly factors in the changing temperature of the NOAA-9 satellite itself and devised a method to estimate the impact on the Alabama trend.

    Like how a baker might use an oven thermometer to gauge the true temperature of an oven and then adjust the oven dial accordingly, the researchers must adjust the temperature data collected by the satellites.

    That's because the calibration of the instruments used to measure Earth's temperature is different after the satellites are launched, and because the satellite readings are calibrated by the temperature of the satellite itself. The groups have each separately made their adjustments in part by comparing the satellite's data to that of other satellites in service at the same time.

    Once Po-Chedley and Fu apply the correction, the Alabama-Huntsville record shows 0.21 F warming per decade in the tropics since 1979, instead of its previous finding of 0.13 F warming. Surface measurements show the temperature of Earth in the tropics has increased by about 0.21 F per decade.

    The Remote Sensing Systems and NOAA reports continue to reflect warming of the troposphere that's close to the surface measurements, with warming of 0.26 F per decade and 0.33 F respectively.

    The discrepancy among the records stems from challenges climate researchers face when using weather satellites to measure the temperature of the atmosphere. The records are a composite of over a dozen satellites launched since late 1978 that use microwaves to determine atmospheric temperature.

    However, stitching together data collected by those satellites to discover how the climate has changed over time is a complicated matter. Other factors scientists must take into account include the satellite's drift over time and differences in the instruments used to measure atmospheric temperature on board each satellite.

    The temperature reports look largely at the troposphere, which stretches from the surface of Earth to around 10 miles above it, where most weather occurs. Climate models show that this region of the atmosphere will warm considerably due to greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, scientists expect that in some areas, such as over the tropics, the troposphere will warm faster than the surface of Earth.

    The paper does not resolve all the discrepancies among the records, and researchers will continue to look at ways to reconcile those conflicts.

    "It will be interesting to see how these differences are resolved in the coming years," Po-Chedley said.

    The research was supported by the National Science Foundation and NOAA.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  14. #3674
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,784
    Then they are not feedbacks.
    A feedback does not need to respond in a linear fashion for it to be a feedback. For instance, a rather obvious one is the aldedo from sea ice and ice sheets. Warming of the planet will melt the ice, lowering the albedo, raising the temp further, melting more ice and repeating the positive feedback cycle.

    However, there is a finite amount of ice and once it is gone the feedback stops. That does not somehow disqualify it from being a feedback.
    _____________________________

    MannyIsGod is offline

  15. #3675
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,784
    Um yes, but why do they know they exsist? Can YOU explain the glaciation cycles and past earth climates without large feedback responses?

    Just do so, and I'll become a skeptic.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  16. #3676
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    18,200
    Um yes, but why do they know they exsist? Can YOU explain the glaciation cycles and past earth climates without large feedback responses?

    Just do so, and I'll become a skeptic.

    Milankovitch cycles
    Solar output
    DarrinS is offline

  17. #3677
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,784
    Oh really? Milankovitch cycles don't change the net insolation on earth, genius. They change the timing of it on an annual basis but you still recieve the exact same of energy of the sun otherwise.

    You should see the seaonal insolation change from the 100k year cycle too. Its virtually non existant yet the largest glaciation cycles are on that timescale. I wonder why? Feedbacks, maybe?

    Please though, post some more that shows how much of an ignorant moron you are. Please.

    What changes in solar output have can explain climate change of the past? To what extent. I'll give you the maunder min so we can skip that one (although that wasn't just solar either I will digress)?

    Please, explain to me that and how Milankovitch cycles don't need feedbacks.

    Thanks, I'm eager to jump over the skeptic side and your great science based arguments will do the trick.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  18. #3678
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,629
    So instead of being able to summarize a study, you ask us to believe what you haven't seen yet?
    _____________________________
    Wild Cobra is offline

  19. #3679
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,629
    A feedback does not need to respond in a linear fashion for it to be a feedback.
    No shit Sherlock. How long did it take you to learn that?
    For instance, a rather obvious one is the aldedo from sea ice and ice sheets. Warming of the planet will melt the ice, lowering the albedo, raising the temp further, melting more ice and repeating the positive feedback cycle.
    True. But what is the source energy for that feedback to occur? If the original source energy changes, are you suggesting the feedback energy does not change?
    However, there is a finite amount of ice and once it is gone the feedback stops. That does not somehow disqualify it from being a feedback.
    I find it amazing that you think a piddly-ass small change on temperature has more of an effect on ice than soot does. I find it amazing that the insignificant increase of downward radiation from increasing CO2 with black-body temperatures below freezing have as much of an effect as soot.

    What do your satellite studies tell of of arctic sea ice from 1850 to present day?

    Oh wait... that's right... you have no such studies to rule out soot, solar changes, clearing of skies from the 1970's and forward EPA changes, etc.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  20. #3680
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,784
    No shit Sherlock. How long did it take you to learn that?
    Apparently before you since you just implied it above, moron.

    True. But what is the source energy for that feedback to occur? If the original source energy changes, are you suggesting the feedback energy does not change?
    Um, why would they call it a FEEDBACK then? YOU are the one who made the claim that CO2 creates energy. I'm not a complete moron, like you.

    I find it amazing that you think a piddly-ass small change on temperature has more of an effect on ice than soot does. I find it amazing that the insignificant increase of downward radiation from increasing CO2 with black-body temperatures below freezing have as much of an effect as soot.

    What do your satellite studies tell of of arctic sea ice from 1850 to present day?

    Oh wait... that's right... you have no such studies to rule out soot, solar changes, clearing of skies from the 1970's and forward EPA changes, etc.
    I find it amazing you still can't figure out that the north pole sits on an ocean. Also, of course there are studies to rule those things out.

    I wouldn't trust you to spell your name on a form correctly. That is how often you're wrong.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  21. #3681
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,629
    Apparently before you since you just implied it above, moron.
    The closest I have said in the past is "near linear" or to that effect. That is not the same as linear. In any short movement range, you can use a simplified linear evaluation, but only for small changes. The larger the change, the more accuracy is lost.
    Um, why would they call it a FEEDBACK then? YOU are the one who made the claim that CO2 creates energy. I'm not a complete moron, like you.
    I have never claimed CO2 creates energy. That is your misinterpretation of my words. Feedback has to have energy to start with. If the source of the energy for a feedback system changes, then so does the power of the feedback. In general, if the sun increases intensity by 0.1%, then the feedback energy will also be increased by approximately 0.1%. I don't think you are understanding that fact.
    I find it amazing you still can't figure out that the north pole sits on an ocean. Also, of course there are studies to rule those things out.
    I do know that. Out of the several differences, am I suppose to guess what you mean when the topic was limited to sea ice? Why can't you clarify what specifically you mean when asked? Two readily noticeable differences is that the land surrounds most of the norther ice, and the ice surrounds the land in the southern hemisphere. The other is that nearly all the norther ice is within the Arctic Circle and the ice in the sea south is mostly outside the Antarctic circle.

    What difference do you want to focus on?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  22. #3682
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,629
    Manny, I just figured out what it is that you might not be comprehending.

    In a feedback system, changes to the property that causes feedback is seldom linear. In the case of greenhouse gasses, it is primarily logarithmic. However, what is not linear is the percentage of positive or negative amplification in the feedback equation. If I change the input to the feedback, like the solar input changing, then the output is a very near linear relationship to the input.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  23. #3683
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,784
    Manny, I just figured out what it is that you might not be comprehending.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  24. #3684
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Post Count
    39,629
    Too bad you're incapable of having a rational discussion.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  25. #3685
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    10,591
    Manny, I just figured out what it is that you might not be comprehending.

    In a feedback system, changes to the property that causes feedback is seldom linear. In the case of greenhouse gasses, it is primarily logarithmic. However, what is not linear is the percentage of positive or negative amplification in the feedback equation. If I change the input to the feedback, like the solar input changing, then the output is a very near linear relationship to the input.
    Who gives a shit? All you are showing is that solar input is easy to quantify.

    Its funny that you think that scientists haven't considered the simple shit that you come up with.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  26. #3686
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,784
    I don't know how much simpler I can put it but the output of a feedback is not necessarily linear to the input from the sun.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  27. #3687
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,666
    Now you are just lying. We need more data before we can say anything about feedbacks with any degree of confidence. Even the IPCC says they don't fully understand how to model clouds and how they change the Earth's albedo.
    Accusing me of lying isn't going to make me less weary of presenting you with reasoned arguments and having them be completely ignored.

    Sorry. Been doing that for years.

    (edit)

    Again, if you want to see why that argument has been debunked, spend some time on websites you disagree with. Every single point that the pseudoscientist deniers have brought up has been more than adequately addressed to any reasonable reading in multiple places.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-11-2012 at 11:20 AM. Reason: civility. backspace is your friend.
    RandomGuy is offline

  28. #3688
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,666
    Nice to see that Random has resorted to this

    Dude, this whole thread is you doing precisely that to everything given to you. Every time a weakness in your arguments is pointed out, you simply ignore that and move on,.

    Tell you what, let's try a different tack.

    How do you recognize a reasonable argument when you see one?
    RandomGuy is offline

  29. #3689
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    54,784
    This whole soot idea is such bullshit is an example of WC simply grasping at straws in an abject refusal to admit scientists actually know more than him. You would think the ice was black the way he talks about it.

    Its not soot thats melting the Artic Sea Ice, its the god damn warm waters underneath it. SSTs in the Arctic ocean are normally higher than those of the Southern Ocean but they've been at record levels in recent years. This is what drove all the melting last season.

    Furthermore, the ice volume has dropped off consistently every single year. You may get recovery to a higher level of areal extent, but the new ice is thinner than each previous year which is why the total volume is a much better representation of how much ice there actually is.

    And yes, research has been done into quantifying the soot contribution. Its not negligible at all, but to act as if it is a greater player than GHG is ridiculous.

    PS My last final was earlier this week and I have a few weeks to do some "fun" reading before I start summer classes. Its probably going to consist of scientific papers. FML.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  30. #3690
    Cold-Ass Honkie RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    22,666
    So instead of being able to summarize a study, you ask us to believe what you haven't seen yet?
    There is a vast gulf between not wanting to waste one's time putting together something worthwhile, only to have it ignored or dismissed completely, and being unable to put together something worthhwhile.

    I am unwilling, not unable.

    I have long ago made the case for the OP, in the way that people who want to deny that we are having any affect on our global climate approach the science.

    If I feel I have made my case that the majority of people who call themselves skeptics are not approaching the subject with any objectivity or fairness, why continue to talk about the science with people who won't change their mind no matter what?
    RandomGuy is offline

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •