Page 147 of 161 FirstFirst ... 4797137143144145146147148149150151157 ... LastLast
Results 3,651 to 3,675 of 4001
  1. #3651
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Wrong. Again.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  2. #3652
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Then they are not feedbacks.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  3. #3653
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Really compelling arguments.
    At this point I have concluded that no amount of evidence I could present to you would reach a level you would find "compelling".

    You have moved beyond being reasoned with into a level of belief in what amounts to a conspiracy theory, a slave to your own biases.

    If you were an honest skeptic, you would seek out this evidence. I have seen enough to be reasonably assured it exists, browsed through some of it, and that the scientists involved aren't making it up.

    You will not change your mind, so why should I bother with arguments you will never find compelling?

    More to the point, what does it say to you that the people that argue with twoofers, moon hoaxers, etc, find that the people they talk to on those subjects seem to then to be the same types of people that buy into AGW denial?

    It should say that they might have a point, given their experience in dealing with people obviously removed from reason. A reasonable person would then ask themselves if they missed something, or question their starting assumptions.

    Given that you repeat, over and over, the same debunked, specious, arguments, just like mouse does, long after they have been shown to be either logically, or factually flawed, what should I conclude?

    That you are nothing alike?

    If you dont' want to be in the corner with them, stop acting like them.
    RandomGuy is offline

  4. #3654
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    At this point I have concluded that no amount of evidence I could present to you would reach a level you would find "compelling".
    Maybe you should find something that is actually compelling!
    Wild Cobra is offline

  5. #3655
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Maybe you should find something that is actually compelling!
    I can see all of that went right over your head.

    There is some very compelling information out there, if you can see past your own biases.

    One of the keys to understanding other people is understanding one's self.

    Our studies of the way that human brains develop a sense of self/other, is that we use ourselves as a basis for understanding others.

    I think that a lot of people who buy into AGW denial know they are biased at some level, consciously or subconsciously, and they process everything though those biases with very strong filters on what they can accept as real.

    They therefore subconsiously build on this knowledge of their own selves and project this same kind of limiting bias, and unability to see beyond their biases onto others.

    "I know I think this way, so therefore people who don't believe as I do, must think this way too, they just can't see past their own biases to get at the truth that I have established for myself".

    It just seems to me that all the claims of evil scientists and politicians looking to make up AGW, and then use it to expand their power base is pure projection.


    Again, my 2 cents. The information is there if you bother looking.
    RandomGuy is offline

  6. #3656
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    I can see all of that went right over your head.

    There is some very compelling information out there, if you can see past your own biases.
    Says the random guy on the street who hasn't researched it like I have. Pick any one of the AGW argumnets, lay out their basic argument based with their research method, and I will tell you why people should be skeptical of it.
    One of the keys to understanding other people is understanding one's self.

    Our studies of the way that human brains develop a sense of self/other, is that we use ourselves as a basis for understanding others.
    Are you assuming here? Assuming that you can apply the way people's brains work universally across all people?
    I think that a lot of people who buy into AGW denial know they are biased at some level, consciously or subconsciously, and they process everything though those biases with very strong filters on what they can accept as real.
    Who's saying anything about denial? Please... where have I ever denied AGW exists? the only thing I deny is the degree to which the AGW community claims CO2 has an effect.
    They therefore subconsiously build on this knowledge of their own selves and project this same kind of limiting bias, and unability to see beyond their biases onto others.
    Since when does psychology equal fact, especially when you are speaking of a statistical scenario?
    "I know I think this way, so therefore people who don't believe as I do, must think this way too, they just can't see past their own biases to get at the truth that I have established for myself".
    Yes, it happens. Again, facts make statistics. Statistics don't make facts.
    It just seems to me that all the claims of evil scientists and politicians looking to make up AGW, and then use it to expand their power base is pure projection.

    Again, my 2 cents. The information is there if you bother looking.
    Make up, no. Exploit and exaggerate, yes.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  7. #3657
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    At this point I have concluded that no amount of evidence I could present to you would reach a level you would find "compelling".

    In case you forgot, I asked where I can find evidence of strong, positive climate feedback and you replied this:


    It is out there if you cared to look. I don't think you are not being honest about that, either to me, or to yourself. Sorry.

    What does it say to you that the people who deal with moon hoaxers, twoofers, creationists, etc. think that people who are denying AGW tend to seem to them like the same kind of people?

    I am not the only one to come to this conclusion, and I came to it completely independently of anyone else, before discovering I wasn't the only one who thinks this way.

    Throw me a link. That's all I ask.
    DarrinS is offline

  8. #3658
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You forgot holocaust denialists and fake moon landing nutters.


    Seriously, point me to the evidence of strong, postive climate feedback and I will become a "believer" again.
    Why? We can just wait for you not to read something but post it anyway that says that warming is not really happening. You are going to argue for what you think is a conclusion rather than logic. You always have.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  9. #3659
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  10. #3660
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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.

    , I'm not.

    Both are sort of beside the point.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-10-2012 at 04:39 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  11. #3661
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    RandomGuy is offline

  12. #3662
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654


    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

  13. #3663
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    lol, just read the first hit from that Google search.

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

  14. #3664
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    lol, just read the first hit from that Google search.

    It's all unsettled -- 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

  15. #3665
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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

  16. #3666
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    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

  17. #3667
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Nice to see that Random has resorted to this

    DarrinS is offline

  18. #3668
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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 ing discussion we have had for years now.
    FuzzyLumpkins is offline

  19. #3669
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    DarrinS is offline

  20. #3670
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    You going to make an argument on your own or you just going to throw more 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

  21. #3671
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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, s ching 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

  22. #3672
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    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

  23. #3673
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    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

  24. #3674
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    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

  25. #3675
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    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

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 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
  •