Page 148 of 161 FirstFirst ... 4898138144145146147148149150151152158 ... LastLast
Results 3,676 to 3,700 of 4001
  1. #3676
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    So instead of being able to summarize a study, you ask us to believe what you haven't seen yet?
    Wild Cobra is offline

  2. #3677
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    A feedback does not need to respond in a linear fashion for it to be a feedback.
    No 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

  3. #3678
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    No 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

  4. #3679
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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

  5. #3680
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    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

  6. #3681
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Manny, I just figured out what it is that you might not be comprehending.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  7. #3682
    Veteran Wild Cobra's Avatar
    My Team
    Portland Trailblazers
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Post Count
    43,117
    Too bad you're incapable of having a rational discussion.
    Wild Cobra is offline

  8. #3683
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    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 ? All you are showing is that solar input is easy to quantify.

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

  9. #3684
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    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

  10. #3685
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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

  11. #3686
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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

  12. #3687
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    This whole soot idea is such bull 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

  13. #3688
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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

  14. #3689
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    This whole soot idea is such bull 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.
    Cool, congrats on finishing the semester!
    RandomGuy is offline

  15. #3690
    e^(i*pi) + 1 = 0 MannyIsGod's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Post Count
    57,431
    Also,

    The sources for soot happen to be the exact same as those for CO2. However, the dirtier Asian emmiters are also pumping out a lot of compounds that form aerosols that are actually blocking out incoming solar radiation.
    MannyIsGod is offline

  16. #3691
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672


    This bit addresses WC's ocean/CO2 bits as well.

    This series is good because he goes to the science used by deniers, and (gasp) actually reads it, and, in this case, talks directly to the climate scientist involved.

    Nifty.
    RandomGuy is offline

  17. #3692
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654


    This bit addresses WC's ocean/CO2 bits as well.

    This series is good because he goes to the science used by deniers, and (gasp) actually reads it, and, in this case, talks directly to the climate scientist involved.

    Nifty.

    You realize that your video contradicts the paper linked by Manny, right?


    Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3+-1.0 ka
    DarrinS is offline

  18. #3693
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    You realize that your video contradicts the paper linked by Manny, right?
    You realize you are wrong about that, right?


    (edit)

    You didn't watch the whole thing, did you?
    RandomGuy is offline

  19. #3694
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    DarrinS is offline

  20. #3695
    RandomGuy is offline

  21. #3696
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    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?
    @Darrin

    Again, let's try a diffrent tack.

    How do you recognize a reasonable argument when you see one?

    Step me through your process.
    Last edited by RandomGuy; 05-11-2012 at 02:29 PM.
    RandomGuy is offline

  22. #3697
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    Again, let's try a diffrent tack.

    How do you recognize a reasonable argument when you see one?

    Step me through your process.

    Why are you posting to yourself?
    DarrinS is offline

  23. #3698
    Veteran DarrinS's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    41,654
    And Manny would also think that video is re ed because it talks a lot about Milankovitch cycles causing ice ages.
    DarrinS is offline

  24. #3699
    I am that guy RandomGuy's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Post Count
    50,672
    Why are you posting to yourself?
    Both posts were directed at you.

    How do you determine what is a reasonable argument and what isn't, generally speaking?
    RandomGuy is offline

  25. #3700
    The Boognish FuzzyLumpkins's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Post Count
    22,829
    I am still waiting to hear his response to UW and NSF's corrections to the satellite temperature readings. He accuses other people of ignoring points but what do you want to bet within the next month or so he posts more of the uncorrected satellite data?
    FuzzyLumpkins 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
  •