Reply With Quote
We? There are thousands of research centers in the US alone. That is Harvard saying that as opposed to random the dude living behind a barrier island.
I live by the sea and it snowed in January.
Yeah... so for people that understand how this works let me sumarize:
"Well we completely botched our predictions... so we manipulated historical data to show that the rates today are indeed higher than what we predicted (but not as high as what we predicted before)"
How can you be so easily fooled...? I live by the sea. These folks bank on the fact that others take them for their word without subjecting their claims to the sense check.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 04-06-2015 at 01:18 PM.
We? There are thousands of research centers in the US alone. That is Harvard saying that as opposed to random the dude living behind a barrier island.
Well known? If it is so easy then demonstrate it. Me calling you out on it and you failing to provide a shred of proof is what it is. It's like that with the piers. We both know you didn't come up with that on your own. Link it.
Yeah... like any 5 year old is going to mark up a pier stauncheon with the explicit and intent purpose of publishing a paper for a scientific journal 25 years down the road...
Your demands are as rediculous as your position. Like i said... "deeply entrenched... doesn't accept dissent" typical tyrant philosophies right there.
"There are thousands of research centers in the US alone. " and yet they all erred in issuing high sea level predictions in the "20th century"???? Coincidence or like-minded agendas? It's like you are wholly and completely unable of seeing the ramifications of these statistical inconsistencies... if it smells rotten, it's usually fudged data to blame... meanwhile back home I can fish blissfully off my grandparent's pier without concern that somehow we'll all be enveloped by rising AGW-driven sea-levels... I mean, come on... even a few tropical storms have yet to topple over their pier...We? There are thousands of research centers in the US alone. That is Harvard saying that as opposed to random the dude living behind a barrier island.
So you got nothing to support your claim. Got it, thanks.
This is incredibly ignorant. I do appreciate the doubling down on the personal anecdote of your experiences behind a barrier island.
I get that you have to group them all together because otherwise it gets too complicated for you. That is what I took from what you said. It's Harvard, chachi.
So you represent the Havard professors (or any other "insert link here" author) who's conclusions you support? You're fully vested in their analysis, without question (especially if it promotes your company line)...? Got it, thanks.
Good to know you didn't read your own article.
I take the word of scientists and their peer reviewed articles as opposed to the ignorance you have presented. Nothing more and nothing less.
I did read it. I even quoted the portion you have been waving your hands at. Try harder.
Well then keep latching on to their error-ridden predictions...
I take the word of scientists and their peer reviewed articles as opposed to the ignorance you have presented. Nothing more and nothing less.
“What this paper shows is that sea-level acceleration over the past century has been greater than had been estimated by others,” Morrow said. “It’s a larger problem than we initially thought.”
“Scientists now believe that most of the world’s ice sheets and mountain glaciers are melting in response to rising temperatures,” Hay added. “Melting ice sheets cause global mean sea level to rise. Understanding this contribution is critical in a warming world.”
Previous estimates had placed sea-level rise at between 1.5 and 1.8 millimeters annually in the 20th century. Hay and Morrow, however, suggest that from 1901 until 1990, the figure was closer to 1.2 millimeters per year. However, everyone agrees that global sea level has risen by about 3 millimeters annually since that time.
“Another concern with this is that many efforts to project sea-level change into the future use estimates of sea level over the time period from 1900 to 1990,” Morrow said. “If we’ve been overestimating the sea-level change during that period, it means that these models are not calibrated appropriately, and that calls into question the accuracy of projections out to the end of the 21st century.”
Sounds pretty inclusive to me. Add another strawman gripe to your collection.
The point is... "everyone" erred with previous predictions (surprise, surprise... predictions that didn't materialize)... now they're simply trying to save face... except you can't see it for what it is...
I have never seen that.
I take the word of scientists and their peer reviewed articles as opposed to the ignorance you have presented. Nothing more and nothing less.
What I see you do is believe the spin from the pundits that read those papers. I don't think you actually read those papers to form your own opinion.
Later Fuzzy... I don't have time to go on a day long bout debating our differences in world views. Yeah... I know you're going to throw some other haymaker type insult after I step out... and if it makes you feel stronger about your position go right ahead... I don't need to comfort myself with the approval of those on this board. Peace dude.
You are bolding comments from the author from the Harvard Gazette and the scientists themselves. The only time the scientist used 'we' as in the scientific community itself was the last one. And he was correcting the work.
It only seems inconclusive because you lack critical thinking skills and a halfassed read of the article. The next sentence after your quote:
Hmm what was that perspective and conclusion? Well they then do a summation of methodology and analysis and conclude:Hay and Morrow approached the challenge of estimating sea-level rise from a new perspective.
“We expected that we would estimate the individual contributions, and that their sum would get us back to the 1.5 to 1.8 mm per year that other people had predicted,” Hay said. “But the math doesn’t work out that way. Unfortunately, our new lower rate of sea-level rise prior to 1990 means that the sea-level acceleration that resulted in higher rates over the last 20 years is really much larger than anyone thought.”
Last edited by FuzzyLumpkins; 04-06-2015 at 02:04 PM.
OH is that the case? Remember going through the Penn State paper about models and linearity? Remember me pointing out the PDEs and pointing out your ignorance? You spent the next year trying to prove you knew what linearity meant.
How about the UW paper with the modeling of heat transfer in the ocean?
How about when I tracked down the 1950s study that had your solubility chart in it? Remember when I was making fun of you for trying to model the ocean based on experiments from water from a lab and not even the ocean itself?
You know damn well that when push comes to shove I go straight to the source.
Sorry, I don't remember you getting the best over me.
Those papers use weasel words that allow confirmation bias. They never definitively link AGW to events.
Remind us. Show us one that proves your case please. I will put you in your place again!
I just pointed out specific cases. You probably don't see yourself losing at anything ever. You are the king of wishful thinking that turns 'suppose' into all kinds of bull after all.
We can see you abandoned your claim of no studies.
I don't remember anything going like you said.
Link the paper again please.
Remind us. Show us one that proves your case please. I will put you in your place again!
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/show...=1#post5460087
This was a fun exchange.
And the point is? How many posts must I read from the start?
I only read the first... maybe half dozen. I see nothing that makes your claim accurate.
Please show me where that is at.
Western Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...cienceDaily%29
So?Western Canada to lose 70 percent of glaciers by 2100
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...cienceDaily%29
These are modeled predictions.
The observations must be wrong since they disagree with 95% of the models!
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
