quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:


First , It is not the vast majority of the scientific world. There is no one theory of global warming and no consensus how fast, what temperature profiles are.
The 97% is pure fiction without scientific backing. For example: Richard Tol:

But it is the vast majority of the scientific world that agrees that human-induced global warming is taking place. The 97% isn't pure fiction - it's fact, regarding that point. It's utterly pointless to pick this or that scientist - such as this 'Richard Tol' - who disagrees. You may want to present him as a 'brave maverick' who 'isn't cowed by political correctness' - but what he is, in fact, is a lone voice amongst a vast majority of very highly knowledgeable people who *disagree with him*.

Seriously, Phydeaux ... what do you want me to do? Do you want me to believe your view over that of the IPCC? Why *in god's name* would I do that? You've promoted possibly *the* most right wing, nutty and zany views on this forum, ever - and consistently. Now, you want me and others to accept your views on HIGW as 'scientific fact'. Do you sincerely not understand why nobody is taking any notice of you here?

quote:


“If there are substantial changes in a conclusion in the AR5 relative to a confident conclusion in the AR4, then the confidence level should not increase and should probably drop, since the science clearly is not settled and is in a state of flux,” Judith Curry—Chairman of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at Georgia Tech and a long-time IPCC contributing author,” has said. “While there has been a reduction in either the magnitude of the change or in a confidence level in some of the supporting findings, these changes do not seem to have influenced the main conclusion on climate change attribution.”

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yes, lets quote post 92, the first post, shall we?


You said:

quote:


quote:


This comes from a Pulitzer prize-winning, nonprofit nonpartisan news organization. The glacier that should of hit you in the head, is that even in your own reports, mentions "The north pole has a small warming trend,"

Since from my understanding that polar ice cap melting is where the vast majority of water that is making the world's ocean levels rise comes from.

I said:

quote:



So right here is where your ass will start smarting.

Q: What happens to the water level in your drink, when the ice cubes melt.
A: Not a DAMN thing.

Q: So what happens to sea levels when the Artic or antartic Sea ice melts?
A: Not a damn thing.


Now, global levels might rise if greenland or the antartic land ice were to melt. And of course, they are, all the time. But the funny thing is there's this little
organization called NASA. You might have heard of it.

It says that even taking into account the melt off, Greenland and Antartica are gaining ice - to the tune of 86 billion tonnes per year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/

Oops. Guess what that does to sea levels. Yep!

Do you see anything like -

quote:


this is the experiment as originally given to you.

You keep trying to make it about a small scale of ice to a glass/ocean when the truth the matter is that the total amount of ice going into the ocean is ice thats been stored for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This ice when it melts is being added to the total overall volume of ocean.

Nope. That is just another lie. You tried to move the goal posts, but you have doubled down on this stupidity about ice melting in a glass of water 3-4 times. Most humorously that displacement message. Shall we quote it? Truly a brilliant exposition of utter nonsense.


You said - the north pole had a warming trend.
The north pole has no land mass. It is all sea ice. You said it was your understanding that the polar ice cap (north pole) melting is where the vast majority of water that is making the worlds ocean levels rise comes from.

I corrected you and said no. Melting sea ice doesn't change sea levels one iota. It was only ice melting from greenland or Antartica that would do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yes, lets quote post 92, the first post, shall we?


You said:

quote:


quote:


This comes from a Pulitzer prize-winning, nonprofit nonpartisan news organization. The glacier that should of hit you in the head, is that even in your own reports, mentions "The north pole has a small warming trend,"

Since from my understanding that polar ice cap melting is where the vast majority of water that is making the world's ocean levels rise comes from.

I said:

quote:



So right here is where your ass will start smarting.

Q: What happens to the water level in your drink, when the ice cubes melt.
A: Not a DAMN thing.

Q: So what happens to sea levels when the Artic or antartic Sea ice melts?
A: Not a damn thing.


Now, global levels might rise if greenland or the antartic land ice were to melt. And of course, they are, all the time. But the funny thing is there's this little
organization called NASA. You might have heard of it.

It says that even taking into account the melt off, Greenland and Antartica are gaining ice - to the tune of 86 billion tonnes per year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/

Oops. Guess what that does to sea levels. Yep!

Do you see anything like -

quote:


this is the experiment as originally given to you.

You keep trying to make it about a small scale of ice to a glass/ocean when the truth the matter is that the total amount of ice going into the ocean is ice thats been stored for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This ice when it melts is being added to the total overall volume of ocean.

Nope. That is just another lie. You tried to move the goal posts, but you have doubled down on this stupidity about ice melting in a glass of water 3-4 times. Most humorously that displacement message. Shall we quote it? Truly a brilliant exposition of utter nonsense.


You said - the north pole had a warming trend.
The north pole has no land mass. It is all sea ice. You said it was your understanding that the polar ice cap (north pole) melting is where the vast majority of water that is making the worlds ocean levels rise comes from.

I corrected you and said no. Melting sea ice doesn't change sea levels one iota. It was only ice melting from greenland or Antartica that would do so.

look dude,.... even in ur posts u've stated a warming north pole ......as others have said,....for the 4th time.....do the experiment. AS STATED. you can keep picking at whatever u want but My rebuke of your "nothing happens" holds up.

typical repugincan.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And when they found out that the nutsuckers were lying and they wanted to switch it back, the nutsuckers said no.

The investigation was pretty clear on this, and it was on tv. Nutsucker felching all the way on this baby.

And that guy was ALSO a democrat.

Besides which, the city didn't have the money to pay detroit for a 30 year contract, to solve a three month (supposedly) problem.

Literally every single emergency manager, public works dept head, mayor, the city council, the head of MDWQ, the epa.. The people that did the water testing.

All democrats.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Yes, lets quote post 92, the first post, shall we?


You said:

quote:


quote:


This comes from a Pulitzer prize-winning, nonprofit nonpartisan news organization. The glacier that should of hit you in the head, is that even in your own reports, mentions "The north pole has a small warming trend,"

Since from my understanding that polar ice cap melting is where the vast majority of water that is making the world's ocean levels rise comes from.

I said:

quote:



So right here is where your ass will start smarting.

Q: What happens to the water level in your drink, when the ice cubes melt.
A: Not a DAMN thing.

Q: So what happens to sea levels when the Artic or antartic Sea ice melts?
A: Not a damn thing.


Now, global levels might rise if greenland or the antartic land ice were to melt. And of course, they are, all the time. But the funny thing is there's this little
organization called NASA. You might have heard of it.

It says that even taking into account the melt off, Greenland and Antartica are gaining ice - to the tune of 86 billion tonnes per year.

http://climate.nasa.gov/news/2361/

Oops. Guess what that does to sea levels. Yep!

Do you see anything like -

quote:


this is the experiment as originally given to you.

You keep trying to make it about a small scale of ice to a glass/ocean when the truth the matter is that the total amount of ice going into the ocean is ice thats been stored for hundreds if not thousands of years.

This ice when it melts is being added to the total overall volume of ocean.

Nope. That is just another lie. You tried to move the goal posts, but you have doubled down on this stupidity about ice melting in a glass of water 3-4 times. Most humorously that displacement message. Shall we quote it? Truly a brilliant exposition of utter nonsense.


You said - the north pole had a warming trend.
The north pole has no land mass. It is all sea ice. You said it was your understanding that the polar ice cap (north pole) melting is where the vast majority of water that is making the worlds ocean levels rise comes from.

I corrected you and said no. Melting sea ice doesn't change sea levels one iota. It was only ice melting from greenland or Antartica that would do so.

look dude,.... even in ur posts u've stated a warming north pole ......as others have said,....for the 4th time.....do the experiment. AS STATED. you can keep picking at whatever u want but My rebuke of your "nothing happens" holds up.

typical repugincan.

And again - you're delusional. The entire north pole artic ice cap could melt - and the sea levels would change NOT ONE IOTA.
You didn't get it then. As far as I can tell you don't get it now. How you don't get it - I don't know. The arctic often melts. A dozen papers state it was iceless during the medieval warming period. It was Iceless during the Minoan and the Roman warming periods.

In 1986 it was open fields of ice (means just floating ice bits). Same in 1996. In 1959 the skate reported thin ice - less than 2 feet at the pole.

According to you that should cause the inundation of our coastal areas every time it happens. And yet it has happened several times and not ONE DAMN IOTA of difference existed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Richard Tol of Economics has seen all the papers and counted them and under what expertise does he count them in piles?

That aint a study. There is no citation of 45%. Thats two implied trusts without foundation in your first sentence.

That makes everything else suspect. Or bullshit.

Under the same conditions that Orested, doctor of philosophy, made the 97% claim. Only Tol was a great deal more rigorous.

Who is Orested? Who quotes 97% based on him? More rigorous in what way?

Many many more trust mes there, but lets start with those.

There are 2-3 people more or less contermporaneously that are quoted as being the source of the 97%. Naomi Orestes, as far as I know, is the first person to publish a study, and is the person most commonly associated with the figure. She is a doctor of philopsophy.

She went to a paper repository know for slanting pro warming. She said she searched using terms x,y,z and got a number of papers. She then categorized those papers on whether they were pro AGW or not, merely by reading the abstract.

The first problem, is as usual, she falsified the data. Searching that directory, over the same dates, with the key words she said she used, turned up more than ten times the number of papers that she claimed.

Secondly, out of the roughly 1000 papers she surveyed, 70+ of the authors characterized her classification of their papers as false.

So the actual percentage percentage of papers that actually were pro-AGW, were actually 9%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I will also point out the ice cube controversy is rather wrong all the way down to the ground. Because you see, there is ground under the ice there, and so it is not in total displaced in the water. that is, fill a glass with sod well packed and water, put ice on top of it, does it overflow? That is the experiment. We are well aware of the Eureka shit, but to put ice in water, fill the glass it will still overflow because you see............that fucking water shit is really freaky, it must come from an alien planet, it expands around 9% when it freezes. and like the camels foot in the sand, it then floats.

but, the flaw in the argument is not whether the fucking ice floats, nor is it that the ocean is already full and would overflow, the issue is that the fuckin water WILL RISE!!! People on dry land will be underwater.

Done and finished.

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

I will also point out the ice cube controversy is rather wrong all the way down to the ground. Because you see, there is ground under the ice there, and so it is not in total displaced in the water. that is, fill a glass with sod well packed and water, put ice on top of it, does it overflow? That is the experiment. We are well aware of the Eureka shit, but to put ice in water, fill the glass it will still overflow because you see............that fucking water shit is really freaky, it must come from an alien planet, it expands around 9% when it freezes. and like the camels foot in the sand, it then floats.

but, the flaw in the argument is not whether the fucking ice floats, nor is it that the ocean is already full and would overflow, the issue is that the fuckin water WILL RISE!!! People on dry land will be underwater.

Done and finished.

the deal is Phydeaux thinks that the melting ice will under no circumstances raise sea levels and used the "ice melts in a glass & nothing happens" crap & cited Archimedes principle to illustrate it.

I have proven him wrong. Anyone doing the experiment will know he's wrong.
And he's Im sure starting up another thread somewhere spouting his pile of horse dung, like a number of other CONservatives here do, hoping nobody calls his bluff there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux
And again - you're delusional. The entire north pole artic ice cap could melt - and the sea levels would change NOT ONE IOTA.

Jesus you are phoquing stupid. If the entire north pole artic ice cap were to melt so would the galciers.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Richard Tol of Economics has seen all the papers and counted them and under what expertise does he count them in piles?

That aint a study. There is no citation of 45%. Thats two implied trusts without foundation in your first sentence.

That makes everything else suspect. Or bullshit.

Under the same conditions that Orested, doctor of philosophy, made the 97% claim. Only Tol was a great deal more rigorous.

Who is Orested? Who quotes 97% based on him? More rigorous in what way?

Many many more trust mes there, but lets start with those.

There are 2-3 people more or less contermporaneously that are quoted as being the source of the 97%. Naomi Orestes, as far as I know, is the first person to publish a study, and is the person most commonly associated with the figure. She is a doctor of philopsophy.

She went to a paper repository know for slanting pro warming. She said she searched using terms x,y,z and got a number of papers. She then categorized those papers on whether they were pro AGW or not, merely by reading the abstract.

The first problem, is as usual, she falsified the data. Searching that directory, over the same dates, with the key words she said she used, turned up more than ten times the number of papers that she claimed.

Secondly, out of the roughly 1000 papers she surveyed, 70+ of the authors characterized her classification of their papers as false.

So the actual percentage percentage of papers that actually were pro-AGW, were actually 9%.

You are accidently right about one thing. Orestes is a doctor of Philosophy. She hold PhD in Geological Research and the History of Science. She never made any such a claim. Her claim was of 928 papers she studied (and she knew what she was looking at as opposed to Tol) That 75% of those papers explicitly or implicitly agreed with the IPCC that human activity was responsible for the warming observed over the last 50 years. An article found her methodology flawed and called the claim false in the Nature magazine in 2014.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

whole lie: How can the sea ice melt and the glacers not melt?

quote:


the other papers that have said 97% or scientists and psuedo-scientists believe that mans activities have are contributing to climate change, has never been credibly debunked.