quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

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


Thompson, arctic sea ice is usually less than 20m. Melt 20 m off the polar ice cap; even if you melt 40m off greenland you won't have made an appreciable dent. This ice in greenland is something like 2.5 miles deep.

Again, the polar ice cap as solid ice has been gone at least twice during my life. It is rather silly to claim it can't happen.

That would by your bullshit claim not mine. As noted the ice cap has melted and the glaciers are melting at the rate of 200+ cubic kilometers a year. Do you think the lack of a polar ice cap will cause this to decrease?
Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:


Jesus you are phoquing stupid.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And I would care less if it were 96% or 93%. As I said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of credible people agree there is climate change, and there is a grave man made component. To quibble about a statistic like this, which is a poll and ignore all other data.............

So, if its 51% its enough. What is the actual number? It aint that science people got on board with this because of someone saying 97%.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And I would care less if it were 96% or 93%. As I said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of credible people agree there is climate change, and there is a grave man made component. To quibble about a statistic like this, which is a poll and ignore all other data.............

So, if its 51% its enough. What is the actual number? It aint that science people got on board with this because of someone saying 97%.

But thats exactly the point. When you look at 12,000 papers and only 53 of them support AGW as constituted - it is nowhere near a majority. It is less than 1%. The entire concept of a majority of climate scientists support the IPPCC theorgy of AGW is completely fraudulent.

I'm not being obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist. The IPCC claim of 1.2 degrees C per decade has never been met. I'm going by memory here, but memory says that the increase is .04 degrees per year - or 1/3 what they predict.

So the data doesn't support their conclusions.

Second - their science doesn't support their conclusions. Nasa and the IPCC itself have said their models for aersol forcing are wrong; that the net contribution of carbon in atmospheric column is unknown. You cannot say AGW is correct when the IPCC has no correctly predictive model for either of these behaviors.

Third- even if their proposed mechanism were correct, their own science says CO2 concentration increases temperatures on a logarythmic (opposite of exponential) scale. The first unit contributes 1, the second unit contributes .1, the third unit contributes .01 etc. Running the equation that they provide says that if you increase the CO2 to 800 ppm, the expected temperature increase would be less than .1 degrees.

That formula cannot possily be right.

This is one of the reasons that I find Svenmark's and CERN's papers persuasive. Because his theory, observations and data describe the aersol forcing pretty well, and much, and possibly all, of global warming observed.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

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.

Mnotter, I don't fight this because I want the earth polluted, and spoiled for our kids and grandkids. I want the same as you.
But money spent on funding these quacks is money that is merely building their labs, their status. They are lying and passing it off as science - and It is not going to solve the problem; it is diverting money from matters that actually matter. These people are flat out lying - and they are doing it for personal profit, not science. Cook has organized "hit squads" ie., people sent to harass scientists that publish papers disagreeing with global warming.

I used to join in on Cook's conference calls and listen to their plans of action. They were.. horrible.

If I had one wish for this easter sunday - it would be that you would consider some of these critiques. Because if you will give it an honest look, you will find exactly what I have found.

Best.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And I would care less if it were 96% or 93%. As I said, reality is that the overwhelming majority of credible people agree there is climate change, and there is a grave man made component. To quibble about a statistic like this, which is a poll and ignore all other data.............

So, if its 51% its enough. What is the actual number? It aint that science people got on board with this because of someone saying 97%.

But thats exactly the point. When you look at 12,000 papers and only 53 of them support AGW as constituted - it is nowhere near a majority. It is less than 1%. The entire concept of a majority of climate scientists support the IPPCC theorgy of AGW is completely fraudulent.

I'm not being obstructionist for the sake of being obstructionist. The IPCC claim of 1.2 degrees C per decade has never been met. I'm going by memory here, but memory says that the increase is .04 degrees per year - or 1/3 what they predict.

So the data doesn't support their conclusions.

Second - their science doesn't support their conclusions. Nasa and the IPCC itself have said their models for aersol forcing are wrong; that the net contribution of carbon in atmospheric column is unknown. You cannot say AGW is correct when the IPCC has no correctly predictive model for either of these behaviors.

Third- even if their proposed mechanism were correct, their own science says CO2 concentration increases temperatures on a logarythmic (opposite of exponential) scale. The first unit contributes 1, the second unit contributes .1, the third unit contributes .01 etc. Running the equation that they provide says that if you increase the CO2 to 800 ppm, the expected temperature increase would be less than .1 degrees.

That formula cannot possily be right.

This is one of the reasons that I find Svenmark's and CERN's papers persuasive. Because his theory, observations and data describe the aersol forcing pretty well, and much, and possibly all, of global warming observed.

Do you have a credible citation for this, cuz I dont see one anywhere.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Christopher Monckton you are right, I wont read that piece of shit. Anymore than I would read a paper byTrump you on economics.

That paper isnt worth wiping your ass on right there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Christopher Monckton you are right, I wont read that piece of shit. Anymore than I would read a paper byTrump you on economics.

That paper isnt worth wiping your ass on right there.

And yet you take a paper written by a cartoonist, as gospel. Monkton is not the paper's author, for the record, Lagarde is.
So you won't consider papers by Tol, Monk, Lagarde, Watts.. Essentially anyone whose point of view you disagree with.

No point in discussing the matter with you.

Why the science matters:

So many of you on the left think deniers are crackpots or worse. But the point is that people challenging science is exactly how the scientific method is supposed to work. Actual science is reproducible, regardless of observer.

In 2010, Dr. Anil Potti was a leading researcher working in the area of individualized cancer treatment. Based on his papers, hundreds of cancer patients put their last hopes on his treatments. Dr. Potti was found to have falsified data; his papers were fraudulent and had to be retracted.

People died.

Global Warming is much like Obamacare, where we are being asked - don't look too closely at it - you'll have to pass it to know whats in it.

Cook refused to release his data. East Anglia refused to release their data, Michael Mann refused to release there data. The Cern report was edited, with conversation disallowed. Pressure has been brought to bear on journals, and newspapers to not publish anti-agw pieces.

This isn't science and it isn't how science operates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

Contrary to you Thomspon and other alarmists, I am careful to base my comments on actual science. No, the glaciers would not melt if the polar ice cap were to melt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Christopher Monckton you are right, I wont read that piece of shit. Anymore than I would read a paper byTrump you on economics.

That paper isnt worth wiping your ass on right there.

And yet you take a paper written by a cartoonist, as gospel. Monkton is not the paper's author, for the record, Lagarde is.
So you won't consider papers by Tol, Monk, Lagarde, Watts.. Essentially anyone whose point of view you disagree with.

No point in discussing the matter with you.

Why the science matters:

So many of you on the left think deniers are crackpots or worse. But the point is that people challenging science is exactly how the scientific method is supposed to work. Actual science is reproducible, regardless of observer.

In 2010, Dr. Anil Potti was a leading researcher working in the area of individualized cancer treatment. Based on his papers, hundreds of cancer patients put their last hopes on his treatments. Dr. Potti was found to have falsified data; his papers were fraudulent and had to be retracted.

People died.

Global Warming is much like Obamacare, where we are being asked - don't look too closely at it - you'll have to pass it to know whats in it.

Cook refused to release his data. East Anglia refused to release their data, Michael Mann refused to release there data. The Cern report was edited, with conversation disallowed. Pressure has been brought to bear on journals, and newspapers to not publish anti-agw pieces.

This isn't science and it isn't how science operates.

quote:

ORIGINAL: itsSIRtou

quote:

ORIGINAL: Phydeaux

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

Christopher Monckton you are right, I wont read that piece of shit. Anymore than I would read a paper byTrump you on economics.

That paper isnt worth wiping your ass on right there.

And yet you take a paper written by a cartoonist, as gospel. Monkton is not the paper's author, for the record, Lagarde is.
So you won't consider papers by Tol, Monk, Lagarde, Watts.. Essentially anyone whose point of view you disagree with.

No point in discussing the matter with you.

Why the science matters:

So many of you on the left think deniers are crackpots or worse. But the point is that people challenging science is exactly how the scientific method is supposed to work. Actual science is reproducible, regardless of observer.

In 2010, Dr. Anil Potti was a leading researcher working in the area of individualized cancer treatment. Based on his papers, hundreds of cancer patients put their last hopes on his treatments. Dr. Potti was found to have falsified data; his papers were fraudulent and had to be retracted.

People died.

Global Warming is much like Obamacare, where we are being asked - don't look too closely at it - you'll have to pass it to know whats in it.

Cook refused to release his data. East Anglia refused to release their data, Michael Mann refused to release there data. The Cern report was edited, with conversation disallowed. Pressure has been brought to bear on journals, and newspapers to not publish anti-agw pieces.

This isn't science and it isn't how science operates.

YOUR Words: Actual science is reproducible, regardless of observer.

I'm glad you said those words. Because I've given you a completely reproducible rebuke of YOUR "nothing happens" - and once again you're running away from it because you are wrong.

You have called us immoral and worse, you've dragged out every link imaginable by YOUR people who spent who knows what on their version of science, but yet a simple experiment still harpoons your lies.

You said some of the dumbest things imaginable, like sea ice will melt but not glacier ice, when heat is an equal opportunity melter. At unequal rates sure, but melt they will.

And the worst-case scenario will be devastating to mankind. https://youtu.be/baGrtqyWSRM even if only a quarter of the devastation in videos like this were to happen millions of people would still be affected worldwide, but not people like "phy-dough". His side does not want to take responsibility for what they do, nor are the solutions that will be needed after their gone.

one visual example: http://www.cnn.com/videos/weather/2015/08/31/glaciers-melt-before-your-eyes-extreme-ice-survey-climate-change-orig-mss.cnn

You know you are wrong. You continue to be wrong. Now you want to try and drag all sorts of other things into the mix hoping that people will look past the fact that you're still wrong.

All it takes to show you how much wrong you are, is a glass container, a funnel, water, and a bag of ice.

Simple reproducible science.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
2. Your original statement was that if you melted the north pole, it would inundate the globe. That's simply not the case.

That is the case you would like to make but you seem to think that the polar ice cap melting has no effect on the glaciers in greenland ,canada etc.

quote:



3. As I said in my original post, if greenland (or antartica) were to melt significantly, ocean levels would rise.

Somehow you feel that the melting of the polar ice cap has no effect on greenland's glaciers

quote:

"I beleive the record shows greenland added ice one of those two years the ice cap melted. It might be both years, but the point is inconsequential to the discussion."

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


3. As I said in my original post, if greenland (or antartica) were to melt significantly, ocean levels would rise.

Somehow you feel that the melting of the polar ice cap has no effect on greenland's glaciers


Quote me where I've said that.

quote:

"I beleive the record shows greenland added ice one of those two years the ice cap melted. It might be both years, but the point is inconsequential to the discussion."

Jesus you are phoquing stupid.