Bitcoin Forum
December 08, 2016, 06:11:17 AM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland  (Read 18327 times)
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 04:35:15 AM
 #261

Do as you wish. A solid summary of your views and logic behind them would be helpful, because right now they're not so clear.

My point is to find out if there is consensus about this:
Instead, I will use a rise of 2-4 K or more from current temperatures in the next two hundred years as a proxy for damage.

As of right now I don't think so. A huge factor (clouds) is basically an unknown, and they have only a short timeframe for which there is good data. But I am not that well read on this topic yet, so maybe there is some trick. We will find out.
1481177477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177477
Reply with quote  #2

1481177477
Report to moderator
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1481177477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177477
Reply with quote  #2

1481177477
Report to moderator
1481177477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177477
Reply with quote  #2

1481177477
Report to moderator
1481177477
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1481177477

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1481177477
Reply with quote  #2

1481177477
Report to moderator
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 06:27:33 AM
 #262

It sounds to me like you're having a very difficult time in determining the difference between the existence of a scientific consensus and your own personal opinion about climate change. The scientific consensus on the subject does not care about your own personal views. It is a large set of data and participants that operates independently of your views.

Let me help you out. Reread everything I posted in this thread and the relevant links, and then you'll understand that the information presented to you serves two purposes:

1. To demonstrate that there is a scientific consensus. Read this: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1686.full . It is not difficult to determine this.  Keep in mind that a scientific consensus on the subject is not the same as your own interpretation of the scientific data.

2. Your own personal views are less interesting than what is said in the scientific literature.

Carry on.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 06:52:06 AM
 #263

A scientific consensus on what? Not your definition of AGW. What that article claims is in agreement with what I said earlier. Read your own link.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by "net temperature"...
Anyway there are multiple lines of evidence the temperature has been rising the last 100 years (about 0.6 K so far). The most plausible explanation for this rise is anthropomorphic CO2. While there is no historical evidence for increased atmospheric CO2 forcing a temperature rise, over the last 100 years there has been a strong correlation between CO2 and global temperature. In addition, there are multiple lines of supporting evidence that CO2 is the cause.

I am not confused, rather I see two aspects to this as a scientist but non-expert:

1) What exactly is there consensus on?
- This is what I am looking for answers to right now.
2) What are the sources of uncertainty, and are these scientists properly assessing and quantifying all sources of uncertainty?
- This is where most science goes awry. Ascertaining this requires extensive reading and probably consulting/questioning of the experts once I have some understanding of the models (I expect this will take a lot of time).
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 07:01:19 AM
 #264

Actually I would say that achieving #2 may be impossible for someone not actually doing the work themselves. However, usually, (assuming limited contamination of the field with politics, and there is always at least some since science is a human endeavor) a reasonable estimate of this can be gathered by consulting with enough experts.

edit: To better explain my schema. "Enough experts" would have to include people working on this throughout the scientific hierarchy: Lab techs, grad students, new PIs, PIs with tenure, and everything in between. Ideally.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 07:37:15 AM
 #265

2. Your own personal views are less interesting than what is said in the scientific literature.

And I agree. Others should view my personal opinion as less interesting than whats in the literature. On the other hand, people should take the view of those who try to understand what is actually said in the lit as more interesting than those who only have a limited understanding and use consensus as a proxy. I am still unsure which group you fall into. This is not due to any lack of prodding by me, instead it is due to your reticence.
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 08:34:51 AM
 #266

Apparently answering #1 will be more difficult than I thought:

Quote
There is considerable confidence that
Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs)
provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate
change, particularly at continental and larger scales.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf (pg 591)

Quote
Confidence Terminology    Degree of confidence in being correct    
Very high confidence            At least 9 out of 10 chance    
High confidence                    About 8 out of 10 chance    
Medium confidence            About 5 out of 10 chance    
Low confidence                    About 2 out of 10 chance    
Very low confidence            Less than 1 out of 10 chance    

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (pg 120)
Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 02:28:28 PM
 #267

There are those who allow their political desires to decide when science is telling the truth. You're almost certainly that type. And there are those who allow the results of science to influence their political beliefs. I'm definitely the latter.

I have no political beliefs in this debate other than the belief that this debate is being used by others for an insidious agenda that includes, but certainly is not limited to, politics.

I believe in freedom.

To be free you can not infringe on another in excersising your own rights.

You, on the other hand, wish to enslave people and steal their wealth and property, or at a very minimum you agree with it.

Does not matter the reasons or the justifications handed to us. Its infringement... enslavement. I do not believe any of the threats of human extinction we have been inundated with over the last century are real or credible, and even if I did, that does not change the fact that it moves us from freedom into enslavement of the citizens and shackles them with oppressive debt. It's no different than a pharoh or king hundreds to thousands of years ago, who, ironically enough, are the very bloodlines of the elites behind this insidious agenda today. To me, its simply about trying to control, financially rape, and enslave us.

The rest of the discussion is simply bastardized scientific and philosophical hogwash attemtping to somehow justify the move from freedom back to enslavement of the masses.


"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 07, 2012, 02:38:00 PM
 #268

There are those who allow their political desires to decide when science is telling the truth. You're almost certainly that type. And there are those who allow the results of science to influence their political beliefs. I'm definitely the latter.

I have no political beliefs in this debate other than the belief that this debate is being used by others for an insidious agenda that includes, but certainly is not limited to, politics.

I believe in freedom.

To be free you can not infringe on another in excersising your own rights.

You, on the other hand, wish to enslave people and steal their wealth and property, or at a very minimum you agree with it.

Does not matter the reasons or the justifications handed to us. Its infringement... enslavement. I do not believe any of the threats of human extinction we have been inundated with over the last century are real or credible, and even if I did, that does not change the fact that it moves us from freedom into enslavement of the citizens and shackles them with oppressive debt. It's no different than a pharoh or king hundreds to thousands of years ago, who, ironically enough, are the very bloodlines of the elites behind this insidious agenda today. To me, its simply about trying to control, financially rape, and enslave us.

The rest of the discussion is simply bastardized scientific and philosophical hogwash attemtping to somehow justify the move from freedom back to enslavement of the masses.



Moving into David Icke and lizard country...you do know that there is no way back to sanity when you get into that stuff.  You say you have a family.  For their sake, stop and re-connect with reality.  If the Internet is giving you strange ideas, treat it as a dangerous hallucinogen and stay off it.


Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 03:50:41 PM
 #269

Moving into David Icke and lizard country...you do know that there is no way back to sanity when you get into that stuff.  You say you have a family.  For their sake, stop and re-connect with reality.  If the Internet is giving you strange ideas, treat it as a dangerous hallucinogen and stay off it.

Please debate the message, not ad-hominem attacks against the messenger.

I dont believe David Ickes lizard theory, but I do believe he, like most other history and conspiracy researchers, get a lot right and a lot wrong, which is why its so important to do your own research. Read, watch, and listen to everyone and everything, believe nothing until you can prove it through your own research.

If you deny the elite ruling classes of today tracing their lineage back to ancient ruling classes, you have not done much research on the subject. They admit it and are proud of it. They even married within their own immediate families to preserve their wealth, then later only married families of other ruling classes to expand their land, areas of influence, and keep a firm hold on their wealth. Hell why do you think they have their buildings and property adorned with historic and ancient obilisks, stones, hieroglyphics, and statues? Let alone the symbology of their adornments, clothing, buildings, artwork, family shields, etc. Some even state they trace their historical beliefs and relation back to pre-biblical and biblical figures. Others, known as luciferians, trace it back beyond that, who believe knowledge is their God, and that they have the supreme right to rule and can become their own God through knowledge. Where do you think all that lineage went to? Just disappeared? You dont think these elite ruling classes teach their offspring from birth that they are better than everyone else, have the supreme right to rule and control the peasants? I guess class warfare is a fallacy too. If not, do you know where it actually came from?

Their beliefs go all the way back to the dawn of Man and the first "technology" that existed. Fire. Thats why fire is one of the prime symbols used in government and business today. Imagine being the first person who could manipulate and create fire. The first priests, the first rulers, the first scientists. They were God-like to the masses. You see, rulers, priests, and scientists always controlled the masses through fear and awe proved by a knowledge they knew but the masses did not. This is why government always has technology we dont know about until many many decades after the fact. They would demand the masses pay homage, sacrifice, and yes some form of physical contribution or donation, what we know today to be taxes, else they would darken the Sun on a specific date, cause sickness or plague, make it rain, cause a drought, threaten the end of the world using a knowledge unknown to the masses as supposed "proof". The peasants were you and me. Dumb citizens enslaved, scratching and grinding away an existance, paying taxes to make the rich richer so they didnt have to work. They lived then off our backs, blood, sweat, and tears, just how todays elite live off our back, blood, sweat, and tears. Only today we know more, so their psychology and technology have improved dramatically. Are we any less controlled and enslave though?

The use of occult (clandestine, hidden, secret) knowledge and technology has been around since there was the first ruler, scientist, and priest, and they often worked together to enslave and control the masses through psychology, fear, then pure force when the former did not work. Of course, the people almost always eventually found them out and revolted against such tyranny and oppression as the masses intellect and knowledge grew.

Your beliefs and my beliefs simply do not matter. What matters are the beliefs of people who can affect you, your property, your wealth, and your very life. Much like its the beliefs of they guy walking down the street behind you or lurking in an alleyway is what matters, because when he decides to infringe upon you with a weapon, your beliefs become completely irrelevent.

I recommend you start doing some in-depth research as to the true history of the world. I was once like you. I was right in line with the propaganda, indoctrination, and manipulation of our controllers. I though those conspiracy theorists were nutbags, until I started seeing to many coincidences, released government documents through FOIA requests, and started reading their own words. I dont think the history really matters today, other than a catalyst to jump that fence into believing there really are elites in the world screwing you at every turn. After you can see and believe that, the rest falls into place and allows you to move on to trying to educate others and figure out a solution.

What DOES matter is what they are doing to us to steal our wealth, enslave us, control us, oppress us, and take our sovereignty and freedom from us, all in the name of the latest fear they need us to believe in to attempt to justify it all.

It's about freedom. Nothing else.

In order to be free we must let others be free.

Now, if you do not want to be free, and advocate our enslavement, you are the enemy of freedom and freedom seeking people, and should be prepared to do battle with them. Are you prepared to fight and die for your entitlements and benefits against those fighting for their freedom and sovereignty, and against our enslavement ?

Pick a side ... it's coming ... I suggest choosing freedom.

"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 07, 2012, 04:26:00 PM
 #270

The problem with debating the topic with someone deranged is that no matter what you say, the deranged guy is on his own agenda and you don't really make progress.  I have no interest in ad hominem arguments.  But there is no ruling class descended from the Pharaohs, not even in Egypt.  If you believe that, then facts are irrelevant to you and I can't see how a rational discussion with you is possible.   Sorry.

FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 05:26:04 PM
 #271

There are those who allow their political desires to decide when science is telling the truth. You're almost certainly that type. And there are those who allow the results of science to influence their political beliefs. I'm definitely the latter.

I have no political beliefs in this debate other than the belief that this debate is being used by others for an insidious agenda that includes, but certainly is not limited to, politics.

I believe in freedom.

To be free you can not infringe on another in excersising your own rights.

You, on the other hand, wish to enslave people and steal their wealth and property, or at a very minimum you agree with it.

Does not matter the reasons or the justifications handed to us. Its infringement... enslavement. I do not believe any of the threats of human extinction we have been inundated with over the last century are real or credible, and even if I did, that does not change the fact that it moves us from freedom into enslavement of the citizens and shackles them with oppressive debt. It's no different than a pharoh or king hundreds to thousands of years ago, who, ironically enough, are the very bloodlines of the elites behind this insidious agenda today. To me, its simply about trying to control, financially rape, and enslave us.

The rest of the discussion is simply bastardized scientific and philosophical hogwash attemtping to somehow justify the move from freedom back to enslavement of the masses.

For someone who vehemently denies that he has no political beliefs tied to the science of climate change in the first sentence of the above  post, that's one amazing piece of wordage to write.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 05:32:57 PM
 #272

Actually I would say that achieving #2 may be impossible for someone not actually doing the work themselves. However, usually, (assuming limited contamination of the field with politics, and there is always at least some since science is a human endeavor) a reasonable estimate of this can be gathered by consulting with enough experts.

edit: To better explain my schema. "Enough experts" would have to include people working on this throughout the scientific hierarchy: Lab techs, grad students, new PIs, PIs with tenure, and everything in between. Ideally.

I see. And I suppose Richard Lindzen is the first expert you've gravitated towards. Funny. I can't take your quest seriously.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 06:34:46 PM
 #273

What DOES matter is what they are doing to us to steal our wealth, enslave us, control us, oppress us, and take our sovereignty and freedom from us, all in the name of the latest fear they need us to believe in to attempt to justify it all.

I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find a way to tell this to scientists taking ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, and so forth. Search for their email addresses or whatever.
Hawker
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 700



View Profile
February 07, 2012, 06:55:05 PM
 #274

What DOES matter is what they are doing to us to steal our wealth, enslave us, control us, oppress us, and take our sovereignty and freedom from us, all in the name of the latest fear they need us to believe in to attempt to justify it all.

I'm sure if you try hard enough, you can find a way to tell this to scientists taking ice cores in Greenland and Antarctica, and so forth. Search for their email addresses or whatever.

Um, he doesn't need to search email address.  Bind believes they are descended from Pharaohs so all he needs to do is look up their family tree.

bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 07:21:42 PM
 #275

I see. And I suppose Richard Lindzen is the first expert you've gravitated towards. Funny. I can't take your quest seriously.

This is a strawman you have chosen to create rather than try to comprehend what I am doing. Anyway...

I am having trouble finding a quote that authoritatively sums up the IPCC's confidence in their scenarios, models, etc. It looks like a few of the scenarios predict Temp rises could plateau under 2 k (likely= +/- 1 stdev):
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
There is considerable confidence that
Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Models (AOGCMs)
provide credible quantitative estimates of future climate
change, particularly at continental and larger scales.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf (pg 591)

Quote
Confidence Terminology    Degree of confidence in being correct    
Very high confidence            At least 9 out of 10 chance    
High confidence                    About 8 out of 10 chance    
Medium confidence            About 5 out of 10 chance    
Low confidence                    About 2 out of 10 chance    
Very low confidence            Less than 1 out of 10 chance    
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter1.pdf (pg 120)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (pg 13)

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf (pg 14)
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 07:30:07 PM
 #276

So,

1) Find out if the IPCC has estimated the probability of each of the various scenarios occurring.
2) Find out what "considerable confidence" means (since this term is not defined in their chart)

Then, for each scenario we must multiply:
Pr(scenario) X Pr(warming > 2K) X Pr(Models are realistic)
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 07:33:38 PM
 #277

I am having trouble finding a quote that authoritatively sums up the IPCC's confidence in their scenarios, models, etc.

You've spent a great deal of effort in parsing words, both in the IPCC's literature, and mine. Sadly, those are the actions of one who can't accept an argument at face value, and instead finds the need to reinterpret the meaning of a certain word here and there until they feel they have discovered some significant half hidden factoid that helps to bolster what they really want the facts to say.
FirstAscent
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 812


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 07:36:09 PM
 #278

So,

1) Find out if the IPCC has estimated the probability of each of the various scenarios occurring.
2) Find out what "considerable confidence" means (since this term is not defined in their chart)

Then, for each scenario we must multiply:
Pr(scenario) X Pr(warming > 2K) X Pr(Models are realistic)

I'm curious. Do you believe the IPCC is controlled by descendants of the Pharaohs?
bb113
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 728


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 07:45:48 PM
 #279

So I take it you are going to ignore that there appears to be no consensus regarding whether temps will rise over 2 K by 2099. If we use the 2 K rise as a proxy for "damaging", this disagrees with your statement that there is consensus that:

Quote
The economy of humanity is raising the average global temperature at a rate which will cause:

1. Serious damage to our ecosystems, and the productivity of our ecosystems.
2. A sea level rise which might cause huge economic damage.

You are back to your rigid, stereotyped arguments. Please address my posts, and adapt your argument to your audience.

Bind
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Activity: 252

DO NOT ACCEPT PAYPAL FOR BTC YOU WILL GET BURNED


View Profile
February 07, 2012, 07:48:22 PM
 #280

Um, he doesn't need to search email address.  Bind believes they are descended from Pharaohs so all he needs to do is look up their family tree.
I'm curious. Do you believe the IPCC is controlled by descendants of the Pharaohs?
Kings, Tribesmen, Rulers, Leaders, and Pharohs, etc.

The bloodlines did not anymore end than yours will end with your passing.

Do/did/will you hand down culture, heritage, and knowledge to your sons and daughters ?


"... He is no fool who parts with that which he cannot keep, when he is sure to be recompensed with that which he cannot lose ..."

"... history disseminated to the masses is written by those who win battles and wars and murder their heroes ..."


1Dr3ig3EoBnPWq8JZrRTi8Hfp53Kj
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!