Map Makers Admit Mistake in Showing Ice Cap Loss in Greenland

[bb113]

Your way is the cause of endless heated arguments by people who don't know what they are talking about. These are pervasive on the internet. The very purpose of science is to avoid this problem. Reliance on data and evidence is the only thing separating science from philosophy. And yes, my way is more difficult and time consuming, but that is the standard I try to hold myself to before forming a strong opinion.

[1713870824]

1713870824

[1713870824]

1713870824

[bb113]

Honestly, for all your efforts, you're not going to achieve a good answer.

You could say this about any scientific undertaking. There is very rarely a "clear-cut" answer. That is the nature of experimentation. My goal is much less ambitious. I just hope to understand what is going on in that field. It is like comparing knowing how a car works with knowing how the human body works.

[FirstAscent]

Your way is the cause of endless heated arguments by people who don't know what they are talking about. These are pervasive on the internet. The very purpose of science is to avoid this problem. Reliance on data and evidence is the only thing separating science from philosophy. And yes, my way is more difficult and time consuming, but that is the standard I try to hold myself to before forming a strong opinion.

No - your way is biting off more than you can chew. You simply don't have the time, resources, talent, knowledge, or expertise to apply your method.

As for my method being the cause of endless heated arguments by people who don't know what they are talking about - that's simply not true. If anything, my methods clearly expose the fraud behind the material cited behind those who deny AGW.

Have you so quickly forgotten our discussion about the efficacy of your methods? Given the running history of your methods and errors in this thread, I don't have any confidence in your techniques. I'll quote my earlier summary below:

1. I said your opinion is in large part affected by propaganda.

2. I said that propaganda is created by various deceptive institutions such as the Cato Institute, the Heartland Institute, individuals such as Frederick Seitz, and all funded by Big Oil.

3. You denied this, stating that I could not know anything about how your opinions are formed. To corroborate this, you indicated that your skepticism is in part based on statements made by Richard Lindzen, a scientist.

4. I then pointed out that Richard Lindzen writes for The Heartland Institute, has views similar to Frederick Seitz, and is a member of a think tank funded by Exxon Mobil.

5. LOL.

[bb113]

Ok well I think you've exposed my fraud to the full extent of your capabilities, so I am not sure why this is continuing (although I like arguing on the internet too). Once I post more on this you can expose more fraud.

[FirstAscent]

Ok well I think you've exposed my fraud to the full extent of your capabilities, so I am not sure why this is continuing (although I like arguing on the internet too). Once I post more on this you can expose more fraud.

Please point out where I declared you a fraud. You won't be able to, because I never did. Once again, your statements and methods just fall short of being relevant, in more ways than one.

In a nutshell, your methods of seeking literature that states exactly what you want it to say, and my observations of your nitpicky parsing of words in specific scientific documents (among many thousands), your natural gravitation to according significance to scientists who are quite clearly sellouts to Big Oil, and your statements here in general demonstrate a general lack of effectiveness.

Take the advice I gave you earlier on how to better understand the overwhelming evidence of AGW. It's great advice, and to argue against it only further calls into question the likely success of your endeavors, which frankly, even you have had trouble articulating.

[bb113]

overwhelming evidence of AGW

Once again... what does this mean?
What specifically is AGW?
What specific evidence?

Then please point out what evidence I have ignored.

[drakahn]

since i was a kid i have thought that 'global warming' is just the period before an ice age and not caused by (but perhaps effected by) humans, in the end i don't care though, life will go on in whatever world we have, whether it is our fault or not.

[Hawker]

since i was a kid i have thought that 'global warming' is just the period before an ice age and not caused by (but perhaps effected by) humans, in the end i don't care though, life will go on in whatever world we have, whether it is our fault or not.

We are in what is technically called an interglacial.  An ice age is in progress but there has been a temporary rise in temperature.  As some point, the ice age will resume and the ice sheets that covered Europe and North America will return.

Put in those terms, maybe global warming is a good thing :O

[FirstAscent]

since i was a kid i have thought that 'global warming' is just the period before an ice age and not caused by (but perhaps effected by) humans, in the end i don't care though, life will go on in whatever world we have, whether it is our fault or not.

Milankovitch cycles are one of the predominant causes of ice ages. And technically, those cycles are currently such that we should be headed into a new ice age (over thousands of years), and yet despite that, we are living in a time of rapid warming, coincident with the rise of the Industrial Age. This rapid warming is occurring at a rate which ecosystems cannot adapt fast enough to, and that results in mass extinctions (microscopic and macroscopic) which in turn results in a lowered productivity of the Earth's natural systems. That means less natural resources. Do not confuse a migration northward (in the Northern Hemisphere) of species to cope as being a simple displacement and change in location of biomass. Existing artificial and natural barriers (human developments, water bodies, mountains, etc.) prevent those migrations.

[FirstAscent]

overwhelming evidence of AGW

Once again... what does this mean?
What specifically is AGW?
What specific evidence?

Then please point out what evidence I have ignored.

Follow my advice. I've already given it, but I'll quote it for you again:

I'm attacking you because if you would actually spend a decent amount of time reading scientific literature instead of poking an IPCC report for some particular phrase and listening to Richard Landza, it would be powerfully clear to you what the scientific consensus is, and what the ramifications are, and as a result, you wouldn't feel compelled to approach things the way you are.

I'm calling you out as someone largely ignorant of climate change science, and more interested in cherry picking phrases. A dissection of your posts makes that clear.

[tacotime]

I don't really need a lot of studies or overwhelming evidence or whatever.  One of the beaches I used to go to as a child in the 80's and early 90's was originally almost a kilometer long from shore to dunes.  Last year, the length of that same beach was about 300m, and in the past decade they have had to repump more sand into the beach to restore it (because it's disappearing) than they had in the previous 30 years.

Remember hard drive prices last year?
http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/89853/floods-show-what-lies-ahead-for-sinking-bangkok

[bb113]

since i was a kid i have thought that 'global warming' is just the period before an ice age and not caused by (but perhaps effected by) humans, in the end i don't care though, life will go on in whatever world we have, whether it is our fault or not.

Milankovitch cycles are one of the predominant causes of ice ages. And technically, those cycles are currently such that we should be headed into a new ice age (over thousands of years), and yet despite that, we are living in a time of rapid warming, coincident with the rise of the Industrial Age. This rapid warming is occurring at a rate which ecosystems cannot adapt fast enough to, and that results in mass extinctions (microscopic and macroscopic) which in turn results in a lowered productivity of the Earth's natural systems. That means less natural resources. Do not confuse a migration northward (in the Northern Hemisphere) of species to cope as being a simple displacement and change in location of biomass. Existing artificial and natural barriers (human developments, water bodies, mountains, etc.) prevent those migrations.

It is important to note that such abrupt warming is not unprecedented. The ice core data indicates an abrupt warming of about 8 C over the course of 40 years occurred 11k years ago (for comparison most models predict a warming of 2-6 C, depending on various emissions scenarios, by 2099). Human society has developed during the exceptionally stable, warm period the earth has experienced over the last 10k years:



This stability has likely been a boon for the development of human civilization, but to imply that life cannot deal with sudden climate change is misleading. Yes, there may (most likely will) be mass extinctions and temporary decrease in biodiversity due to sudden warming, but these types of events have also been the driver of speciation and thus result in increased biodiversity over the longer term. So from the perspective of "life on earth", warming due to CO2 emissions is not really an issue. From the perspective of humans, it may cause us problems. We are currently the dominant species, so it is in our best interest to maintain the status quo.

[FirstAscent]

You've made a number of erroneous assumptions in your above post with regard to current research on climate change. You're still (predictably) following your special methods of research, which I have more than once explained to you are not very effective. Keep it up.

I would like to know how you came to know of Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

[bb113]

You've made a number of erroneous assumptions in your above post with regard to current research on climate change. You're still (predictably) following your special methods of research, which I have more than once explained to you are not very effective. Keep it up.

I would like to know how you came to know of Dansgaard–Oeschger events.

2007 IPCC report (which is basically my only method of research, and has been since early in this thread).

The importance of other sources of climate variability was heightened by the discovery of abrupt climate changes. In this context, ‘abrupt’ designates regional events of large amplitude, typically a few degrees celsius, which occurred within several decades – much shorter than the thousand-year time scales that characterise changes in astronomical forcing. Abrupt temperature changes were first revealed by the analysis of deep ice cores from Greenland (Dansgaard et al., 1984). Oeschger et al. (1984) recognised that the abrupt changes during the termination of the last ice age correlated with cooling in Gerzensee (Switzerland) and suggested that regime shifts in the Atlantic Ocean circulation were causing these widespread changes. The synthesis of palaeoclimatic observations by Broecker and Denton (1989) invigorated the community over the next decade. By the end of the 1990s, it became clear that the abrupt climate changes during the last ice age, particularly in the North Atlantic regions as found in the Greenland ice cores, were numerous (Dansgaard et al., 1993), indeed abrupt (Alley et al., 1993) and of large amplitude (Severinghaus and Brook, 1999). They are now referred to as Dansgaard-Oeschger events. A similar variability is seen in the North Atlantic Ocean, with north-south oscillations of the polar front (Bond et al., 1992) and associated changes in ocean temperature and salinity (Cortijo et al., 1999). With no obvious external forcing, these changes are thought to be manifestations of the internal variability of the climate system.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch1s1-4-2.html

[FirstAscent]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

[FirstAscent]

By the way, that's twice now that you've cited material that is largely pushed by guys who have not only a history of taking money from Big Oil, but also from the tobacco companies. You might want to start thinking about that.

[bb113]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

Yea, I actually read that. I was looking for more info about the effects of dansgaard-oeschger events on biodiversity but did not find anything easily. That link is just saying the current warming is not best explained as a D-O event. Nothing about the effect on biodiversity, which I would be interested in with regards to Punk-eek.

By the way, that's twice now that you've cited material that is largely pushed by guys who have not only a history of taking money from Big Oil, but also from the tobacco companies. You might want to start thinking about that.

I cited the IPCC...

[FirstAscent]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

Yea, I actually read that. I was looking for more info about the effects of dansgaard-oeschger events on biodiversity but did not find anything easily. That link is just saying the current warming is not best explained as a D-O event. Nothing about the effect on biodiversity, which I would be interested in with regards to Punk-eek.

It's also stating that Fred Singer likes to push it. Recall Frederick Seitz? And Richard Lindzen? Those two, plus Singer are all sellouts to Big Oil. And the tobacco industry. Are they experts on climate change or are they experts on the dangers of tobacco smoke? The answer, of course, is it doesn't matter, because they obviously have other agendas.

I cited the IPCC...

That's a point against you, not for you. You see, I said earlier that you need to read the scientific literature. I said that twice. And you just now admitted that the only thing you read is the 2007 IPCC document. Is that the one that Richard Lindzen was a participant in, before he became disassociated with it?

I'm telling you (for about the fourth time) - stop trotting out material that is associated with paid charlatans aligned with the oil and tobacco industries, and start reading the scientific periodicals.

[FirstAscent]

Regarding biodiversity and extinction events of the past. It is irrelevant that recoveries occurred. That's exactly analogous to saying, well, my house was leveled by a tornado, but it was rebuilt. So? What about the year you lived in a motel while it was being rebuilt?

[bb113]

http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/dansgaard-oeschger-events

Of course, I still need to address your comments about extinction.

Yea, I actually read that. I was looking for more info about the effects of dansgaard-oeschger events on biodiversity but did not find anything easily. That link is just saying the current warming is not best explained as a D-O event. Nothing about the effect on biodiversity, which I would be interested in with regards to Punk-eek.

It's also stating that Fred Singer likes to push it. Recall Frederick Seitz? And Richard Lindzen? Those two, plus Singer are all sellouts to Big Oil. And the tobacco industry. Are they experts on climate change or are they experts on the dangers of tobacco smoke? The answer, of course, is it doesn't matter, because they obviously have other agendas.

I cited the IPCC...

That's a point against you, not for you. You see, I said earlier that you need to read the scientific literature. I said that twice. And you just now admitted that the only thing you read is the 2007 IPCC document. Is that the one that Richard Lindzen was a participant in, before he became disassociated with it?

I'm telling you (for about the fourth time) - stop trotting out material that is associated with paid charlatans aligned with the oil and tobacco industries, and start reading the scientific periodicals.

Well this was from the 2007 report, Lindzen was an author for the "clouds" chapter in 2001.

So you think the IPCC is not a good starting point? I only consider it a useful summary, but one must start somewhere.

Apparently you know more about this stuff than me... are the IPCC reports untrustworthy because some of the info in there is associated with paid charlatans?