Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by MichaelJoeWilliamson, Aug 28, 2013.
More of those "experts?"
Shiz is too damn funny.
One scientist was very aggressive, but on balance it seems like a reasoned set of responses... if we continue to warm.
Yeah, I mean, it was just ONE guy. A lone ranger. Maverick, if you will.
And it's supposed to break 90 tomorrow in Seattle - a new record high.
What has either of us proven?
1 Where's the link?
2 Where's the part where "scientists" - I assume you mean more than one and presumably some sort of consensus - "insisted that the arctic would be free of ice" by 2013?
Read more: http://www.gatorcountry.com/swampgas...#ixzz2eRGLOi5I
how do you explain this:
I know its an eye trick!
Wait noo its a jedi mind trick!
You can post all the data you want (some of it from 2010) but none of it disputes the amazing amount of ice growth on the arctic.
We did this already.
Speaking of mountains from mole hills - as if lack of complete perfection blows up thousands of pages of data and years of research - by the "intellectually dishonest", the 2007 IPCC report included one reference to and quote from a non peer reviewed opinion that was not included in the Summation, Analysis section, or any other of it's 3000 pages. The IPCC admitted it's mistake but somehow this non event is all the proof supposedly "skeptical" minds like MJW need to discount that which they don't want to believe any way and will happily distort what the overwhelming numbers of scientists who know what they are talking about acknowledge. The last thing he is interested in is science.
So they acknowledge the huge amount of ice growth but because the models from 1981-2010 show a huge decline, you are pretty much saying we are in a global warming?
Here you go buddy:
Sorry. I was referring more to your assertion that people that value individual liberties tend to follow science less.
Yes, I agree that confirmation bias exists for all humans, no matter the ideology
We shall see. Right now it is very much speculation, not measured conclusions.
meH. You conflate two types of predictions. One is probabilistic and the other is indeed an on off switch. the prediction that the Arctic ice would disappear did not sound to me like one of probability, but certainty. If you disagree, then pelase show us where someone claimed probability rather than certainty.
Disagree. We know with almost certainty what happens if we dump human waste into drinking water. Or spew unfiltered clouds of coal smoke.
Not one guy but a group of guys.
"Professor Maslowski's group, which includes co-workers at Nasa and the Institute of Oceanology, Polish Academy of Sciences (PAS), is well known for producing modelled dates that are in advance of other teams. "
plus, I am sure you missed this inadvertently
" Professor Peter Wadhams from Cambridge University, UK, is an expert on Arctic ice. He has used sonar data collected by Royal Navy submarines to show that the volume loss is outstripping even area withdrawal, which is in agreement with the model result of Professor Maslowski.
"Some models have not been taking proper account of the physical processes that go on," he commented.
"The ice is thinning faster than it is shrinking; and some modellers have been assuming the ice was a rather thick slab.
"Wieslaw's model is more efficient because it works with data and it takes account of processes that happen internally in the ice."
And finally, you overlook the comment from guy you claim to be "reasonable."
" Discussing the possibility for an open Arctic ocean in summer months, he told the meeting: "A few years ago, even I was thinking 2050, 2070, out beyond the year 2100, because that's what our models were telling us. But as we've seen, the models aren't fast enough right now; we are losing ice at a much more rapid rate.
"My thinking on this is that 2030 is not an unreasonable date to be thinking of."
Sounds like concurrence to me.
Of course, what is going unsaid here is the evolution of the argument. Back in 2007, no one was talking about probability. They were talking near certainty.
Now that this has been demonstrated to be not only wrong, but badly wrong, the skeptics are being asked to provide "proof" that the original predictions were even made. Or if they were made, how many people supported the predictions. Or if there were a lot of people that supported the predictions, how strongly did they support the predictions.
This is called moving the goal posts.
I was trying to keep within the four paragraph quote rule (although I realize that is not heavily enforced), but I did see the 2030 date and included that in what I quoted, thinking that is a more reasonable date than 2013 given the trend, and allowing for variances like this year.
Seems like there is some consensus that the Arctic will be clear of ice in summers much sooner than originally thought in IPCC models, but not consensus on how much sooner.
Is that "moving the goalposts?" Seems like one group (not one scientist as you point out) moved the goal posts far closer than IPCC, while other(s) moved it up pretty aggressively, but not nearly as much as the most aggressive group.
I don't see anything deceitful in that... just a more conservative take. I think 2030 is a reasonable guess-timation based on trends I've seen in summer minimums, and there seems to be more consensus on that. Here's a quote from the NOAA website on this topic:
The moving the goal posts was a comment more for Rade and Row than you.
Oh no, I would never say that. I was just saying that 'individualistic' minded people are more likely to discount the Climate Science type of conclusions and 'communitarian' minded people are more likely to accept them. Unfortunately, since both sides have a bias in favor of their stance, this doesn't get us any closer to the truth. But it is good for individuals, like you and me, to keep in mind our own priors.
I certainly think that the Arctic models (and all models) are probabilistic. The famed hockey stick graph for example, had huge error bars on it. It was just that nobody cares for probabilities, so they stopped printing the graph that way. Here is a random graph that I found (I am just trusting that the trend is actually representative of IPCC projections), that shows a "most likely" range.
For better or worse however, we often see such projections represented like this, which removes the probabilistic nature of the prediction:
Sure we do. However, this type of smaller temporal and spatial scale effect can be replicated several times in parallel and experimentally in the lab over a few years. We only have one natural Earth and no lab big enough to build an experimental one. If we really want to have certainty in the range of the "human waste in drinking supply" model, we need to oscillate the CO2 of Earth for thousands of years and watch the outcomes. That is clearly not an option, so we must rely on this imperfect predictive modeling.
Regardless of whom you wanted to answer you, Oak's response is, I think, a valid one.
Why do you spend so much time trying to reason with those Obama employees.
An FSU fan started telling all his friends that the Seminoles were going to beat the Gators on Saturday. A Gator fan comes up and says, "We can't trust you. You're biased. It is obvious the Gators are going to win."
Then I'm glad your open to other opinions on the supposed AGW.
I hope that I am always open, but what makes your opinion a bit different is that it insinuates that other people's views are unreasonable. When we search for standards of reason, I am a bit uncomfortable with using the opinion of the opponent that already disagrees.
And...more fuel for the fire.
http://www.see.ed.ac.uk/~shs/Climate change/Climate model results/over estimate.pdf