Ice, again

[mamooth]

hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?

I remember denialists often lying-via-cherrypicking about such things. Not their proudest moments. You ought to be running at top speed from such dishonest sleaze tactics, if you don't want to ruin your reputation.

 

[mamooth]

You just admitted it. Thanks. My sig on the other hand expresses the entire thought of the idiot who made the statement.

Actually, it shows you're too 'effin stupid to understand the Second Law.

Tell us again how the entire field of Statistical Mechanics is a fraud. The physics for the past century is wrong, and only you have discovered the RealTruth, being you're so much smarter than those eggheads. When do you plan to tell the world and collect your Nobel Prize? And what's up next, your declaration that relativity is also a fraud?

Actually, this illustrates the raging narcissism so common in the extreme right. They simply can't admit an error, ever. No matter how stupid it makes them look, they just keep doubling down on that original error. It's good to be a liberal, since we're freely allowed to admit errors and learn.

 

[westwall]

Bullshit.

If you're not just making crap up again, you can simply show us this consensus. You can't, however, because there's no such thing. That was another example of that thing you routinely do where you cherrypick a statement from one person and then declare it's the consensus.



Watch those goalposts move! We'll never be able to catch them! Here, we see that a new record ice extent low means nothing because it's ... wait for it ... "within the mean".



As the temperature there _warms_. And as was correctly predicted by AGW science 20 years ago. That's been pointed out to you several times. However, your cult's pseudoscience collapses unless you cherrypick very selectively, hence you've become a master of that tactic.

meh


70% of Americans think the scientists are ******* with the data.


Meanwhile >>>>


Top story on DRUDGE right now !!!!!!!



Sea Ice Update February 17 2014 ? Antarctic Sea Ice Extent Still 25% above normal | sunshine hours



Oooooooooooooooooops

That is quite sad. The pause has made a ass of science when it comes to climate.

Not at all. The climatologists have made complete asses of themselves and brought total discredit on their field. That has had a damaging effect on science as a whole, but science itself is unchanged.

It is however populated by humans. And those humans can be good or bad, competent or incompetent etc. Climatology has a particularly high concentration of unethical and incompetent people.

 

[westwall]

Why? What does that article have to do with the environment or the reality of AGW?

Besides, I strongly doubt you have ANYTHING with which to challenge the study's results.

It demonstrates how the "scientists" have had to resort to plucking at heartstrings (because the actual observations have shown them to be catastrophically wrong) and how they have prostituted science for personal gain.

 

[westwall]

Now, now. You know that only the Arctic counts. What happens south of the border is completely irrelevant. Because it doesn't fit the narrative very well....

The antarctic is _warmer_. That fits our narrative quite well. The increased ice is from increased freshwater. Exactly as AGW theory predicted, so again, it exactly fits our narrative.

You keep running from that fact. Because it doesn't fit your narrative well. You're an intellectual coward, and a hypocrite to boot.

Except that wasn't your narrative at all. Link up that study you claim predicted the warming. Go ahead I dare you!

 

[westwall]

hey Matthew-- remember those lists that showed how global warming and CO2 was responsible for just about everything bad in the world? from Acne to Zits?

I remember denialists often lying-via-cherrypicking about such things. Not their proudest moments. You ought to be running at top speed from such dishonest sleaze tactics, if you don't want to ruin your reputation.

Projection is your specialty I see!

 

[SSDD]

You just admitted it. Thanks. My sig on the other hand expresses the entire thought of the idiot who made the statement.

Actually, it shows you're too 'effin stupid to understand the Second Law.

Tell us again how the entire field of Statistical Mechanics is a fraud.

Actually, I never said that but thanks for proving once again that you are a liar.

 

[mamooth]

You're sulking as much as Westwall now. That's how I know I've scored.

The field of Statistical Mechanics demonstrates how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics. If you say my statement is wrong, you reject Statistical Mechanics. You can't have it both ways. Either my statement is correct, or the whole field of Statistical Mechanics is wrong.

 

[gnarlylove]

I think the more important discussion topic lies with mamooth: are they a he or she? I can't tell from the cat picture....oh wait, this is totally irrelevant discussion. Pardon me mammoth, I must have been possessed by a denialist. Carry on.

 

[mamooth]

Except that wasn't your narrative at all. Link up that study you claim predicted the warming. Go ahead I dare you!

Again?

Okay, but this time, please refrain from making up that strange story about models predicting it both ways, given the paper does nothing of the sort. I'm still at a loss as to where you got such nonsense.

manabe 1991

The relevant part is on p795.
---
It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is consistent with the slight reduction of sea surface temperature (figure 10a). It will be shown in section 9a that, owing to the intensification of the near-surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice and slight reduction of sea surface temperature.
---

 

[mamooth]

I think the more important discussion topic lies with mamooth: are they a he or she? I can't tell from the cat picture....oh wait, this is totally irrelevant discussion. Pardon me mammoth, I must have been possessed by a denialist. Carry on.

No problem. I am a he, by the way. One reason I use the cat is to get people to behave badly. Some of 'em can't resist being bullies if they think they're talking to a woman, while others expect they can get a rise out of me by telling dead cat jokes.

I also just like the photo. The cat himself is a feral cat who came around my house for a couple years (because I fed him). It's unusual for a pure siamese to be feral, but there he was. Given how skittish he was, I was lucky to get such a good photo of him.

 

[SwimExpert]

The antarctic is _warmer_. That fits our narrative quite well. The increased ice is from increased freshwater. Exactly as AGW theory predicted, so again, it exactly fits our narrative.

And just what exactly is the primary source of fresh water in the Antarctic?

 

[westwall]

You're sulking as much as Westwall now. That's how I know I've scored.

The field of Statistical Mechanics demonstrates how the fundamental mechanism of the Second Law is statistics. If you say my statement is wrong, you reject Statistical Mechanics. You can't have it both ways. Either my statement is correct, or the whole field of Statistical Mechanics is wrong.

You couldn't "score" standing on the rim of the bucket. You are one of the most scientifically illiterate drones on this board.

 

[SSDD]

Except that wasn't your narrative at all. Link up that study you claim predicted the warming. Go ahead I dare you!

Again?

Okay, but this time, please refrain from making up that strange story about models predicting it both ways, given the paper does nothing of the sort. I'm still at a loss as to where you got such nonsense.

manabe 1991

The relevant part is on p795.
---
It is surprising, however, that the sea-ice thickness in the G integration increases significantly in the immediate vicinity of the Antarctic Continent despite the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide. This is consistent with the slight reduction of sea surface temperature (figure 10a). It will be shown in section 9a that, owing to the intensification of the near-surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice and slight reduction of sea surface temperature.
---

You are kidding, right? First off, outdated much. That is from 1991. How many global climate models written in 1991 even still exist, and more importantly, how many remain unchanged?

From the first line of that pile of crap:

"This study investigates the response of a CLIMATE MODEL to a gradual increase or decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

We all know how well the climate models from that era have predicted the climate response atmospheric carbon dioxide. They have FAILED SPECTACULARLY.

Get with the times...no one has faith in models any more and anyone who is presenting them as the basic support for their position is an idiot.

 

[Abraham3]

Of course its a climate model. How else would you make a climate prediction? Is that all you've got?

And is this the sort of "spectacular failure" you're talking about?

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course its a climate model. How else would you make a climate prediction?

What makes you think you or anyone else have any business making predictions at all?

 

[SSDD]

Of course its a climate model. How else would you make a climate prediction? Is that all you've got?

And is this the sort of "spectacular failure" you're talking about?

Before I started trying to make predictions, I would make sure I damned well understood what it was I was trying to predict. No intelligent individual tries to make predictions on a complex system that is decades away from being understood...that sort of behavior is reserved for charlatans, con artists, crooks and frauds.

And more importantly, no intelligent individual believes predictions made by people who clearly are not even close to a complete understanding of the system on which they are trying to make predictions. That sort of behavior is reserved for imbeciles, mutton heads, fools, and dupes.

By the way...I couldn't help but notice that your idiot chart only shows anomolies...we both know that is because you would be laughed off the board if you ever showed the actual differences between the predictions and reality. You are a never ending source of laughter. For a long time, I thought you knew you were pushing a hoax but thought that the ends justified the means....now it seems that you really are that stupid.

 

[gnarlylove]

Of course its a climate model. How else would you make a climate prediction?

What makes you think you or anyone else have any business making predictions at all?

What a man of ontological considerations.

Reality only happens in the now. So how can we predict what the future holds? No one can see the future, for we are trapped in the now. Boy this cookie is smart. If only he knew what he was talking about. He isn't trying to make a point, instead he is, like always, trying to sabotage any attempt to demonstrate facts with high degrees of confidence.

If one knows sufficient variables that create effects, it is reasonable to assume we can predict trends. Trends are different from exact precision and determinism that exists in the present. That's why each model you see offer a range of potential events. As long as we know the variables, we can know the effects with relatively high confidence.

Of course this knowledge is different from knowledge we glean from the present. Just because predictions are of a different genre of epistemology than facts we know today doesn't make it any less valid. But I know you'll call me names or something inane so score another for the expert who has no concern for genuine understanding of what's going on in the world today or at any time in the future.

Will the sun rise tomorrow?

We cannot know this so we have no business predicting it.

 

[SwimExpert]

Reality only happens in the now. So how can we predict what the future holds? No one can see the future, for we are trapped in the now. Boy this cookie is smart. If only he knew what he was talking about. He isn't trying to make a point, instead he is, like always, trying to sabotage any attempt to demonstrate facts with high degrees of confidence.

When are you going to get it through your head that there is nothing wrong with someone presenting alternative perspectives? Oh, I'm sorry. I forgot who I was talking to. You're never going to grasp it, because you expect people to simply accept whatever you put in front of them.

If one knows sufficient variables that create effects, it is reasonable to assume we can predict trends.

Therein lies the problem. We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.

 

[Abraham3]

Therein lies the problem. We don't have sufficient knowledge of those variables and causal relationships.

Who told you that?