Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)

[kerplunk]

Kawasicki said:

The amazon is also a huge source of methane, which is a 4632 more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon is.

The quicker we chop is down and properly drain the soil the better.

ho ho what a card you are

[Kawasicki]

kerplunk said:

Kawasicki said:

The amazon is also a huge source of methane, which is a 4632 more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon is.

The quicker we chop is down and properly drain the soil the better.

ho ho what a card you are

Issa climate emergenceeee

[mko9]

kerplunk said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mko9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

Quick, dodge and then fall back on faith!

Jeez thats your contribution to the scientific debate is it, whats the correct state of the climate?

Moving on...

Before you move on, yes, I'd say that's a pretty important question for the science.

No it's a bloody stupid question of the sort beloved by deniers who like wasting time thunking up stupid questions.

It is only a "bloody stupid question" because answering would force you to question your faith, which you are clearly unwilling to do.

[Gadgetmac]

mko9 said:

kerplunk said:

mybrainhurts said:

Gadgetmac said:

mko9 said:

Gadgetmac said:

kerplunk said:

mko9 said:

So they are melting back to the non-existence they exhibited about 7000 years ago. Which state is the correct state of the climate?

lol - oh look a squirrel

I’m tempted to play the deniers game of “prove it!”.

As far as I’m concerned those glaciers were still there 7,000 years ago...I wonder where they’re getting their data from to contradict that?

Quick, dodge and then fall back on faith!

Jeez thats your contribution to the scientific debate is it, whats the correct state of the climate?

Moving on...

Before you move on, yes, I'd say that's a pretty important question for the science.

No it's a bloody stupid question of the sort beloved by deniers who like wasting time thunking up stupid questions.

It is only a "bloody stupid question" because answering would force you to question your faith, which you are clearly unwilling to do.

Very good.

Oh, you're being serious?

It's been answered on here at least half a dozen times and once quite recently. You could even Google it because believe it or not some other CC deniers have asked it in the past. Even Tony Heller doesn't ask it.

This isn't the killer question you seem to think it is.

[kerplunk]

mko9 said:

It is only a "bloody stupid question" because answering would force you to question your faith, which you are clearly unwilling to do.

Not sure why you think the glaciers being 7000 years old is challenging to my 'faith'. It seems quite consistent with paleo-climate obs of a peak in holocene temps around that time followed by long slow cooling, bottoming out in the little ice age a few hundred years ago, and reversed a good way back up in the last couple of hundred years.

What you got from it was 'what is the correct state of the climate?' which is a how long is a piece of string question.

But if you think it's a great question why not have a go at answering it yourself? Go ahead and lay your thoughts out about 'what is the correct state of the climate'. Put some effort in and I promise I'll respond similarly.

Edited by kerplunk on Sunday 2nd May 09:58

[kerplunk]

Gadgetmac said:

Very good.

Oh, you're being serious?

It's been answered on here at least half a dozen times and once quite recently. You could even Google it because believe it or not some other CC deniers have asked it in the past. Even Tony Heller doesn't ask it.

This isn't the killer question you seem to think it is.

It's a familiar pattern isn't it - answer my daft question/demand for 100% proof and if you don't you're not a free-thinking high plain sceptic like wot I am

[Kawasicki]

Some interesting stuff happening in environmental “science” at the moment. An interesting, but not surprising, article...

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/05/does-ocean...

Sciencemag said:

The brazenness of the apparent deception shocked Jutfelt. “It really triggered my skepticism about science massively,” he says. “Before that paper, I could not understand how anyone could fabricate data. It was inconceivable to me.” Now, he began to wonder how many other papers might be a total fantasy.

Jutfelt didn’t get this memo....

Steven Schneider said:

On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we’d like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climate change. To do that we need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination. That, of course, means getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This “double ethical bind” we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.I hope that means being both.

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

You need to do more homework.

Sciencemag is a front for big oil? Funded by the Koch brothers?

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Ahhh the out-of-context Schneider quote rears it’s head again.

You highlighted the wrong sentence and left out the context.

And, again, no. I got it from here, where they are defending Schneider. Doesn’t work, but they gave it their best, bless ‘em.

https://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-...

[Gadgetmac]

Ahhh the Schneider quote rears it’s head again.

You highlighted the wrong sentence and left out the context.

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Ahhh the out-of-context Schneider quote rears it’s head again.

You highlighted the wrong sentence and left out the context.

And, again, no. I got it from here, where they are defending Schneider. Doesn’t work, but they gave it their best, bless ‘em.

https://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-...

Unfortunately it does work. However Denier Central Office will go with their own interpretation and their followers will claim it’s yet more evidence of climate fraud. Apart from that it’s from the late eighties anyway

Still, at least you’ve managed to finally find a bit of controversy over one piece of research. There’s only been a few hundred published since you last posted.

Of course the fact that the allegations are being published in the first place and in the aaas ‘s Science magazine tells you that it’s not being swept under the carpet.

Let us know when and if the allegations are upheld.

Edited by Gadgetmac on Tuesday 11th May 21:42

[Kawasicki]

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Ahhh the out-of-context Schneider quote rears it’s head again.

You highlighted the wrong sentence and left out the context.

And, again, no. I got it from here, where they are defending Schneider. Doesn’t work, but they gave it their best, bless ‘em.

https://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-...

Unfortunately it does work. However Denier Central Office will go with their own interpretation and their followers will claim it’s yet more evidence of climate fraud. Apart from that it’s from the late eighties anyway

Still, at least you’ve managed to finally find a bit of controversy over one piece of research. There’s only been a few hundred published since you last posted.

Hundreds of papers? Evidence would suggest it’s not hard get past peer review.

[Gadgetmac]

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Kawasicki said:

Gadgetmac said:

Ahhh the out-of-context Schneider quote rears it’s head again.

You highlighted the wrong sentence and left out the context.

And, again, no. I got it from here, where they are defending Schneider. Doesn’t work, but they gave it their best, bless ‘em.

https://climatesight.org/2009/04/12/the-schneider-...

Unfortunately it does work. However Denier Central Office will go with their own interpretation and their followers will claim it’s yet more evidence of climate fraud. Apart from that it’s from the late eighties anyway

Still, at least you’ve managed to finally find a bit of controversy over one piece of research. There’s only been a few hundred published since you last posted.

Hundreds of papers? Evidence would suggest it’s not hard get past peer review.

Yes, it was averaging between 6-9 a day the last time I looked...and if peer review is so easy to get past I’m surprised there aren’t more peer reviewed published papers supporting the deniers position.

[STR160]

Kawasicki said:

Hundreds of papers? Evidence would suggest it’s not hard get past peer review.

Indeed so. If ones paper has alarmism and catastrophe as the outcome, then it's highly likely to get through.

[Gadgetmac]

STR160 said:

Kawasicki said:

Hundreds of papers? Evidence would suggest it’s not hard get past peer review.

Indeed so. If ones paper has alarmism and catastrophe as the outcome, then it's highly likely to get through.

I presume you can back up that generalisation?

[Clive Milk]

Amount of science on here ...

zero.

Amount of chewing over the fact ?

100%

Let's get back to basics and actually put a scientific paper, pro or for, up there and discus.

Or at least look at some data. Here's the global sea ice average , a good yearly bell weather compared to someone saying it was hot or cold in CNN or FOX

[Clive Milk]

Artic and Antarctic are both running very close to averages so far this year.

In the past people who promoted AGW said that the Arctic would melt first and then then the Antarctic would melt later due to AGW means.

As far as I can see this has not happened circa 2021 May.

Note I love watching the colder regions and also am fairly pro AGW .......

The Antarctic had a huge melting spell, and the Arctic too. But both seem to have recovered. Why? At least for the short term back to the norm.

Now that is a scientific question!

[Clive Milk]

Apologies , the original link

https://ads.nipr.ac.jp/vishop/#/extent

It's a really good site and their data has been top notch with no fk ups over the last 10 years, unlike DMI in Denmark for example.

[Kawasicki]

Clive Milk said:

Amount of science on here ...

zero.

Amount of chewing over the fact ?

100%

Let's get back to basics and actually put a scientific paper, pro or for, up there and discus.

Or at least look at some data. Here's the global sea ice average , a good yearly bell weather compared to someone saying it was hot or cold in CNN or FOX

Looking at a year’s worth of ice data is chewing over the fact.

[kerplunk]

Clive Milk said:

Artic and Antarctic are both running very close to averages so far this year.

In the past people who promoted AGW said that the Arctic would melt first and then then the Antarctic would melt later due to AGW means.

As far as I can see this has not happened circa 2021 May.

Note I love watching the colder regions and also am fairly pro AGW .......

The Antarctic had a huge melting spell, and the Arctic too. But both seem to have recovered. Why? At least for the short term back to the norm.

Now that is a scientific question!

I can't work out wtf you're on about.

The graph you link to shows declining decadal averages in the arctic and currently only at the average for the 2010s?