Climate Change - The Scientific Debate (Vol. II)
Discussion
robinessex said:
kerplunk said:
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
Climate is a Chaotic system. Now tell me how the maths works?kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
If the global warming trend of the last 50 years continues we'll blow by the IPCC lower bound in just a few more decades, and that's just the 'transient' climate sensitivity, not ECS. so the question remains - how do sceptics 'observe' that ECS is at the low end of the IPCC range and maybe even lower?
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:00
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:01
By your way of thinking, should the Nobel Institute ask Linus Pauling's family to hand back his Nobel Prize because of his daft belief that massive doses of vitamin C cure all sorts, from the common cold to cancer?
edit: reply was to gadgetmac
edit: reply was to gadgetmac
Edited by DocJock on Saturday 15th December 16:11
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.
But its interesting PRTVR didn’t come back with a better source, he’d rather insist you listen to Dr Bell.
gadgetmac said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.
But its interesting PRTVR didn’t come back with a better source, he’d rather insist you listen to Dr Bell.
Religion and climate change
https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/religious-...
kerplunk said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
If the global warming trend of the last 50 years continues we'll blow by the IPCC lower bound in just a few more decades, and that's just the 'transient' climate sensitivity, not ECS. so the question remains - how do sceptics 'observe' that ECS is at the low end of the IPCC range and maybe even lower?
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:00
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:01
The article in which it appears is here.
I am sure you could find a similar set of papers with higher values.
Whatever you're position on the alarmist-sceptic axis it surely appears that the science is about as settled on ECS as one's stomach after a night of real ale & vindaloo
jet_noise said:
kerplunk said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
If the global warming trend of the last 50 years continues we'll blow by the IPCC lower bound in just a few more decades, and that's just the 'transient' climate sensitivity, not ECS. so the question remains - how do sceptics 'observe' that ECS is at the low end of the IPCC range and maybe even lower?
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:00
Edited by kerplunk on Saturday 15th December 16:01
The article in which it appears is here.
I am sure you could find a similar set of papers with higher values.
Whatever you're position on the alarmist-sceptic axis it surely appears that the science is about as settled on ECS as one's stomach after a night of real ale & vindaloo
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.
But its interesting PRTVR didn’t come back with a better source, he’d rather insist you listen to Dr Bell.
Religion and climate change
https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/religious-...
As do senior CofE clergy.
If one wished to be obtuse that level of belief in a God would, alone, mean that their opinions were to be ignored as completely invalid no matter what their basis. Is it safe to think that the source of their opinion is God fearing scientists acting as advisors?
Or are the clergy playing politics?
LongQ said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.
But its interesting PRTVR didn’t come back with a better source, he’d rather insist you listen to Dr Bell.
Religion and climate change
https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/religious-...
As do senior CofE clergy.
If one wished to be obtuse that level of belief in a God would, alone, mean that their opinions were to be ignored as completely invalid no matter what their basis. Is it safe to think that the source of their opinion is God fearing scientists acting as advisors?
Or are the clergy playing politics?
However, deniers have to continue to source and quote from all of the various wackos and energy company mercenaries as you have very little choice.
PRTVR said:
A good listen, thanks.Jesus $600,000 in legal fees defending his position against Dr. Weaver and who ever else.
Some Judge said:
Link
Essentially, the judge in this latest case found Tim Ball’s entire article outlining his case against climate science to be as transparently unserious as an intentional parody, which may not exactly be the victory Ball hoped for.
I quite like that, the Judge only had one option which was to let Ball off, there was no offence, and this was the only way he [the Judge] could do this.Essentially, the judge in this latest case found Tim Ball’s entire article outlining his case against climate science to be as transparently unserious as an intentional parody, which may not exactly be the victory Ball hoped for.
Dr. Ball has it absolutely spot on, if there is consensus there is no science, if there is science there can be no consensus.
I struggle to comprehend why people cannot fathom this, but I can understand how they fathom this. It's because very few people are scientifically literate, and those that aren't scientifically educated have little interest in how real science works.
gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.
But its interesting PRTVR didn’t come back with a better source, he’d rather insist you listen to Dr Bell.
Religion and climate change
https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/religious-...
As do senior CofE clergy.
If one wished to be obtuse that level of belief in a God would, alone, mean that their opinions were to be ignored as completely invalid no matter what their basis. Is it safe to think that the source of their opinion is God fearing scientists acting as advisors?
Or are the clergy playing politics?
However, deniers have to continue to source and quote from all of the various wackos and energy company mercenaries as you have very little choice.
I am not making your point at all, no matter how much spin you try to apply. And you know it - but you cannot possibly admit it. It would weaken your faith.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 16th December 17:28
LongQ said:
gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.
But its interesting PRTVR didn’t come back with a better source, he’d rather insist you listen to Dr Bell.
Religion and climate change
https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/religious-...
As do senior CofE clergy.
If one wished to be obtuse that level of belief in a God would, alone, mean that their opinions were to be ignored as completely invalid no matter what their basis. Is it safe to think that the source of their opinion is God fearing scientists acting as advisors?
Or are the clergy playing politics?
However, deniers have to continue to source and quote from all of the various wackos and energy company mercenaries as you have very little choice.
I am not making your point at all, no matter how much spin you try to apply. And you know it - but you cannot possibly admit it. It would weaken your faith.
Edited by LongQ on Sunday 16th December 17:28
: an icon that has not invented yet and may well not do before planet 9 or X or something will be found:
LongQ said:
gadgetmac said:
LongQ said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
LoonyTunes said:
PRTVR said:
gadgetmac said:
PRTVR said:
kerplunk said:
Interesting use of the word 'observe' there. Are you just trying to make it sound more authentic than mere 'claim' or are you basing it on something tangible?
It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
The disbelief with climate models is based on real world observations, It seems to me most sceptics think climate sensitivity is low based on a disbelief in climate model projections but that's just argument from incredulity isn't it.
did the pause/ hiatus with temperature take place ?
If it did, did the climate models predict it? If not we have a large variable that is not accounted for, how many more unknowns are not known....
Another YouTube video
This one from Dr Tim Ball on the consensus.
https://youtu.be/SQFCKICwFEQ
Yes, quickly everyone, head over to YouTube to hear what the Creationist has to say on the subject.I have to give credit where credit is due, you really are good at this.
But you carry on taking your climate opinions from the bloke who thinks Adam and Eve were the actual first humans.
But its interesting PRTVR didn’t come back with a better source, he’d rather insist you listen to Dr Bell.
Religion and climate change
https://www.interfaithpowerandlight.org/religious-...
As do senior CofE clergy.
If one wished to be obtuse that level of belief in a God would, alone, mean that their opinions were to be ignored as completely invalid no matter what their basis. Is it safe to think that the source of their opinion is God fearing scientists acting as advisors?
Or are the clergy playing politics?
However, deniers have to continue to source and quote from all of the various wackos and energy company mercenaries as you have very little choice.
I am not making your point at all, no matter how much spin you try to apply. And you know it - but you cannot possibly admit it. It would weaken your faith.
It’s actually the opposite as its deniers quoting Noah’s Ark believing Creationists on this thread.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff