| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
patrix_neo
Guru
Joined: 08 Jan 2004
Posts: 333
Location: Svedala
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 8:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| So, have this thread reached a final consensus yet? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm afraid there can never be a consensus as long as there are dumb-ass right-wingers who think they are free to attack any field of science - such as evolution or climate change - which contradicts their inflexible, polarising dogma. It's sobering to think that it's impossible to run as a republican candidate without denying at least one of these.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ichbinsisyphos
Guru
Joined: 08 Dec 2006
Posts: 535
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 9:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Meanwhile the temperature in Longyearbyen, Svalbard/Spitzbergen rises to +7°C, making it the warmest region in Norway 
So what's basically happening is that cold air moves down from the north pole region, pushed by high pressure in Russia and pulled by low pressure in the Mediterranean area.
_________________
Please refer to "Austria" as "Republik Österreich" or "Republik Oesterreich" to avoid misunderstandings. Thank you.
| Muso wrote: | | I've done a lot of LSD |
| BoneKracker wrote: | | I have an IQ in the 140s |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamilian
n00b
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | Mess with science and you're messing with me  |
| mcgruff wrote: | | Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own science. Logic, reason and evidence set strict boundaries outside of which one cannot make meaningful statements. |
| mcgruff wrote: | | You must also accept that matters of science are decided by science, ie logic, reason, evidence, and - above all - published papers in reputable journals which set out detailed, formal arguments and have passed through the process of peer review. |
| mcgruff wrote: | | Where is the peer-reviewed science to support their claims? I told you before: matters of science are decided by scientific research and peer review. Everything else is bullshit. |
Okay, well hopefully we can see some of this peer reviewed science in action. Do you happen to know what the equilibrium climate sensitivity is? Since you've requested peer-reviewed science to support someone else's claims I think it's only reasonable that you provide a similar source to backup your response.
_________________
May contain traces of nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
No, no. You don't understand. Only mcgruff has Teh Scyents!1!!
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | I'm afraid there can never be a consensus as long as there are dumb-ass right-wingers who think they are free to attack any field of science - such as evolution or climate change - which contradicts their inflexible, polarising dogma. It's sobering to think that it's impossible to run as a republican candidate without denying at least one of these. |
Knee jerk. Premature ejaculation. Nobody attacked science here, except you (when you ridiculously said there had been no higher temperatures prior to 2005).
It's all in your mind. You are obsessed by the idea that people are "attacking science", when the truth is that all they are doing is laughing at your sophomoric, un-scientific grasp of the situation.
Teh Scyents!!! Only I teh Scyents!!
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kamilian wrote: | | Do you happen to know what the equilibrium climate sensitivity is? Since you've requested peer-reviewed science to support someone else's claims I think it's only reasonable that you provide a similar source to backup your response. |
If you got an honest point to make, go ahead and make it. You don't need my help.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 09, 2012 11:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | It's all in your mind. You are obsessed by the idea that people are "attacking science", when the truth is that all they are doing is laughing at your sophomoric, un-scientific grasp of the situation. |
It is undeniably true that republicans have a shocking record on science with respect to evolution and climate change, and that you are very firmly in this camp.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamilian
n00b
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | If you got an honest point to make, go ahead and make it. You don't need my help. |
You're right, I don't need your help.
| IPCC AR4 WG1 Box 10.2 wrote: | | The mean ±1 standard deviation values from these models were 3.8°C ± 0.78°C in the SAR (17 models), 3.5°C ± 0.92°C in the TAR (15 models) and in this assessment 3.26°C ± 0.69°C (18 models). |
| IPCC AR4 WG1 Box 10.2 wrote: | | Studies that take all the important known uncertainties in observed historical trends into account cannot rule out the possibility that the climate sensitivity exceeds 4.5°C, although such high values are consistently found to be less likely than values of around 2.0°C to 3.5°C. |
| Hansel et al. 2008 wrote: | | Abstract: Paleoclimate data show that climate sensitivity is ~3°C for doubled CO2, including only fast feedback processes. Equilibrium sensitivity, including slower surface albedo feedbacks, is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. |
And your beloved SkepticalScience references Masson-Delmotte et al. 2010. Unfortunately that paper is not freely available, however, SkS have kindly reproduced an image illustrating climate sensitivity increasing with temperature.
So, which peer-reviewed "science" should I believe? The one claiming equilibrium sensitivity is ~6°C? Or that it's unlikely to be that high? Or the one claiming it's more sensitive as it gets warmer? Seeing as Hansen et al. 2008 requires a high climate sensitivity to explain past climate change that creates a lower bound if it's more sensitive at the warmer temperatures of this interglacial period (Hansen et al. 2008 took two points, the sensitivity they calculated would correspond to a temperature less than the current interglacial period and greater than the previous glacial period).
_________________
May contain traces of nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
Which one to believe? Three degrees is the safe bet. Hansen agrees, in the short term.
You're missing a trick though. Schmittner...?
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | It's all in your mind. You are obsessed by the idea that people are "attacking science", when the truth is that all they are doing is laughing at your sophomoric, un-scientific grasp of the situation. |
It is undeniably true that republicans have a shocking record on science with respect to evolution and climate change, and that you are very firmly in this camp. |
No, it's not true. The only thing that is undeniably true is that you are a Global Warming Religionist, stammering, sputtering, flailing your arms, and spewing sophomoric, pseudo-science banalities all over everybody in sight and making an ass of yourself with astonishing persistence and vigor.
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamilian
n00b
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | Which one to believe? Three degrees is the safe bet. Hansen agrees, in the short term.
You're missing a trick though. Schmittner...? |
So you're saying Hansen et. al 2008 are wrong then? I should use 3°C? Please explain how past climate change occurred with such a low equilibrium sensitivity.
I never mentioned anything about Schmittner, and I'm not missing any tricks. I'm referring to the not only incorrect, but not even consistent "science" you refer to.
_________________
May contain traces of nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
What do you think is incorrect?
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Old School
Apprentice
Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 230
Location: The Covered Bridge Capital of Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
mcgruff actually said, "inflexible, polarising dogma," and was referring to someone else! 
_________________
I am not young enough to know everything.
- Oscar Wilde |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamilian
n00b
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | What do you think is incorrect? |
About what? One of your statements? The information that I provided?
You still haven't explained how all of the information I presented can be correct, and in the process have confused climate sensitivity that only includes fast feedback processes with equilibrium climate sensitivity.
_________________
May contain traces of nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
This is the part where mcgruff scrambles around desperately, trying not to answer the question. Usually, he will ask his own question, and pretend that he asked first, and that you owe him an answer, rather than vice versa. When he gets called out on that, he'll try some kind of red herring, hoping you'll forget. Usually these are amateurish and delivered via a straw man, because that's about the only tool in his argumentation tool bag.
Teh Scyents!!1!! Only mcgruff has teh Scyents!!
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamilian
n00b
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
I just thought you guys were having a bit of an S&M session with all the talk about spanking going on
_________________
May contain traces of nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 1:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Old School wrote: | | mcgruff actually said, "inflexible, polarising dogma," and was referring to someone else! |
How flexible ought one be with gravity? Or high voltage electric currents? Is there such a thing as "Republican electricity"? Maybe you believe electrons have a strong attraction to rich people and trickle down to the poor.
Science doesn't always leave much room for argument. In any given field, there are limits to what one can reasonably say.
Now stop interrupting me while I'm spanking
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kamilian wrote: | | You still haven't explained how all of the information I presented can be correct, and in the process have confused climate sensitivity that only includes fast feedback processes with equilibrium climate sensitivity. |
Noop. You've misunderstood Hansen's argument (Hansel..?). Climate models which investigate the short term routinely exclude long term factors - you're not comparing like with like. Like I said, note that Hansolo does agree with the others in the short term.
Also, there are a number of questions you could ask about the analysis he made. It's probably best to look at the paper as a ranging shot and not the last word on the subject. He's more likely to be correct that long-term sensitivity is significantly greater than the Charney sensitivity, but we can't be confident that he's nailed the precise amount.
However, there's a much more fundamental, conceptual failure in your position. You seem to think that if all theories are not in perfect agreement this implies that they nobody really knows what they're talking about. That's ridiculous, and extremely naive of the way science works. The papers you mentioned define some boundaries, that is all. You're free to argue about different methods and analyses within reasonable limits but you can't say they all must be wrong because they don't agree.
In fact there is a broad consensus - the 3 deg figure, or one close to it crops up again and again.
Note that science gathers evidence and then tries to figure out what it means, honestly and dispassionately. You have got an obvious chip on your shoulder and are (mis-)using science to prove what you think you already know. For that you get a...
[SPANK!]
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | | This is the part where mcgruff scrambles around desperately, trying not to answer the question. Usually, he will ask his own question, and pretend that he asked first, and that you owe him an answer, rather than vice versa. When he gets called out on that, he'll try some kind of red herring, hoping you'll forget. Usually these are amateurish and delivered via a straw man, because that's about the only tool in his argumentation tool bag. |
Awww bonekwacky butthurty? Awwwwww!
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mcgruff wrote: | | BoneKracker wrote: | | This is the part where mcgruff scrambles around desperately, trying not to answer the question. Usually, he will ask his own question, and pretend that he asked first, and that you owe him an answer, rather than vice versa. When he gets called out on that, he'll try some kind of red herring, hoping you'll forget. Usually these are amateurish and delivered via a straw man, because that's about the only tool in his argumentation tool bag. |
Awww bonekwacky butthurty? Awwwwww! |
Not butthurty. Just laughing at your unintentionally clown-like antics, like everybody else. 
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 7:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
How typically republican of you: sneering at people who expect scientific opinions to have some grounding in real science not party dogma.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BoneKracker
Veteran
Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1271
Location: U.S.A.
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I think everyone here has seen just how grounded your opinions are in "real science".
_________________
Obama killed bin Laden like Nixon was the first man on the Moon. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kamilian
n00b
Joined: 23 Jun 2003
Posts: 59
Location: Sydney, Australia
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 9:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BoneKracker wrote: | This is the part where mcgruff scrambles around desperately, trying not to answer the question. Usually, he will ask his own question, and pretend that he asked first, and that you owe him an answer, rather than vice versa. When he gets called out on that, he'll try some kind of red herring, hoping you'll forget. Usually these are amateurish and delivered via a straw man, because that's about the only tool in his argumentation tool bag.
Teh Scyents!!1!! Only mcgruff has teh Scyents!! |
Ultimately, you weren't far from reality!
| mcgruff wrote: | | kamilian wrote: | | You still haven't explained how all of the information I presented can be correct, and in the process have confused climate sensitivity that only includes fast feedback processes with equilibrium climate sensitivity. |
Noop. You've misunderstood Hansen's argument (Hansel..?). Climate models which investigate the short term routinely exclude long term factors - you're not comparing like with like. Like I said, note that Hansolo does agree with the others in the short term.
Also, there are a number of questions you could ask about the analysis he made. It's probably best to look at the paper as a ranging shot and not the last word on the subject. He's more likely to be correct that long-term sensitivity is significantly greater than the Charney sensitivity, but we can't be confident that he's nailed the precise amount.
However, there's a much more fundamental, conceptual failure in your position. You seem to think that if all theories are not in perfect agreement this implies that they nobody really knows what they're talking about. That's ridiculous, and extremely naive of the way science works. The papers you mentioned define some boundaries, that is all. You're free to argue about different methods and analyses within reasonable limits but you can't say they all must be wrong because they don't agree.
In fact there is a broad consensus - the 3 deg figure, or one close to it crops up again and again.
Note that science gathers evidence and then tries to figure out what it means, honestly and dispassionately. You have got an obvious chip on your shoulder and are (mis-)using science to prove what you think you already know. For that you get a...
[SPANK!] |
If you'd read the paper that I referred to as I have, or even just the abstract, heck, just understood the small phrase that I quoted, you'd have realised that models have nothing to do with "Hansen's argument" as you put it.
Hansen looks at paleoclimate data and deduces that the equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~6°C for doubled CO2 for the range of climate states between glacial conditions and ice-free Antarctica. The IPCC claims that same quantity, equilibrium climate sensitivity is ~3°C with values higher than 4.5°C less likely. On top of this, Masson-Delmotte claims that warmer temperatures correspond to higher climate sensitivities.
Hopefully now it's clear enough for even you to realise that I am comparing like for like, and you are the one that keeps confusing the different sensitivities, and as I said, it can't all be correct as it's not even self-consistent.
_________________
May contain traces of nuts. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mcgruff
Tux's lil' helper
Joined: 28 Dec 2004
Posts: 128
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 10, 2012 10:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kamilian wrote: | | If you'd read the paper that I referred to as I have... |
You're getting hung up on your own words. From the Handel et al paper:
| Quote: | Our current analysis suggests that humanity must aim for an even lower level of GHGs.
Paleoclimate data and ongoing global changes indicate that ‘slow’ climate feedback processes
not included in most climate models, such as ice sheet disintegration, vegetation migration, and
GHG release from soils, tundra or ocean sediments, may begin to come into play on time scales
as short as centuries or less (7). |
They may "come into play" but interactive factors such as changes in ice cover, do not have their full effect for millennia. You really think Antarctic ice will disappear this century, or the next...?
However, this is all kind of irrelevant to your original point. You weighed in to this topic complaining about this comment, and others in the same vein:
| mcgruff wrote: | | Everyone can have their own opinions but you can't have your own science. Logic, reason and evidence set strict boundaries outside of which one cannot make meaningful statements. |
If a bunch of people figure out an X degree sensitivity, someone else claims Y, and a third argues for Z, and they each have good evidence to support their claim, they are all valid, albeit conflicting, arguments. You may feel there is good reason to favour one over the other and that's fine. Someone else can argue a different point of view, and that's fine too, but only if they stick within the boundaries defined by logic, reason and evidence. What you cannot do is insist that sensitivity is A deg without a proper, formal argument which has passed the basic sanity check of peer review to back it up.
_________________
the underlay overlay |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
Off the Wall
