The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free! human caused climate change makes most sense, and should be concerningin Politics

CYDdharta

Ampersand said:

You seem to have fallen into a common error where you think repeating your opinion makes you right. In future please provide actual evidence.

For instance if you'd bothered to read the study I provided (https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002) you'd have noted not only is it not Cook et al, It's also not a single study that happens to agree with Cook's findings and present a slightly higher figure. In fact it's actually a meta-analysis of all studies into the consensus on climate change. Meta-analyses are a powerful tool because they combine the findings of numerous individual peices of research, providing far more statistical validity than any single study. It shows the consensus is consistent and valid across a whole host of seperate .

For Cook's study, as already explained the number of studies is so huge that even if the few "false inclusions" you allege were all changed to suit your whims, it still results in a 97% consensus.

Not only that but you and the blog post you use as evidence are lying about half of Cook's work, because the procedure of checking with the authors to see if the they have a different view of their work was already carried out as part of Cook's very study. The key difference is Cook et al contacted all authors - those who accepted AGW, those who were in the middle and those who were against. When misallocations from both sides (AGW accepters being mistakenly labelled as neutral or deniers AND vice versa) it turned out the consensus was almost spot on but actually even higher than originally thought - the exact opposite of your claims!

Conclusion: Your blog post with no methodology or data to support ignores the half of the paper where they ensure papers were classified correctly due to the massive bias inherent in it being a non-scientific anti-global warming blog. It then does a rudimentary copy of Cook's checking while  acting as if this is some shocking new insight and only performs the half of the checks which show the papers which need to be reclassified as AGW denial, not the half which would show the greater amount fhwihc need to be classified as supporting AGW. You go along with this presumably because you're biased or have no idea what you're talking about.

My claims can all be backed up by the fully laid out methodology in Cook's work becaue this is something they fully accounted for at the time:

" In some cases, ambiguous language made it difficult to ascertain the intended meaning of the authors. Naturally, a short abstract could not be expected to communicate all the details of the full paper. The implementation of the author self-rating process allowed us to look beyond the abstract. A comparison between self-ratings and abstract ratings revealed that categorization based on the abstract alone underestimates the percentage of papers taking a position on AGW."

In summary:

"The narrative presented by some dissenters is that the scientific consensus is '...on the point of collapse' (Oddie 2012) while '...the number of scientific "heretics" is growing with each passing year' (Allègre et a 2012). A systematic, comprehensive review of the literature provides quantitative evidence countering this assertion. The number of papers rejecting AGW is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW."

And this kind of response it typical of someone with reading comprehension issues.  What you claim to be a "study" is merely a faulty response to a criticism unrelated to the Cook errors that I have already pointed out.  That being the case, it failed entirely to address the error i have pointed out previously.  In fact, that response fails to address most of the criticisms it claims to be addressing;

My comment on Cook 2013 was published at last, together with a reply. I responded earlier to Cook's responses to my substantive critiques: In a nutshell, Cook evades three out of five critiques, including that the data collection was not blind. For the remaining two, Cook 2016 admit that Cook 2013 misled the reader. This would normally imply a retraction.

Cook 2016 claims that I "misrepresent" results. Misrepresentation is a big word. Earlier consensus studies claim to have found a very high degree of agreement with the notion that the global warming observed in the instrumental record is at least partly caused by humans.* However, these high rates of consensus are only found if the sample is restricted in a way that is superficially plausible but ultimately arbitrary.

I show that the full sample shows different results than the subsamples. I also note that, for every subsample above the mean, there is a subsample below the mean.

If this is misrepresentation, then I hope that everyone will misrepresent their data in the future.

There is a more subtle thing going on. Cook 2016 underline that Cook 2013 agrees with other consensus studies. However, the other consensus studies find high consensus rates in exclusive subsamples. Cook 2013 finds the same in the whole sample, which is numerically dominated by papers that would have been excluded in the earlier consensus studies. Indeed, if I restrict the Cook 2013 sample to geoscience journals, the consensus rate falls.

In other words, Cook 2013 not only disagrees with other studies on the level of consensus, it also disagrees on the pattern of consensus.

https://archive.is/es1If#selection-179.0-223.14

A swing and a miss.  Get back to us if you find anything relevant to the topic at hand.

ZeusAres42

John_C_87 said:

 

@ZeusAres42 ;
Thank you ……...In being direct. I would think a couple small things are missing. Also this is a math model and not a math proof to be proven. Over all it may simply just be part of a mathematic stage so that results of a testing unrelated to the mathematics can actual be past off as an answer to math questions be use of algebra.

At first glance:

 t - time is not clearly defined mathematically as the principle of solar season or time they are not the same.

g - acceleration by gravity is a limitation the evaluation of the models is series of fixed equation. This does not work in favor to establish human climate manipulation. 

There is use of R:

 R - universal gas constant without temperatures of gas like Co2 in outer space, which is stored as ice, that is at least as cold as -56.4 C the temperature at which co2 freezes to solid. 

if I have time I will play with it a little over the next few weeks...……….I hate mathematics and much of my time is now spent on calculus in relationship to time itself.

From one or more of the sources I gave you, you will find math models of AGW or like you say "human climate manipulation." the model above was just a basic example of how these things work.

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@Ampersand

http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

Extract from your reference- 

Figure 3.1 Ice sheet mass balance data sets submitted to the second IMBIE assessment. Some participants did not encompass the ice sheets in their entirety. 

Your previous statement - "10 seconds it would have taken to check my citations and find out you were wrong, the very quotes I provided talk about the Antarctic Ice Sheet in it's entirety and show you are wrong"

Yeah, you are right about the 10 seconds. It took me 10 seconds to find out that you were wrong yet again and you provided the evidence yourself.
Thanks for providing me with your own rebuttal. You have saved me a lot of time and trouble. lol

Do you not understand what a quote is?

Because despite me specifying I was talking about studies I quotes and then you copying my statement above where I explicitly say that I'm talking about the studies I quoted, you then decide that obviously I'm not talking about the studies I quoted and am talking about a study I link to in a separate point. Great work there Sherlock.

It's such a stupid mistake to make where you're so obviously in the wrong, I can only assume you're hoping that no-one will actually look through the posts in any detail and just assume because you seem confident that must mean you have a point rather than be talking rubbish.

The quotes I provided were from Martín-Español, A., et al. 2016 and Rignot, E, et al 2018 - not the AIMBE which is a separate point you're now trying to misrepresent e.g. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/73983863.pdf and https://www.pnas.org/content/116/4/1095. Both talk about the entire antarctic ice sheet.


Also the AIMBE study combined data from multiple studies that did assess the entire antarctic ice sheet and multiple studies that focused on specific regions to get a much more detailed look at the total mass loss than any one study could provide, something which according to you wild claims should be impossible because you thin only one scientist in the world has thoguht to look at the entire antarctic ice flow..

You also fail to answer the question. If your single outlying study is correct rather than the massive amount of studies and work that disagree with it - why can no-one else replicate his results and confirm the findings which is a basic requirement of the scientific method? How is he magically recording ice increases that have a third of the mass they should do?

Ampersand

CYDdharta said:

And this kind of response it typical of someone with reading comprehension issues.  What you claim to be a "study" is merely a faulty response to a criticism unrelated to the Cook errors that I have already pointed out.  That being the case, it failed entirely to address the error i have pointed out previously.  In fact, that response fails to address most of the criticisms it claims to be addressing;

https://archive.is/es1If#selection-179.0-223.14

A swing and a miss.  Get back to us if you find anything relevant to the topic at hand.

Having been provided with multiple studies showing the 97% consensus is accurate in my prior posts, you call it "faulty" but can provide no evidence beyond one scientist making baseless claims on their personal blog.

If you think the baseless claims of one scientist have more value then the detailed studies and evidence produced by dozens of scientists, that just goes to show both how desperately you are grasping at straws and how much you value things based on their confirming your biases rather then them actually having evidence to support them.

Also you'll note that Tok's argument is

a) Irrelevant as the author self-ratings confirms that the independent abstract ratings (where Tok raises his issues) were accurate and you've already implicitly conceded this point as mentioned in my prior posts.

b) Involves the idea that you should count papers which didn't mention AGW in their abstract as unsure about AGW. That's an absurd idea as not mentioning AGW is not the same as being unsure about AGW. If you follow Tok's methodology you end up in a position where there's no consensus on anything, even on things where there obviously are. Most earth science most papers won't mention if the earth is round or gravity exists in the abstract, so applying Tok's suggested methodology results in bizarre non-representative results where it would look like 99% of scientists aren't sure if the earth is flat or round. Why would we apply such an obviously poor methodology? Just because someone says so on a blog and regardless of how irrelevant it is you'll except anything that matches your biases?

John_C_87

ZeusAres42 said:

John_C_87 said:

 

@ZeusAres42 ;
Thank you ……...In being direct. I would think a couple small things are missing. Also this is a math model and not a math proof to be proven. Over all it may simply just be part of a mathematic stage so that results of a testing unrelated to the mathematics can actual be past off as an answer to math questions be use of algebra.

At first glance:

 t - time is not clearly defined mathematically as the principle of solar season or time they are not the same.

FYI t- was for = air temperature; not time.

First line ZeusAres42:  "The symbols denote = time"

Keep in mind a math model is not a mathematic proof. ( Math Proof ) For all, there exist. Where as the ( math model )  is suggesting linear calculus optimization's are generally equal to each other data is mathematically presumed true by use of fixed equation's in algebra. We are not agreeing that the model is wrong only the model simple does not explain a proof of wrong itself the model depends on several mathematic proof that is located somewhere else.

Optimization[  ]

Main article: Mathematical optimization

For a continuously differentiable function of several real variables, a point P (that is a set of values for the input variables, which is viewed as a point in Rn) is critical if all of the partial derivatives of the function are zero at P, or, equivalently, if its gradient is zero. The critical values are the values of the function at the critical points.

If the function is smooth, or, at least twice continuously differentiable, a critical point may be either a local maximum, a local minimum or a saddle point. The different cases may be distinguished by considering the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix of second derivatives.

By Fermat's theorem, all local maxima and minima of a differentiable function occur at critical points. Therefore, to find the local maxima and minima, it suffices, theoretically, to compute the zeros of the gradient and the eigenvalues of the Hessian matrix at these zeros.

http://dev1.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/44976#Comment_44976

Akhenaten

@Ampersand ;
 Oh my god. Your spelling mistake rate is far worst than those nutty climate scientists. If you can't write a sentence without making a whole bunch of errors how can you hope to ever understand the complexities of climate data? 

Quote - "Because despite me specifying I was talking about studies I quotes and then you copying my statement above where I explicitly say that I'm talking about the studies I quoted, you then decide that obviously I'm not talking about the studies I quoted and am talking about a study I link to in a separate point. Great work there Sherlock."

Whatever you do, don't ever become an English teacher. lol
Yeah, dude, I know yus is talking bout it's copying me statement yeah like. lol

Akhenaten

@John_C_87

 E = idiot  x the speed of stupidity squared.

John_C_87

To Akhenten:  For All complex basic principle...………..

Akhenaten said:

@John_C_87

 E = idiot  x the speed of stupidity squared.

there exists the E = Energy of avoidance of basic math.........

"Unrelated to this discussion as it is referencing my basic Algebra Teacher. I did tell you directly my  silence on Einstein's Relativity theory was not 
held over, or about money.....There was a statement of confidentiality that had a specific mathematic condition attached to it." 

Umm….. hate to do this as people are generally not stupid, stupidity is  a Y or Z vector not X in relationship to origin and space; whereas with the calculus of time stupid is not bound to any set of direction which means it can be held by acclimation as motion in everything as degree.

My contribution to the world of Mathematic Physics as a hobbyist is a law of calculus in relationship to multiple Pi as yPi.  “For all diameter there exists an equal circumference.”

What did you do this year?

John_C_87

@ZeusAres42 ;

This is a mathematic proof. “For all diameter there exists an equal circumference.”

What is stated in the proof. When a circle has a diameter, not if, when. The diameter then can be bent as an arc to form a second circumference. This process also works as a second direction in motion. Form every arc of circumference there exists a diameter of a circle. In math it is an outline that back laws of motion over theory of relativity by use of calculus time.

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@Ampersand ;
 Oh my god. Your spelling mistake rate is far worst than those nutty climate scientists. If you can't write a sentence without making a whole bunch of errors how can you hope to ever understand the complexities of climate data? 

Quote - "Because despite me specifying I was talking about studies I quotes and then you copying my statement above where I explicitly say that I'm talking about the studies I quoted, you then decide that obviously I'm not talking about the studies I quoted and am talking about a study I link to in a separate point. Great work there Sherlock."

Whatever you do, don't ever become an English teacher. lol
Yeah, dude, I know yus is talking bout it's copying me statement yeah like. lol

Feel free to stick to this level of "debate". It's meaningless and provides no value, but it seems about your level.

You've already shown that you have no knowledge of climate change and have nothing to defend against the overwhelming evidence showing climate change in man-made. Your only other trick, which was to outright lie about what studies claimed - has blown up in your face as there are people able and willing to point out the actual evidentiary record.

ZeusAres42

@Ampersand

You do realize that Akhenaten is a troll right? He's already had one post removed for trolling. If he continues to go down this route he might just find himself getting suspended from the site.

Akhenaten

@Ampersand

I have clearly demonstrated via the Joannenova website above which you didn't read or comment on, that the whole climate change and  IPCC is a fraud on humanity.


http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

The only way that you can defend a lie and a fraud is by telling more lies and adding more fraud.
And that's all you are doing. You are just adding more IPCC data which is all fraudulent data to prove that you are right.
Note - Dr Zeus is too scared to even reply to my comments and needs to give little back stabs as his only means of communication.
Note - Calling somebody a troll is a troll like activity. Thus, I keep seeing these self induced contradictions. Thus, duplicity is a standard behaviour pattern for the climate change fanatics.

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@Ampersand

I have clearly demonstrated via the Joannenova website above which you didn't read or comment on, that the whole climate change and  IPCC is a fraud on humanity.


http://joannenova.com.au/2018/10/first-audit-of-global-temperature-data-finds-freezing-tropical-islands-boiling-towns-boats-on-land/

The only way that you can defend a lie and a fraud is by telling more lies and adding more fraud.
And that's all you are doing. You are just adding more IPCC data which is all fraudulent data to prove that you are right.
Note - Dr Zeus is too scared to even reply to my comments and needs to give little back stabs as his only means of communication.
Note - Calling somebody a troll is a troll like activity. Thus, I keep seeing these self induced contradictions. Thus, duplicity is a standard behaviour pattern for the climate change fanatics.

"The only way you can defend a lie and a fraud is by telling more lies and adding more fraud?"

So are you admitting you're telling lies and committing fraud to cover up your previous lies and fraud?

I've already shown how you've lied about climate change and presented fake evidence, which you've been unable to offer a defence for and have resorted to changing the subject - as if your opinions are trustworthy at this point.

If you want to back up your claims, feel free to provide evidence because your link does nothing of the kind.

Your link shows that from the millions of observations in the HadCrut dataset, there were up to 70 individual issues in the dataset - which is including issues that would have no effect on the results like Hawaii being misspelt. 

Even if you uncritically accept every single claim because a climate change denial blog says you should (so much for the scientific method!), a 0.000001% error rate doesn't change the results and is entirely expected when incorporating such a massive amount of data.

It also isn't indicative of "fraud" or "lies" as those are issues in the dataset rather than the HadCrut's work e.g. one of the ten thousand plus recording stations glitching for a month back in 1967.

piloteer

@Akhenaten

You totally misunderstand and misrepresent the "waffle maker hypothesis", or "thermostat", or whatever you people call it. Nowhere does the waffle maker hypothesis state that the atmosphere does not act like a greenhouse. The true argument being made by the waffle maker hypothesis is that the ocean can only reach a maximum temperature (31°C) before a natural reaction kicks in and regulates ocean temperatures. There's actually debate among these anti-science pushers on what causes this. Some say it's negative cloud feedback, while others argue that it's enhanced evaporation that causes this. Regardless, it has been refuted. Not only has it been shown that tropical ocean temperatures can and have breached the 31°C threshold, it's been shown that tropical ocean temperatures have become to hot for living organisms to be able to survive in some parts of the tropics. So your whole "maximum temperature" theory will just have to sit on the bench for now. Also, negative cloud feedback was disproved even before your boy Watts lached onto it, so your hick cloud watching friend has been pushing disproved science(Am I disappointed?.......Yes. Am I surprised?.......... No). And just in case you were wondering, the enhanced evaporation "theory" turned out to be a wash too.

https://www.nature.com/articles/357230a0
Williams2009FalseThermostats.pdf
https://phys.org/news/2017-03-evidence-tropical-thermostat-theory-global.html

Jay Zwally is the author of the Antarctic study that claims enhanced snowfall in Antarctic has caused more land ice to build up than has been lost by melting sea ice. The author of that study warned climatologists that the findings would be purposely distorted by science deniers. He pointed out that his study does not demonstrate that ocean temperatures aren't rising, or that sea levels aren't rising. Furthermore, data from NASA's GRACE satellite has disputed the findings of the Antarctic study. 


https://www.mediamatters.org/research/2015/11/04/nasa-scientist-warned-deniers-would-distort-his/206612

piloteer

@Ampersand

Are you Brittish, because only British people say "misspelt" instead of misspelled? Just wondering.

Akhenaten

@piloteer

Thanks for the references. I will quote directly from your references.

NASA Study Finds Antarctica Has Experienced Net Ice Gains In Recent Years Due To 10,000 Year Trend Of Increased Snowfall. A new study by NASA published on October 30 in the Journal of Glaciology found that the Antarctic ice sheet has been increasing in recent years due to a 10,000 year trend of increased snow accumulation in East Antarctica. The study stated that ice losses in West Antarctica have been outweighed by East Antarctica's ice increases.

Thanks for confirming my theory and demolishing your own climate change nonsense theory.

ZeusAres42

Due to the number of scientific studies on climate change the only rational thing to do at the time being is to accept the scientific consensus provisionally.

piloteer

@Akhenaten

HA!!! You haven't confirmed $hit, and I'm not sure why you call it "your theory". I get the feeling that the best theory you're capable of is new and improved ways to huff paint thinner. Are we just gonna ignore the fact that "your"thermostat theory was dismantled and tossed to the curb? I suppose it would also be convenient for you to ignore the data from the GRACE satellite that refutes the study by Jay Zwally. I think it's pretty obvious to everyone here that it's time for you to hang it up.

""""Lead Author Jay Zwally: "I Know Some Of The Climate Deniers Will Jump On This," But "It Should Not Take Away From The Concern About Climate Warming." In an interview with Nature, the study's lead author, glaciologist Jay Zwally, warned that "climate deniers" would wrongly tout the study as proof that "we don't have to worry [about global warming] as some people have been making out":

The findings do not mean that Antarctica is not in trouble, Zwally notes. "I know some of the climate deniers will jump on this, and say this means we don't have to worry as much as some people have been making out," he says. "It should not take away from the concern about climate warming." As global temperatures rise, Antarctica is expected to contribute more to sea-level rise, though when exactly that effect will kick in, and to what extent, remains unclear. [Nature, 10/2/15]

But Study Does Not Disprove Scientific Consensus

Study Authors: Findings Mostly In Agreement With Other Studies, Do Not Discount Future Sea Level Rise.Zwally stated in the NASA press release that the study is "essentially in agreement with other studies" showing that land ice in West Antarctica is severely decreasing, but that the "main disagreement is for East Antarctica and the interior of West Antarctica." He also noted that over the next couple of decades, ice loss in West Antarctica will likely outweigh the snowfall increase in East Antarctica, and that sea level rise over past decades must be coming from somewhere else. The Christian Science Monitor reported:

It could take only a few decades for the ice melt in Antarctica to outweigh the ice gains, the paper's authors say.

"I don't think there will be enough snowfall increase to offset these losses," Jay Zwally, NASA glaciologist and lead author of the study, said in a press release.For now, the study authors say, these findings challenge current explanations for sea level rise, much of which is attributed to melting ice sheets in Greenland and Antarctica."The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away," said Dr. Zwally."But this is also bad news," he added. "If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for." [Christian Science Monitor, 11/1/15]"""""

Akhenaten

@piloteer

Science is not about consensus. Science is about facts. The facts show that there may be some losses of ice in the North Pole but this loss is balanced by gains in the South Pole. This is how the thermostat theory or analogy works. The greenhouse analogy is faulty because the air is not trapped like a greenhouse. You need to embrace the un-trapness of the globe as a whole I think. Note- It only takes one anomaly to disprove a theory. (Robert Distinti's rules of acquisition)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7q5ayEUfW0&list=PL2fbwSsQ2zlVqNKfdcA_FAbVXLzUHFvEU

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@piloteer

Thanks for the references. I will quote directly from your references.

NASA Study Finds Antarctica Has Experienced Net Ice Gains In Recent Years Due To 10,000 Year Trend Of Increased Snowfall. A new study by NASA published on October 30 in the Journal of Glaciology found that the Antarctic ice sheet has been increasing in recent years due to a 10,000 year trend of increased snow accumulation in East Antarctica. The study stated that ice losses in West Antarctica have been outweighed by East Antarctica's ice increases.

Thanks for confirming my theory and demolishing your own climate change nonsense theory.

Of 24 Studies in the Antarctic ice Sheet, 23 show ice loss and 1 shows ice gain

   Scientist: I'll look at each study in depth and come to a clear understanding of what's going on, including why one study is a massive outlier.

   Normal Person:I'll trust the 23 studies that all have consistent results, not the 1 random study whose results can't be replicated even though that's a basic requirement of the scientific method

   Akhenaten: I'll ignore every single study except the one that matches my biases, which I'll lie about and pretend is the only evidence.

Your evidence has already been countered in previous posts. If you don't have anything new, you might as well just quit.

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@piloteer

Science is not about consensus. Science is about facts. The facts show that there may be some losses of ice in the North Pole but this loss is balanced by gains in the South Pole. This is how the thermostat theory or analogy works. The greenhouse analogy is faulty because the air is not trapped like a greenhouse. You need to embrace the un-trapness of the globe as a whole I think. Note- It only takes one anomaly to disprove a theory. (Robert Distinti's rules of acquisition)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7q5ayEUfW0&list=PL2fbwSsQ2zlVqNKfdcA_FAbVXLzUHFvEU

Nice video from a crazy person who believes they have invented their own version of science called "Ethereal Mechanics" which proves all science in the last 300 years wrong.  

You realise that even if we accepted this crazy person's claims with no critical analysis or thought as you seem to want us to, it would mean you are wrong as the criteria you are trying to apply to climate change applies even more so to your claims? Not just because any experiments which might shows unexpected results won't be based on this crazy "Ethereal Mechanics" he employs, but rather because if we automatically assume 23 climate change studies are wrong because 1 climate change study disagrees with them, we also have to automatically assume the 1 climate change study is wrong because the 23 studies disagree with them.

Of course reasonable people actually look at evidence rather than finding ways to avoid having to do so. Not only that but we don't accept evidence as valid based on single studies, which is why we conduct them again and again and again to ensure the results are accurate before we accept the conclusion. There have been experiments where due to errors by the scientists running an experiment it has seemed like water had memory properties akin to what homeopathy would expect - which is why when the results we retested and same to be false. If Zwally's study was the only study that existed on antarctic ice mass change, then we'd say "Okay, we need more studies but for the moment the evidence does indicate the antarctic is gaining ice". It wouldn't counter the climate change argument as there's nothing specific to the climate change argument which requires less snow in Antarctica, but on that one specific point we could go "Yeah, sure, the minimal available evidence supports that". The thing is, 23 other studies have all been conducted and they are all consistent with each other and all show Zwally was incorrect.

You have no evidence, stop grasping.

piloteer

 

The facts show that there may be some losses of ice in the North Pole but this loss is balanced by gains in the South Pole. This is how the thermostat theory or analogy works. 

@Akhenaten

You are misrepresenting the thermostat hypothesis again, it really has nothing to do with the Zwally study. In fact, the Zwally study pokes holes in the thermostat hypothesis because it shows sea-ice is melting in Antarctica. The "thermostat" hypothesis claims that ocean temperatures cannot rise much more than 31°C, which regulates global temperatures. If you truly want to reinforce the claims of the thermostat hypothesis, you'll need to refute the claims of the 1992 study by John M Wallace, and the 2009 Williams study. Those studies refute the claims that enhanced evaporation and negative cloud impacts are viable temperature regulating entities. You'll also need to dispute the data from satellites which prove heat does escape from the top of the atmosphere.

Akhenaten

@piloteer

It appears that the Zwally study used lasers to measure the Antarctic ice sheet while all the other studies relied on indirect methods such as measuring the strength of gravity.
 Thus, if you use an indirect method, then you can easily distort the results by manipulating the data. I would trust the direct method over the dubious indirect method.

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@piloteer

It appears that the Zwally study used lasers to measure the Antarctic ice sheet while all the other studies relied on indirect methods such as measuring the strength of gravity.
 Thus, if you use an indirect method, then you can easily distort the results by manipulating the data. I would trust the direct method over the dubious indirect method.

Lies and desperation. I notice when your argument fails you immediately do a 180. Strange how yesterday any evidence disproves a competing theory, while today any evidence that disproves your beliefs is automatically wrong and untrustworthy.

All your claims are already disproven

http://eprints.lincoln.ac.uk/32377/2/IMBIE2_SOM%20v8.pdf

Of the 23 studies which disprove Zwally's 1 study, there were a variety of different ways of checking the data including laser satellites including the very laser satellite Zwally used for his study (ICEsat). Feel free to continue making wild claims, they just make your entire side of the debate look ridiculous when they're so easily disproven. 

The test of a scientific theory is whether it can be replicated. Anyone can get a one off fluke result because they make a mistake or mess up, that's why scientific studies are tested and checked to see if they represent actual evidence. In fact when scientists have specifically gone out of their way to check Zwally's theory they've found there is no evidence to support his claims.

Oh and measuring the gravity of matter is a more direct measurement then measuring the properties of a laser that has bounced off that mass. The gravity is a direct property of the mass being measured, the laser is a second order proxy measurement. 

ZeusAres42

The UK's 'Net Zero' Greenhouse Gas Emissions Target Is Now Law

It was a law put into legislation by the Conservative party. I guess the next conspiracy theory is going to go something like this:

"That's just the left psychologically manipulating the right." Satire! 

The trouble with cognitive dissonance is that it also affects those a lot with strong political beliefs as well as those that are religious fanatics. And thus they tend to try and change facts to match their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to match the facts.

Anyway, the fact this is being supported by both the left and right in the UK is proof that at least in the UK it's not about left or right politics trying to get control over the other; and rightfully so.

Akhenaten

@Ampersand
Measuring gravity would be subject to interference from non-ice masses such as rock. Note - The Earth is not completely stable. Therefore, any slight shift in the land mass would be wrongly interpreted as a loss of ice when in fact it could be a drop in the land mass. The laser would measure the lower and upper levels of the ice which would exclude the land or rock mass. Thus, it would be the only reliable method of measuring the ice mass.
Note - Scientists are pressured by the system to get system compliant results. A failure to get system compliant results would result in ostracising and a loss of financial support. Thus, there is no incentive in the scientific community to find that climate change is not happening.
Note - Once a faulty system of thinking has begun it can be difficult to stop because of peer pressure and propaganda. Think in terms of the 500 year inquisition as a good example of long term corruption and ignorance. Thus, climate change science is introducing a new kind of inquisition.

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42

The U.K. is covered by clouds 95 % of the time. Thus, I don't think they will be getting much free energy from the sun. lol
They will end up a broken down and ruined economy the same as Germany with their climate change targets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-renewable-energy.html

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@Ampersand
Measuring gravity would be subject to interference from non-ice masses such as rock. Note - The Earth is not completely stable. Therefore, any slight shift in the land mass would be wrongly interpreted as a loss of ice when in fact it could be a drop in the land mass. The laser would measure the lower and upper levels of the ice which would exclude the land or rock mass. Thus, it would be the only reliable method of measuring the ice mass.
Note - Scientists are pressured by the system to get system compliant results. A failure to get system compliant results would result in ostracising and a loss of financial support. Thus, there is no incentive in the scientific community to find that climate change is not happening.
Note - Once a faulty system of thinking has begun it can be difficult to stop because of peer pressure and propaganda. Think in terms of the 500 year inquisition as a good example of long term corruption and ignorance. Thus, climate change science is introducing a new kind of inquisition.

Conspiracy theories and random made up claims. There's nothing here for me to even rebutt because it's all baseless claims.

How many times have you lied, been called out for lying and then pulled another random argument out of your which turned out to be a lie now?

If I had to guess, I'd say you only made one truthful statement throughout this entire thread and it was at the very start.

Akhenaten said:

Well, looks like I am one of those "stupid people" that you are referring to.

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@ZeusAres42

The U.K. is covered by clouds 95 % of the time. Thus, I don't think they will be getting much free energy from the sun. lol
They will end up a broken down and ruined economy the same as Germany with their climate change targets.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/07/business/energy-environment/german-renewable-energy.html

Cloud cover in the Uk varies from place to place but is not 95% cloudy, unless you are countign there being at least one cloud in the sky regardless of whether it blocks sunlight. I live in the UK and anyone here would agree.

Germany is one of the world's largest economies and has been growing consistently since 2010 when it returned to growth following the financial crash: https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=ny_gdp_mktp_kd_zg&idim=country:DEU:FRA:USA&hl=en&dl=en

Akhenaten

@Ampersand

It appears that when you are faced with logic and evidence it just becomes too overwhelming for you. Thus, you have to defer back to your default state of conspiracy theory name calling. Pitiful, isn't it. 

The IPCC is a criminal organisation which makes a living by deceiving people. If you choose to defend them, then, you to, will be supporting a criminal organisation. The science world is full of fraud and deception. Scientists have been killing and murdering people right under your nose and you probably don't even know about it. Think about how scientists helped Adolf Hitler and how he was sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, we can plainly see that death and mayhem are the bread and butter of the science community. Scientist and doctors benefit from the creation of chaos scenarios. Now, who doesn't need a doctor if you are in a state of war.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/economics/igfarben.html

John_C_87

Isn’t the problem in scientific principle we know of an ice age but cannot, or will not establish the level of what would be its opposite?

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@Ampersand

It appears that when you are faced with logic and evidence it just becomes too overwhelming for you. Thus, you have to defer back to your default state of conspiracy theory name calling. Pitiful, isn't it. 

The IPCC is a criminal organisation which makes a living by deceiving people. If you choose to defend them, then, you to, will be supporting a criminal organisation. The science world is full of fraud and deception. Scientists have been killing and murdering people right under your nose and you probably don't even know about it. Think about how scientists helped Adolf Hitler and how he was sponsored by the pharmaceutical industry. Thus, we can plainly see that death and mayhem are the bread and butter of the science community. Scientist and doctors benefit from the creation of chaos scenarios. Now, who doesn't need a doctor if you are in a state of war.

http://www.holocaustresearchproject.org/economics/igfarben.html

And the descent into full blown madness is complete.

You are literally explaining your theory about a massive international secret conspiracy while simultaneously getting angry at being called a conspiracy theorist.

Every single argument you've presented has been blown out of the water. Don't you think maybe you should rethink your life and beliefs at this point? If your knowledge was actually correct, would I have been able to rebutt it so easily?

MayCaesar

No, in fact, scientists are almost unanimous in agreement that there is no evidence to support a significant degree of AGW. Those who you refer to as "scientists" are not actually scientists and are, instead, bureaucrats and politicians.

As for coral reefs, they indeed are diminishing in abundance, but this has nothing to do with the temperature increase by one degree. It is caused by similar factors that, for example, wiped Tasmanian tigers out: poaching, mining, chemical spilling and so on.

Humans can have a significant effect on the biosphere, but climate so far is far beyond our ability to change significantly in the long run. It may change in a few centuries, when developments in self-replicating technology lead to runaway effects, but for now the climate has much more power over us than we do over it.

Do not listen to sensationalist journalism and, instead, always do your own research before making loud claims.

ZeusAres42

MayCaesar said:

Do not listen to sensationalist journalism and, instead, always do your own research before making loud claims.

You should really take your own advice.

ZeusAres42

There are two viewpoints about the AGW debate and one is those that like to politicize it and those that actually see the science for what it actually is.

Also, one of the things that actually baffles me is why some seemingly intelligent people would come out with absurd, baseless, and very generic claims regarding the AGW issue.

Ampersand

MayCaesar said:

No, in fact, scientists are almost unanimous in agreement that there is no evidence to support a significant degree of AGW. Those who you refer to as "scientists" are not actually scientists and are, instead, bureaucrats and politicians.

False, a common piece of anti-climate change propaganda and already disproven with reference to scientific studies in this very thread.

The actual evidence shows clear consensus among scientific expert that climate change is real.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus."

Your misinformation is common and somewhat understandable:

" Many in the public, particularly in the US, still believe scientists disagree to a large extent about AGW (Leiserowitz et al 2015), and many political leaders, again particularly in the US, insist that this is so. Leiserowitz et al (2015) found that only 12% of the US public accurately estimate the consensus at 91%–100%."

Now that you've have evidence presented to you showing that the claims of others you've believed are false, you should reassess your opinion and see what the evidence actually says.

MayCaesar said:

As for coral reefs, they indeed are diminishing in abundance, but this has nothing to do with the temperature increase by one degree. It is caused by similar factors that, for example, wiped Tasmanian tigers out: poaching, mining, chemical spilling and so on.

False. There are variety of things which can effect coral reefs, but the unheard of bleaching we're seeing currently is accepted as being caused in large part by climate change which effects the coral in multiple ways beyond simple temeprature incrase including the increased acidification of the ocean water.

https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/52828/52828.pdf?sequence=2

"The world’s tropical reef ecosystems, and the people who depend on them, are increasingly impacted by climate change. Since the 1980s, rising sea surface temperatures due to global warming have triggered unprecedented mass bleaching of corals, including three pan-tropical events in 1998, 2010 and 2015/16. Thermal stress during marine heatwaves disrupts the symbiotic relationship between corals and their algal symbionts (Symbiodinium) spp.), causing the corals to lose their color. Bleached corals are physiologically damaged, and prolonged bleaching often leads to high levels of mortality."

MayCaesar said:

Humans can have a significant effect on the biosphere, but climate so far is far beyond our ability to change significantly in the long run. It may change in a few centuries, when developments in self-replicating technology lead to runaway effects, but for now the climate has much more power over us than we do over it.

You are using backwards reasoning. You are assuming the conclusion you want is true (Cliamte change isn't happening or man-made) and then simply assuming that the evidence must match your assumption. You should be looking at the evidence which overwhelmingly concludes the climate is changing due to human action instead.

MayCaesar said:

Do not listen to sensationalist journalism and, instead, always do your own research before making loud claims.

*Coughs politely and gives several pointed looks*

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42

You can't argue with an AGW fanatic. When you corner them with logic and evidence they just pull out the childish response of conspiracy theory and walk away with an arrogant abstention of all communication. That's what has happened to me several times when debating this issue. He will eventually spit the dummy and cry foul as do all AGW fanatics. Let's face it. The IPCC is a criminal organisation no better than Nazi Germany or North Korea. They are all about the seizure of power at what ever the cost. They don'y really care about humanity, all they want is power and control over humanity. Its' the old communist mantra.

Akhenaten

Coral reefs are always moving and changing. The AGW grabs onto this constant change and calls it climate change destruction of reefs. Sometimes a reef  will diminish on the North side and grow on the Southern fringe. Now, the AGW fanatics will ignore all the new growth in the South part of the reef and highlight the destruction of the North part. That's called cherry picking data. That's their most frequent method of deception.

Ampersand

Akhenaten said:

@ZeusAres42

You can't argue with an AGW fanatic. When you corner them with logic and evidence they just pull out the childish response of conspiracy theory and walk away with an arrogant abstention of all communication. That's what has happened to me several times when debating this issue. He will eventually spit the dummy and cry foul as do all AGW fanatics. Let's face it. The IPCC is a criminal organisation no better than Nazi Germany or North Korea. They are all about the seizure of power at what ever the cost. They don'y really care about humanity, all they want is power and control over humanity. Its' the old communist mantra.

Literally complaining about being called a conspiracy theorist, then in the very next sentence telling everyone about his conspiracy theory that the IPCC is a criminal organisation bent on world domination.

ZeusAres42

@Ampersand

The trouble is that people's beliefs have been held for so long that it's painful for them to try and let go of. This is what's known as cognitive dissonance and this is something that we're all susceptible to as human beings. Sometimes facts are in conflict with really strong held beliefs, especially religious and political ones; and these are beliefs that have been held for a long time, and as such a number of people will tend to change facts to suit their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to suit the facts.

ZeusAres42

@Ampersand

The trouble is that people's beliefs have been held for so long that it's painful for them to try and let go of. This is what's known as cognitive dissonance and this is something that we're all susceptible to as human beings. Sometimes facts are in conflict with really strong held beliefs, especially religious and political ones; and these are beliefs that have been held for a long time, and as such a number of people will tend to change facts to suit their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to suit the facts.

ZeusAres42

@Ampersand

The trouble is that people's beliefs have been held for so long that it's painful for them to try and let go of. This is what's known as cognitive dissonance and this is something that we're all susceptible to as human beings. Sometimes facts are in conflict with really strong held beliefs, especially religious and political ones; and these are beliefs that have been held for a long time, and as such a number of people will tend to change facts to suit their beliefs rather than change their beliefs to suit the facts.

ZeusAres42

@Ampersand

Ampersand said:

MayCaesar said:

No, in fact, scientists are almost unanimous in agreement that there is no evidence to support a significant degree of AGW. Those who you refer to as "scientists" are not actually scientists and are, instead, bureaucrats and politicians.

False, a common piece of anti-climate change propaganda and already disproven with reference to scientific studies in this very thread.

The actual evidence shows clear consensus among scientific expert that climate change is real.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

"The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus."

Your misinformation is common and somewhat understandable:

" Many in the public, particularly in the US, still believe scientists disagree to a large extent about AGW (Leiserowitz et al 2015), and many political leaders, again particularly in the US, insist that this is so. Leiserowitz et al (2015) found that only 12% of the US public accurately estimate the consensus at 91%–100%."

Now that you've have evidence presented to you showing that the claims of others you've believed are false, you should reassess your opinion and see what the evidence actually says.

MayCaesar said:

As for coral reefs, they indeed are diminishing in abundance, but this has nothing to do with the temperature increase by one degree. It is caused by similar factors that, for example, wiped Tasmanian tigers out: poaching, mining, chemical spilling and so on.

False. There are variety of things which can effect coral reefs, but the unheard of bleaching we're seeing currently is accepted as being caused in large part by climate change which effects the coral in multiple ways beyond simple temeprature incrase including the increased acidification of the ocean water.

https://espace.curtin.edu.au/bitstream/handle/20.500.11937/52828/52828.pdf?sequence=2

"The world’s tropical reef ecosystems, and the people who depend on them, are increasingly impacted by climate change. Since the 1980s, rising sea surface temperatures due to global warming have triggered unprecedented mass bleaching of corals, including three pan-tropical events in 1998, 2010 and 2015/16. Thermal stress during marine heatwaves disrupts the symbiotic relationship between corals and their algal symbionts (Symbiodinium) spp.), causing the corals to lose their color. Bleached corals are physiologically damaged, and prolonged bleaching often leads to high levels of mortality."

MayCaesar said:

Humans can have a significant effect on the biosphere, but climate so far is far beyond our ability to change significantly in the long run. It may change in a few centuries, when developments in self-replicating technology lead to runaway effects, but for now the climate has much more power over us than we do over it.

You are using backwards reasoning. You are assuming the conclusion you want is true (Cliamte change isn't happening or man-made) and then simply assuming that the evidence must match your assumption. You should be looking at the evidence which overwhelmingly concludes the climate is changing due to human action instead.

MayCaesar said:

Do not listen to sensationalist journalism and, instead, always do your own research before making loud claims.

*Coughs politely and gives several pointed looks*

You might be assuming a bit too much haha.

Akhenaten

@ZeusAres42

In regards to bleached coral which is supposedly caused by climate change.
 In Australia there is a crown of thorns star fish problem. The crown of thorns star fish is an ugly prickly looking thing. The shell based predators of the crown of thorns star fish are pretty looking and have collectable value. Thus, people and tourists can't resist collecting the pretty sea shells to keep as souvenirs. Thus, the crown of thorns star fish are left to proliferate and just eat all the coral which leaves the coral looking bleached.
Not to mention that suntan cream contains toxic chemicals which kill the coral. Thus, the tourists are to blame for coral reef depletion and not climate change.

LogicVault

@Akhenaten ok well be a douchebag then. They wanted to discuss it, not spew insults like children.