It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NASA Data Reveals No Global Warming Polar Ice Retreat

page: 11
36
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:55 PM
link   
I don't see any misrepresentation of links in that thread, however I do see you apologizing for not knowing how to read a chart and a peer reviewed paper.

a reply to: mc_squared




posted on May, 28 2015 @ 06:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: amazing
But you have a letter by around 50 people.


Not only that - but how many of those 50 people are climate scientists? I see "aircraft maintenance" and "re-entry specialist" on there.

This is just like the infamous Oregon Petition - the supposed list of 30,000 scientists that disagree with the consensus view on climate change. Virtually nobody on that list is an actual climate scientist:


.1% of Signers Have a Background in Climatology


The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

Some names on that list aren't even actual people:

Jokers Add Fake Names To Warming Petition


It's all bunk. But these are the sort of desperate tactics deniers need to resort to, to try and pretend there's even a debate happening here.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You claimed Greenland was not losing mass and left a link. Your own link however said exactly the opposite in the fine print.

I'm getting pretty tired of having to spell everything out for you. Stop being intentionally obtuse.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:06 PM
link   
No, you are the one who didn't understand. You misread the link and apologized...

It's in the thread bro.

Edit: remember, it loses more ice in the summer but fully rebounds in the winter, however due to the extra melt in the summer there is a net loss for the year even though it fully rebounds. Despite that how's that Gulf Stream doing? /end edit

Just like I'm apologizing now because you are indeed correct. I was sent the paper I used via email and did indeed misread who was involved in the poll. The wording made it seem like they were polled alongside their peers, however that does not appear to be the case.

a reply to: mc_squared
edit on 28-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared




Some names on that list aren't even actual people:




For every 2 Spindocs there must be at least one that doesn't even exist. Idiocracy, I love it.
Meanwhile... both 'sides' of our two-front war make up their own lists and studys to sway constantly the opinion of some insecure folks. A very tough ride to finally lay hands on some decent info. Excellent job mate, and a fun-read as well.




edit on 28-5-2015 by PublicOpinion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:40 PM
link   
2 Kinds of people!

1 Those who don't believe in climate change

2 Those trying to cash in on it



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 07:47 PM
link   
a reply to: mikell

+ 2 species of ATSliens:

1 People who don't believe anything regarding climate (exept maybe weather) but can read data and know about lobbys.

2 People who don't post here



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:53 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I’m aware of what that particular graph is saying – as you can see I acknowledged my mistake promptly the first time around. There’s actually more snow per year than there is direct meltwater runoff. I focused too hastily on the year to year variation instead of where the overall accumulation was normalized. But regardless the issue was whether or not Greenland is losing mass, and thanks to all those extra chunks of ice breaking off and falling into the water too, the net flux is still very much negative.

Anyway, if you want to acknowledge your error here then I can accept that. I’m not a fan of these discussions getting all belligerent. I just don’t like people peeing on my leg and telling me it’s raining either.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: PublicOpinion
Meanwhile... both 'sides' of our two-front war make up their own lists and studys to sway constantly the opinion of some insecure folks. A very tough ride to finally lay hands on some decent info.


Yup, some of the info coming from the AGW camp turns out to be a lemon at times too – but one of the key differences I’ve found is by and large these turn out to be much more honest mistakes than what you get from the so-called skeptics.

The problem is the denial industry, and by that I mean the blatant PR shills like James Taylor, they don’t need to go out and disprove AGW in a proper scientific forum. They just need to confuse and obfuscate everything in the public forum. That’s much easier to do.

This is why we need people to counteract the situation by being diligent with the information they process. They need to be careful, but they especially need to be honest with themselves about it too. Unfortunately too many just read the headlines that fit their pre-conceived biases and selectively ignore everything else. That’s not a good formula for denying ignorance, and that's certainly not skepticism.



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:13 PM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Just real quick, I am not sure how you or that blog came up with .1% Is he only using "climatologist"?

My masters is in Atmospheric Sciences and I am considered a climate scientist (although I no longer work in that field). He also didn't include oceanographers, geophysicists, etc...

The list itself claims there are nearly 4000 climate scientists.


Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,805 scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.


Although I doubt that number is accurate.

Who exactly is being disingenuous here?

Even his list contains almost 550 climate scientists which would be almost 2%. Maybe he misplaced a decimal? Or are you saying one must have a climatology degree to be able to comment or have a valid opinion on climate change? I think you should check the contributing scientists degrees in the IPCC report...

I am not in support of that petition, nor did I sign it



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 10:41 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You claim to be a climate scientist with an advanced degree, but you can not demonstrate a simple residence time calculation. It should be easy for someone with that kind of degree.

My personal take is you are a pathological liar, just based on the posts I have read. Which reminds that many Americans are, and almost all of our legislators are pathological liars. I have realized that one can not expect an honest answer from someone who is not even honest with themselves.
edit on 29-5-2015 by jrod because: with



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 11:06 PM
link   
You still don't get the futility of your request? Or that you wanted a calculation for co2 and didn't understand the question I asked you about variables? It's trolling at it's finest.

a reply to: jrod


edit on 28-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 28 2015 @ 11:39 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

I would be happy to see a residence calculation for H20 or anything at this point. I asked for this because you claim to hold a masters in Atmospheric Science and showing a good residence time calculation will only give your claim of holding said degree some weight. It has been months or longer since I first ask if you could provide one.

Also you claim to have a solar powered boat, I would love to see some specs on that because frankly I do not believe you. It seems like you make these boasts when someone calls you out for your lack of providing these threads with good dialect and good points to discuss.

From what I can gather, right now you oppose to addressing the climate change issue because it is anti-capitalism?
edit on 28-5-2015 by jrod because: RT



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: amazing

You are confusing climate change and catastrophic (fast) climate change. Yes, the consensus is we are warming and that man contributes, I am not contesting that nor is the paper you read. However, the consensus is NOT that we are changing so catastrophically fast that we can't adapt or improve our situation before it is too late.


Yes, you ask people if we can adapt. Yes, we can adapt. The first part of adaptation is stopping the hurt.

Can we adapt successfully and pleasantly without major and permanent reductions in fossil fuel emissions? No!

Scientifically we should have started emission cuts at the point when the physical understanding was sufficiently strong to motivate significant action. That was about 1990-1993.

Why then all the criticism precisely against all the people who are telling the population "ADAPT NOW" and stop making the problem worse?

Because it might be inconvenience to some people's wallets and political philosophies. Ah, well, time for those people to adapt to the laws of physics. Physics doesn't adapt to anybody's preferences.
edit on 29-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 01:14 AM
link   
a reply to: mc_squared

Suppose 97% of professional aeronautical engineers and astronauts decided, with decades of backing from university and NASA peer reviewed scientists, that a common form of spacecraft design was dangerous to property and people.

What would they think of some geologists and meterologists and "program managers" telling them that their understanding of aeronautical engineering was wrong and there's nothing to worry about?

What would happen if the head of NASA took them seriously?

Obviously the right answer is STFU, listen to the people who do it for a living. Can you imagine the scandal? Can you imagine any large group of non-expert supposed scientists challenging the long-term study of the professionals in the field?

Now, what if the problem threatened the entirety of civilization? Do people not see how literally evil this ignorant denial is?
edit on 29-5-2015 by mbkennel because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 10:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: raymundoko
I would be happy to see a residence calculation for H20 or anything at this point. I asked for this because you claim to hold a masters in Atmospheric Science and showing a good residence time calculation will only give your claim of holding said degree some weight. It has been months or longer since I first ask if you could provide one.
The residence time equation is straightforwardly: R = M/S, where R is the residence time, M is the total mass of whatever you're measuring inside the system, and S is the removal rate. The equation can be modifed to include a time-constant. The IPCC in AR4 give figures for natural CO2 absorption of 788Gts and the atmospheric CO2 mass is about 3,000, so the residence time is 3000/788 = 3.8 years. The residence time is largely irrelevant however when determining how quickly a pulse concentration of CO2 will return the system to equilibrium, otherwise known as the 'adjustment time' or 'e-fold time'. That's a more complex calculation and the IPCC apply the Bern model equation from Joos et al 2001 for that. I am currently working on quite a big blog-post on this subject and trying to get your head around all the physcial mechanisms for the different time-constants in the Bern model is like being led on a phantasmagorical trip around the universe. I understand the main reasons though. But yeah, I digress, the residence time is very short, and the IPCC even admits this.
edit on 29-5-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 10:46 AM
link   
a reply to: Nathan-D

Thank you for this! Finally someone was up for breaking down a residence time calculation.

With the increase of CO2 we are observing, I would suspect that the residence for CO2 is longer now than it was even 50 years ago.



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

I've discussed my boat with you in another thread....over a year ago. Are you all there?



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: mbkennel
a reply to: mc_squaredSuppose 97% of professional aeronautical engineers and astronauts decided, with decades of backing from university and NASA peer reviewed scientists, that a common form of spacecraft design was dangerous to property and people.What would happen if the head of NASA took them seriously?
Personally myself, I have no beef with the claim that 97% of scientists agree with anthropogenic global warming (AGW), but from my investigations a lot of these studies avoid quantifying the effect. That is to say that the 97% consensus in a lot of studies includes no quantification of AGW and instead includes esoteric questions like "Do you think AGW is significant?". One or two studies I have seen do quantify the effect, but only to a degree of over 50%.
edit on 29-5-2015 by Nathan-D because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 29 2015 @ 11:29 AM
link   
a reply to: jrod

You just don't get it. I've explained many times why I've ignored your request. You don't even understand that a residence time calculation doesn't even have to be about chemistry, and is learned in 100 and 200 level math courses. Asking me to give you a residence time calculation does nothing to prove anything, and as you've done before you would simply accuse me of copy/pasting.

I could create a resident time calculation for crayons in a kindergarten classrooms crayola box to estimate when all the crayons will finally disappear...

Edit: I just noticed you called me a pathological liar. That's fine. This is the internet and we all have our anonymity if we so choose, especially on a site such as this one where being associated with it could put someone in awkward predicaments in the workplace or family environment. The only way for me to legitimately prove to you anything is to give up that anonymity which I am not willing to do.

Once I retire in a few years I fully intend to break my anonymity.


edit on 29-5-2015 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
36
<< 8  9  10    12 >>

log in

join