Arctic Greening - a negative feedback cycle?

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"I have already shown you two links that explain the difference between atmospheric physicist and climate scientist, so no excuses."

You have not done that at all. I went back and looked and you posted no such link. Try doing that!

Instead of arguing about what's written outside the office door of various scientists, how about discussing their respective bodies of work? On what ground do they base these opinions?

Instead of checking wikipedia to see who made the list of climatologists, how about checking the wikipedia article titled "critical thinking." Particularly the sections dealing with logic.

It seems that the "skeptics" (if you want to call them that) are wholly undeterred by mountains of evidence. They are hiding behind a veil of scientific rhethoric, but when you get down to it there is nothing, no logical framework, no evidence, no actual data (either real or hypothetical or anecdotal or anything) that could convince them that anthropogenic global warming was worth doing anything about. I don't get it.

A while back, Singer was interviewed by PBS; Metal brain provided the link. In it, he was asked a very important question: What could convince you that you were wrong? What could actually resolve this debate to the satisfaction of honest scientists?

His reply: "I think that we would have to try to get the models to become better... based on geographic variation, or variation with altitude, or temporal variation, or much more detailed measurements... and then try to resolve differences between models and observations."

That interview was 17 years ago. There was a lot of evidence then that humans were causing irreversible changes to the climate, but he was technically right. Presently, though, we have a lot more data, better computing, better models, and now the climate models do indeed line up very nicely with observed data. So you'd think based on his quote from then, that he'd have to admit that he was wrong about the extent of anthropogenic global warming.

But instead, try presenting a "skeptic" with a study concluding that anthropogenic global warming is not only real, but substantial, measurable, and its fraction as a cause is increasing over time. (For now, we'll ignore the fact that hundreds of other articles present similar conclusions.) They counter with a series of arguments that attempt to discredit that evidence. Confirmation bias of experimenter. Faulty equipment. The models are wrong. The scientist is just doing it for grant money.

Am I missing any? Oh yeah, my favorite, a direct quote from Singer "People like warmer climates. There's a good reason why much of the U.S. population is moving into the Sun Belt, and not just people who are retiring."

Put me in the group that wants to maintain our current climate for as long as possible. I like it.

Originally posted by humy
Do you deny that the two are different things? Yes or no?
If "no"; I DON'T CARE if you you think I haven't shown the difference.
If "yes"; as you are apparently too lazy to look at the links;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology
"....climate science is the study of climate, scientifically defined as weather conditions averaged over a period of time. ...[text shortened]... me any links to show that climate science is the same thing as atmospheric physics? -answer, no.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

"This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences"

You are laughable. Neither of the two links you posted show anything close to what you claimed. In fact, all the link above shows is that they are comparable. They are both considered climate scientists which is apparent on the climate scientist link I posted earlier. Any moron can look at each climate scientist's credentials on that page and see that both are considered climate scientists.

FAIL!

Originally posted by wildgrass
Instead of arguing about what's written outside the office door of various scientists, how about discussing their respective bodies of work? On what ground do they base these opinions?

Instead of checking wikipedia to see who made the list of climatologists, how about checking the wikipedia article titled "critical thinking." Particularly the sections d ...[text shortened]... t me in the group that wants to maintain our current climate for as long as possible. I like it.

"His reply: "I think that we would have to try to get the models to become better... based on geographic variation, or variation with altitude, or temporal variation, or much more detailed measurements... and then try to resolve differences between models and observations."

Singer's response is very reasonable. Since the climate models do not usually agree with real observations they are not worth anything.

"It seems that the "skeptics" (if you want to call them that) are wholly undeterred by mountains of evidence."

You are asserting a falsehood. Almost all biased people think that way. Flimsy evidence is considered solid if it supports their bias and convincing evidence to the contrary is dismissed.

" now the climate models do indeed line up very nicely with observed data"

That is a lie! I'm calling you the liar that you are!
Show me your source of information if you can you pathetic liar!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatology

"This modern field of study is regarded as a branch of the atmospheric sciences"

You cannot understand the word "branch"?
You are now saying that if a science is a 'branch' of some other science, that means the two sciences equate?
So microbiology is a branch of biology 'therefore' microbiology IS biology and all microbiologists are qualified in whale anatomy and botany and are botanists because those things are also biology?
You are even more stupid than I thought.
An atmospheric physicist is not the same thing as a climatologist and Singer is an atmospheric physicist and not a climatologist.
Nowhere in that link or any other does it say the two equate.

Originally posted by humy
You cannot understand the word "branch"?
You are now saying that if a science is a 'branch' of some other science, that means the two sciences equate?
So microbiology is a branch of biology 'therefore' microbiology IS biology and all microbiologists are qualified in whale anatomy and botany and are botanists because those things are also biology?
You are ev ...[text shortened]... he same thing as a climatologist and Singer is an atmospheric physicist and not a climatologist.

I understand "branch" does not prove anything you claim. Like I said before, both are considered climate scientists according to wikipedia. Climatologists are not the only climate scientists. If you falsely think they are, simply attempt to prove it. Knock yourself out.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
I understand "branch" does not prove anything you claim. Like I said before, both are considered climate scientists according to wikipedia. Climatologists are not the only climate scientists. If you falsely think they are, simply attempt to prove it. Knock yourself out.

I understand "branch" does not prove anything you claim.

I didn't say it did. It also does not prove anything you claim so you are extremely stupid to mention it as if it does.

Like I said before, both are considered climate scientists according to wikipedia.

Nope. Where does it say in wikipedia that Singer is a climatologist? It doesn't.

Climatologists are not the only climate scientists.

Most reasonable people would think climatologist simply means climate scientist.
Can you give any example of any link that says atmospheric physicist equates with climatologist? -answer, no.

Originally posted by humy

I understand "branch" does not prove anything you claim.

I didn't say it did. It also does not prove anything you claim so you are extremely stupid to mention it as if it does.

Like I said before, both are considered climate scientists according to wikipedia.

Nope. Where does it say in wikipedia that Singer is a c ...[text shortened]... us in your infinite wisdom an example of a type of climate scientist that isn't a climatologist?

"False.
A climatologist simply means climate scientist.
Can you tell us in your infinite wisdom an example of a type of climate scientist that isn't a climatologist?"

False.
A climatologist simply means climate scientist.
Can you tell us in your infinite wisdom an example of a type of climate scientist that isn't a climatologist?

Yes! Claude Lorius is a glaciologist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Lorius

Thomas Knutson is merely a climate modeler which is enough to be considered a climate scientist.

Richard Siegmund Lindzen as I mentioned before correctly, but you falsely claimed he was more qualified than Fred Singer.

I could list many more from the wikipedia link below, but you and everyone else on here can do that yourselves and make a very long list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

FAIL!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"
Yes! Claude Lo and make a very long list.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

where in your links does it say/imply atmospheric physicist equates with climatologist?
That's what you are trying to say thus it makes no difference if a 'climate scientist' may not be 'climatologist' or vice versa.

Originally posted by humy
where in your links does it say/imply atmospheric physicist equates with climatologist?
That's what you are trying to say thus it makes no difference if a 'climate scientist' may not be 'climatologist' or vice versa.

Sigh....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

Notice it says "List of Climate Scientists". The people I listed are all on that list. There you go captain obvious.

If you disagree with the list just say so. Once again, is the list wrong or are you? You cannot have it both ways.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Sigh....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_climate_scientists

Notice it says "List of Climate Scientists". .

What about it?
How does that say/imply atmospheric physicist equates with climatologist?
It clearly doesn't.

The people I listed are all on that list.

Fred Singer is not on that list.
That's because he isn't a climate scientist.
You make no point.

If you disagree with the list just say so.

I agree with the list. Fred Singer is not on that list.

Once again, is the list wrong or are you?

The list is right and I am right. Fred Singer is not on that list. You are wrong.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
"His reply: "I think that we would have to try to get the models to become better... based on geographic variation, or variation with altitude, or temporal variation, or much more detailed measurements... and then try to resolve differences between models and observations."

Singer's response is very reasonable. Since the climate models do not usually ...[text shortened]... the liar that you are!
Show me your source of information if you can you pathetic liar!!!!!!!!

I admitted his response was reasonable, yet evasive and wildly outdated. I have already provided evidence for the accuracy of the climate models, which are more detailed and accurate than they were decades ago since there's more data in them (pasted below once again). Apparently you also did not read the Marzeion et al. study where their 12 different models all aligned with observed measurements. You're not doing your homework.

Source: http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/pd/climate/factsheets/howreliable.pdf
".... models continue to display a substantial range of global temperature change in response to specified greenhouse gas forcing (see Chapter 10). Despite such uncertainties, however, models are unanimous in their prediction of substantial climate warming under greenhouse gas increases, and this warming is of a magnitude consistent with independent estimates derived from other sources , such as from observed climate changes and past climate reconstructions."

Source: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2016/jul/27/climate-models-are-accurately-predicting-ocean-and-global-warming
"What about the next question – how did the models do? Amazingly well.... since 1992, the models have been within 3 % of the measurements. In my mind, this agreement is the strongest vindication of the models ever found, and in fact, in our study we suggest that matches between climate models and ocean warming should be a major test of the models.....Readers should also know that our study isn’t the only one of its kind to make these findings. A paper published before ours by a world-class group of scientists came to similar conclusions. So too does another study found here. When multiple and independent studies come to similar conclusions, it suggests that the conclusions are robust."

I recall that your source of information "proving" that climate models "do not usually agree with real observations" was something about their inability to predict seasonal droughts? Is that where your term "usually" comes from?

Originally posted by humy
What about it?
How does that say/imply atmospheric physicist equates with climatologist?
It clearly doesn't.

The people I listed are all on that list.

Fred Singer is not on that list.
That's because he isn't a climate scientist.
You make no point.

If you disagree with the list just say so.

I agree with the ...[text shortened]... ? [/quote]
The list is right and I am right. Fred Singer is not on that list. You are wrong.

"How does that say/imply atmospheric physicist equates with climatologist?"

That is irrelevant and you know it. They are both climate scientists. Glacierologists are climate scientists too as I pointed out. The term climates scientist is a very loose term and you are too ignorant to know it or too stubborn to admit it. Probably the latter.

You are obviously wrong and your ego prevents you from admitting it. Previously you claimed only climatologists are climate scientists then you edited your post to omit your foolish mistake. You simply do not know what you are talking about and you have kaeznagorra to thank for leading you down a dead end street only to abandon you once he realized how badly he goofed.

Try again.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
They are both climate scientists.

PROVE IT!
PROVE that all atmospheric physicist are by definition climatologist.
If that is true, it should be easy to prove via some link clearly saying atmospheric physics is a BRANCH of climatology.
You cannot. Guess why?

The term climates scientist is a very loose term...

Nope.
And certainly not so "loose" that we cannot say Singer is not one of them. The wiki link is correct for not listing him as one and thus you are wrong.

Originally posted by humy
PROVE IT!
PROVE that all atmospheric physicist are by definition climatologist.
If that is true, it should be easy to prove via some link clearly saying atmospheric physics is a BRANCH of climatology.
You cannot. Guess why?

The term climates scientist is a very loose term...

Nope.
And certainly not so "loose" that we cannot say Singe ...[text shortened]... is not one of them. The wiki link is correct for not listing him as one and thus you are wrong.

You still know you are wrong. Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and he is listed as a climate scientist. Singer's omission is likely due to some guy like you that came along and deleted his name as many people do. That is why wkipedia is widely regarded as an unreliable source of information.

You made the assertion that atmospheric physicists are not climate scientists so prove your assertion. Show us a reliable source of information instead of lying and saying you did when you did not. I suspect you know full well you are wrong. It is that ego of yours that makes you evasive instead of admitting your stupid mistake.

Originally posted by Metal Brain
Richard Lindzen is an atmospheric physicist and he is listed as a climate scientist.

That is because he is qualified in both, NOT because one equate with the other. No doubt there are same physicists who are also biologists, So physicists are biologists?
And if one equates with the other, why is Singer and some others NOT listed as one (climate scientist) but listed as the other?

Show us a reliable source of information

I have already shown you the two links that explain what each is.
Show me ANY link that contradicts them....

Singer's omission is likely due to some guy like you that came along and deleted his name as many people do. That is why wkipedia is widely regarded as an unreliable source of information.

Oh so now you shout conspiracy! "some guy like you that came along and deleted his name as many people do"? Really!?
What stupid delusional paranoia. Even if someone wrongly deleted something, someone else would have likely simply put it back. That is generally what happens if someone makes an obvious bad edit at wiki.

But now AT LAST you admit wiki does NOT list Singer as a climate scientist, just like I have been saying all the long while you calling me a liar. So now AT LAST you admit I wasn't lying and you were wrong. Thank you.