23 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasIt shows that the prediction of higher sea level rise is stumbling already. Climate model predictions have failed too many times to be considered reliable. This whole thread is based on those unreliable predictions.
May I quote from the link you gave us:
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year."
May I also quote you: "Sorry to confuse you with facts."
You do read the articles you present us, don't you?
Furthermore, ice has melted faster in the past when CO2 levels were much less than today and that contradicts alarmist nonsense. More facts to confuse you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529144339.htm
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by humyThis coming from a guy that posted a thread pointing out that one year had the highest recorded temperatures. Hypocrite!
lol
He often idiotically doesn't even bother to actually read the links he presents to us.
I guess he may just read only the title "Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013" and ignorantly didn't realize they were only talking about sea ice, which you would expect to have highly variable cover area from one year to the next regardless of glo ...[text shortened]... might contradict his many arrogant opinions; arrogant opinionated ignorant stupidity by choice.
We all know the long term trend. It started 300 years ago when going for a ride meant your horse. 🙄
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainYou reply questions that I didn't pose. Do you avoid the questions?
It shows that the prediction of higher sea level rise is stumbling already. Climate model predictions have failed too many times to be considered reliable. This whole thread is based on those unreliable predictions.
Furthermore, ice has melted faster in the past when CO2 levels were much less than today and that contradicts alarmist nonsense. More facts to confuse you.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/05/120529144339.htm
The link you submitted - are they facts as you told us? Or do you disbelieve your own sources? These questions are easy.
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasWe all know the long term trend. It started 300 years ago when going for a ride meant your horse. 🙄
You reply questions that I didn't pose. Do you avoid the questions?
The link you submitted - are they facts as you told us? Or do you disbelieve your own sources? These questions are easy.
Originally posted by Metal BrainWe all know the long term trend, sure. So why did you present this link as a fact when everyone knows this from before? Did you imply that these were new facts? Or that your debattants didn't know this already?
We all know the long term trend. It started 300 years ago when going for a ride meant your horse. 🙄
What was the true purpuse with this link of yours?
Originally posted by Metal Brainhow does one year of more sea ice imply no sea level rise?
It shows that the prediction of higher sea level rise is stumbling already.
There are TWO things very wrong with that:
1, this is just one year, not the long term trend
2, more sea ice in one year doesn't imply lower sea levels even in that year because it is not sea ice that directly determines sea level change but glaciers. That is because sea ice floats on water and, if you know basic physics, ice that floats on water has no direct effect on water level as it melts.
If you don't believe me, here is the proof:
Get a glass of water. Then put some ice in it and make sure each piece of ice is floating on the water with none of the weight of each piece pressing directly on anything other than the water. Then accurately mark the water level on the glass. Then come back later preferably just after the ice has melted and see if the water level has changed. You will find the water level hasn't. This is due to basic physics.
Because of that same basic physics, more sea ice wouldn't directly cause the water level to fall any more than melting sea ice cause it to rise.
What will directly cause the sea level to rise is melting GLACIERS, NOT sea ice. Once again, you show your complete ignorance of the science subject you are talking about.
You can, without contradiction, have an increase in sea ice and still have a sea level rise, although, with all else being equal, more sea ice, IF it is long term, should cause indirect long term effects that would indirectly make it more likely that sea level will lower; but the link clearly said the long term trend is still less sea ice, NOT more.
Thus your assertion "It shows that the prediction of higher sea level rise is stumbling already." is not only wrong but completely idiotic. It doesn't "show" that the prediction of sea level rise is wrong at all.
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasNobody posted that information on this forum before. Now you are just making stuff up.
We all know the long term trend, sure. So why did you present this link as a fact when everyone knows this from before? Did you imply that these were new facts? Or that your debattants didn't know this already?
What was the true purpuse with this link of yours?
It shows there is no reason to be alarmed. I don't think you were aware this warming trend started 300 years ago. If you did you would not have acted like the warming trend was proof man is they primary cause. Most climate scientists do NOT think man is the primary cause. They merely say man is a factor and nothing more, yet you think otherwise. Why is that? Do you think you know better than climate scientists?
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainWhat I know and what I don't know is of no interest here. I'm not here to discuss your favorite subject.
Nobody posted that information on this forum before. Now you are just making stuff up.
It shows there is no reason to be alarmed. I don't think you were aware this warming trend started 300 years ago. If you did you would not have acted like the warming trend was proof man is they primary cause. Most climate scientists do NOT think man is the primary ...[text shortened]... ore, yet you think otherwise. Why is that? Do you think you know better than climate scientists?
My main interest is rhetorics.
You wrote "Sorry to confuse you with facts." and then you gave us a link with information we all know about, like we didn't know them from before. What was your intent with that?
Was it a trick? Or was it a mistake?
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by humy"1, this is just one year, not the long term trend"
how does one year of more sea ice imply no sea level rise?
There are TWO things very wrong with that:
1, this is just one year, not the long term trend
2, more sea ice in one year doesn't imply lower sea levels even in that year because it is not sea ice that directly determines sea level change but glaciers. That is because sea ice floats on water and, ...[text shortened]... but completely idiotic. It doesn't "show" that the prediction of sea level rise is wrong at all.
The long term trend is irrelevant since it started over 300 years ago and you cannot show higher CO2 levels caused a significant increase because of it. Look at any long term graph from a reputable link. There is no correlation!
There are all sorts of reasons the sea level drops. The great lakes had low levels for many years and now they have increased a few feet back to normal levels. In 2010 they decreased and some speculate it was because of more rain in Australia.
I never claimed more ice meant lower sea levels. That is just you "assuming" again. It just so happens sea levels did drop at about that time though.
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnas"My main interest is rhetorics."
What I know and what I don't know is of no interest here. I'm not here to discuss your favorite subject.
My main interest is rhetorics.
You wrote "Sorry to confuse you with facts." and then you gave us a link with information we all know about, like we didn't know them from before. What was your intent with that?
Was it a trick? Or was it a mistake?
Then observe without participating.
Your participation shows you are not really interested in rhetorics though. You only say that for an excuse to not prove your flawed logic. When I have you cornered intellectually you always resort to that false claim. You are not fooling anyone.
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainIt's funny how only you have access to true logic and everyone else here including working scientists are all flogging around in false logic.
"My main interest is rhetorics."
Then observe without participating.
Your participation shows you are not really interested in rhetorics though. You only say that for an excuse to not prove your flawed logic. When I have you cornered intellectually you always resort to that false claim. You are not fooling anyone.
Originally posted by Metal BrainI just said:
"1, this is just one year, not the long term trend"
The long term trend is irrelevant since it started over 300 years ago and ....
"...how does one year of more sea ice imply no sea level rise?
There are TWO things very wrong with that:
1, this is just one year, not the long term trend
..."
so, unless you cannot read, I was obviously talking about more sea ice when speaking of "long term trend". So when You respond with "The long term trend is irrelevant since it started over 300 years ago...", are you saying that there is a long term trend in sea ice from over 300 years ago and, if so, is it more or less sea ice. If less, this is consistent with if not evidence for global warming. If more, regardless of what the trend was 300 years ago, the long term trend is now less, not more, and one year of more doesn't contradict that.
I never claimed more ice meant lower sea levels. That is just you "assuming" again.
Nope. You first posted:
Sorry to confuse you with facts.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654
that link was about “...Arctic ice 'grew by a third' after cool summer in 2013...”
then FabianFnas said:
May I quote from the link you gave us:
"The long-term trend of the ice volume is downwards and the long-term trend of the temperatures in the Arctic is upwards and this finding doesn't give us any reason to disbelieve that - as far as we can tell it's just one anomalous year." ...
then you responded to that post of his with:
It shows that the prediction of higher sea level rise is stumbling already.
Since, in this context of the posts you responded to and the posts you made, you couldn’t be referring to anything else by the word “it” above other than the Arctic sea ice increase this year, you clearly must be saying in the above assertion that that the increase in Arctic sea ice increase this year “shows that the prediction of higher sea level rise is stumbling already”.
But if you now admit that more ice doesn't mean lower sea levels, how can it be that the increase in Arctic sea ice increase this year “shows that the prediction of higher sea level rise is stumbling already” as you said? It couldn't because that makes no sense. So, unless you were totally confused, what you meant from the above assertion was that more sea ice means lower sea levels, which would be highly consistent with your idiotic reasoning and general ignorance of basic physics. It is obvious that this is what you meant but now backtracked (with "I never claimed more ice meant lower sea levels" ) because even you, thanks to my explanation against it in my last post, have now realized how idiotic that assertion is but, rather than just for once in your life be a man and admit you were wrong, you lie by saying you never said it or meant that. Given the context, what else could you have possibly meant by the above assertion?
23 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainI have no interest in participating in the debate itself. My interest is of rhetorics and rhetorics only.
"My main interest is rhetorics."
Then observe without participating.
So just answer my question:
Was it a trick? Or was it a mistake?
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
23 Jul 15
The Full paper has been published for peer review.
And the PDF is available [for free] here:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/15/20059/2015/acpd-15-20059-2015.pdf
Also, as a note about Hansen's famous 1988 prediction and claims of it's inaccuracies...
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-advanced.htm