24 Jul 15
Originally posted by humyOf course there is global warming. When I say it started over 300 years ago I am pointing out that global warming is a natural process and you know that full well. Your assertion that it is anthropogenic is not supported by sea level rise at all. That is how you are stumbling all over the place.
I just said:
"...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 ...[text shortened]... r meant that. Given the context, what else could you have possibly meant by the above assertion?
You know that though. You are merely pretending to not know it in a feeble attempt to save face and it didn't work.
Everybody here knows I never denied there was global warming. I have been very consistent about that all along and you know it.
You are just a sore loser as always. You are pathetic!
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasYou are a liar. I don't answer questions from people who claim they have no interest in a debate. You ask questions because you do want to participate in the debate. Only an idiot would be fooled by your lies. You are pathetic!
I have no interest in participating in the debate itself. My interest is of rhetorics and rhetorics only.
So just answer my question:
Was it a trick? Or was it a mistake?
Stop participating you pathetic liar!
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainThen you give me the opportunity to believe what I want.
You are a liar. I don't answer questions from people who claim they have no interest in a debate. You ask questions because you do want to participate in the debate. Only an idiot would be fooled by your lies. You are pathetic!
Stop participating you pathetic liar!
I think you was trying to use a trick on us. It failed. That makes you a liar and a dishonest person that noone in the futuer can trust.
...or...
I think you didn't read the content of the link before you showed it to us, which means that you did a mighty mistake. Don't you read the other links you present either? Or don't you just understand them? You have numerous times showed that you are not very clever in science, in fact, that you don't much of science at all. You believe what others want you to believe, those who benefit of fooling low-achievers to believe stuff that they want them to believe. By presenting articles you don't ever bother to read, or perhaps don't even understand, proves just that.
So I give you a chance more - was it a trick or a mistake?
Originally posted by googlefudgeSo Hansen was wrong, but would not have been if he had the correct input???? Who is responsible for that, santa clause?
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
Hansen is a corrupt minion for those pushing for a carbon tax.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/climate_models_fail.html
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by Metal BrainHave you read the articles you present? Did you understande them? Can you honestly say that you share everthing therein?
So Hansen was wrong, but would not have been if he had the correct input???? Who is responsible for that, santa clause?
Hansen is a corrupt minion for those pushing for a carbon tax.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/18/dr-james-hansens-growing-financial-scandal-now-over-a-million-dollars-of-outside-income/
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2014/05/climate_models_fail.html
Or do you try to trick us again?
Originally posted by Metal Brain
Of course there is global warming. When I say it started over 300 years ago I am pointing out that global warming is a natural process and you know that full well. Your assertion that it is anthropogenic is not supported by sea level rise at all. That is how you are stumbling all over the place.
You know that though. You are merely pretending to not k ...[text shortened]... about that all along and you know it.
You are just a sore loser as always. You are pathetic!
Your assertion that it [ global warming ] is anthropogenic is not supported by sea level rise at all.
You liar!
I made NO such assertion anywhere in this thread about global warming being “anthropogenic” or words of that effect (even though it recently is at least partly anthropogenic ), let alone said/implied that global warming being anthropogenic is supported by sea level rise (or ANY words of that effect ).
You are obviously referring to a fictitious assertion for a straw man.
If you deny this, tell us WHERE I made this assertion and exactly WHAT was my exact words of that assertion....
The rest of your quotes in your post is completely irrelevant because of this.
-and you accuse FabianFnas of being a "liar"! You hypocrite!
24 Jul 15
Originally posted by humyYou didn't need to on this thread. You did it countless times in the other threads on the science forum. You did make that assertion. Back to your lying I see.Your assertion that it [ global warming ] is anthropogenic is not supported by sea level rise at all.
You liar!
I made NO such assertion anywhere in this thread about global warming being “anthropogenic” or words of that effect (even though it recently is at least partly anthropogenic ), let alone said/implied that global warming being ...[text shortened]... tely irrelevant because of this.
-and you accuse FabianFnas of being a "liar"! You hypocrite!
Originally posted by Metal BrainIn other words, your suddenly and idiotically completely irrelevantly change the subject completely somewhere completely arbitrarily in mid-conversation. I guess, either by pure stupidity or partly by choice and partly by stupidity, you really are incapable of intelligent conversation.
You didn't need to on this thread. You did it countless times in the other threads on the science forum. You did make that assertion. Back to your lying I see.
melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.
So if nothing is done that sea levels do not rise a foot in the next 5 years do we get to say that global warming is much to do about nothing and people who preach about it are liars?
Originally posted by EladarWhy do you assume that a 10 feet sea rise in 50 years implies a constant unchanging rate rather than at an accelerating rate of increase i.e. starting slower and ending faster?
[b] melt 10 times faster than previous consensus estimates, resulting in sea level rise of at least 10 feet in as little as 50 years.
So if nothing is done that sea levels do not rise a foot in the next 5 years do ...[/b]
That would make more sense given the physical models actually generally do predict positive feedback effects to global warming.
There is nothing in their assertions or predictions that says the rate must be necessarily at exactly a constant unchanging rate.
If anything, an increasing rate is generally predicted.
Therefore, if the rise is not at least 1 foot in 5 years time, that wouldn't indicate that it won't be a 10 foot rise in 50 years time.
As far as I am aware, neither they nor anyone else is predicting a 1 foot rise within the next 5 years. This is hardly surprising since, over the last 20th contrary, the average rate of sea level rise has been 1.8mm per year which means, if that rate stays constant for 5 years, that works out as 9cm over 5 years, which is just under 3-tenths of a foot. Thus for that average rate to suddenly go up to 1 foot per 5 years for the next 5 years, the rate would have to suddenly go up more than 3-fold, (that's putting the mathematics of averages too simplistically, but, I think you must know what I mean ) which I think is unlikely. Much more likely the rate of increase will generally go up over the longer time period but with the usual wild fluctuations in the shorter time periods.
P.S. I am not claiming that their prediction of 10 foot rise in 50 years is correct, only that a much less than 1 foot rise in the next 5 years wouldn't contradict their prediction. Me not being a climate scientist, I have no personal opinion on the general likelihood of their particular prediction, only that the general long-term trend in sea level is surely up. I don't know if most other climate scientists now generally agree with their prediction of 10 foot rise in 50 years.
For obvious reasons, I hope their prediction is wrong.
25 Jul 15
Originally posted by FabianFnasTry observing rhetoric instead of engaging in it and you can avoid being an obvious liar to everyone.
He usually call people a liar when he knows he is wrong. He just tries to get off the hook.
We all know his little tricks. We all know what kind of boy he is.
25 Jul 15
Originally posted by humy"That would make more sense given the physical models actually generally do predict positive feedback effects to global warming."
Why do you assume that a 10 feet sea rise in 50 years implies a constant unchanging rate rather than at an accelerating rate of increase i.e. starting slower and ending faster?
That would make more sense given the physical models actually generally do predict positive feedback effects to global warming.
There is nothing in their assertions or predictions t ...[text shortened]... prediction of 10 foot rise in 50 years.
For obvious reasons, I hope their prediction is wrong.
There you go again pretending model predictions are reliable when they are not. Science is not about faith which is all you have. Faith is for fanatics. Take it to the spiritual forum.