New projections on sea level rise...

Originally posted by FabianFnas
You know I don't discuss anything other than rhetorics with you.
And when you say that your rhetorics are perfect and everyone elses, not agreeing with you, are wrong - that really proves that you are wrong, dead wrong.

Do you really think that rhetorics is about who shouts highest? The one insulting the other one most is the winner? Really? Don't you ...[text shortened]... to fool me into a discussing things other than rhetorics with me? You fail! Big time, you fail!

😴

Originally posted by Metal Brain
😴

And now you lost again. This time by forfeit.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
And now you lost again. This time by forfeit.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mature. Very mature.
Lost again.

For those that are interested and have an open mind...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaever personifies the classic stereotype of the physicist who thinks he understands all scientific fields of study:

In his talk, Giaever complained that he had become famous for his climate contrarianism, which he claimed indicated that dissenting opinions on the subject are not welcome. On the contrary, Giaever has been criticized for repeating long-debunked climate myths which he could have easily learned about through a little bit of research - by perusing the Skeptical Science database, for example, where we have debunked all of his Googled climate misconceptions.

Instead, Giaever has used his position of scientific authority as a Nobel Laureate to misinform people about a subject on which he has not even done the most basic research. That is not how a good scientist should behave, and that is why Giaever has rightfully and deservedly been criticized. Giaever finishes his talk by proclaiming

"Is climate change pseudoscience? If I’m going to answer the question, the answer is: absolutely."

The problem is that Giaever has not done his homework, which is why he gets the wrong answer, and his presentation deserves a failing grade. Ironically, Giaever defines "pseudoscience" as only seeking evidence to confirm one's desired hypothesis, which is precisely how Giaever himself has behaved with respect to climate science.

But individual scientists (even Nobel Laureates) suffer from cognitive biases like anyone else. That's why we don't rely on indvidual scientists or individual papers to draw conclusions about climate change. The only way to get an accurate picture is through the work of many scientists, peer reviewed and scrutinized over decades and tested against multiple lines of evidence. Giaever demonstrates how far cognitive bias - reinforced by a few hours of Googling - can lead anyone to the wrong conclusions, and also proves that no individual's opinion, regardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.

Originally posted by googlefudge
For those that are interested and have an open mind...

http://www.skepticalscience.com/ivar-giaever-nobel-physicist-climate-pseudoscientist.html

In this post we will examine the claims made by Giaever in his talk, and show that his contrarian climate opinions come from a position of extreme ignorance on the subject, as Giaever admits. Giaev ...[text shortened]... egardless of his credentials, can replace the full body of climate science evidence.

[/b]

That's it? His statement was accurate and the best rebuttal is "that applies to you" and lets label him the same thing?

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by Metal Brain
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mature. Very mature.
Lost again.

Originally posted by humy
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.

So you are saying that we'd need to wait for the entire 50 years before we can say this guy is off his rocker and that global warming is much to do about nothing.

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that we'd need to wait for the entire 50 years before we can say this guy is off his rocker and that global warming is much to do about nothing.

No, to all points.

You evidently either didn't properly read, or failed to comprehend, both humy's and my posts.

Firstly, this paper includes a claim that we could potentially see major sea level change in
a period of time as short as 50 years IF we continue emitting CO2 at currently planned levels.
It is unknown as of right now what levels we will continue emitting CO2 at, and this was the
worst case out of a range of possible outcomes. If we get 50 years into the future and the
worst case end of the predictions hasn't happened, that doesn't mean that the paper was wrong.
To say otherwise would be like claiming that if there was a prediction of a large earthquake in
a given region that would happen in the next 50~100 years, and it didn't happen after 50 years that
the prediction was wrong, after only going half way through the predicted time-scale.

This paper, which has not yet been peer reviewed, is a study into glacial and ice sheet melting
due to climate change. This is an area with much uncertainty as ice sheet behaviour is complex
and hard to study and model. Due to this, the highly conservative IPCC projections on sea level
rise are all based on very conservative best case estimates for the rate of ice melt.
This paper is a detailed look at the underlying physics and current research and tries to produce a
more accurate and confident prediction about ice sheet behaviour under different future emissions
scenarios. It may or may not be an improvement over current consensus, that is part of what the
peer review process will determine. In doing so we will likely improve our knowledge as people test
this papers predictions and principles.

However.

Global warming is happening, independent on whether or not this paper/research on one of the potential
EFFECTS of global warming is valid or not.

As I said previously, thinking that disproving this paper would invalidate global warming, is like thinking that
invalidating a computer model of the effects of an asteroid impact would disprove the notion that we could
get hit by an asteroid.

The fact that the precise consequences of global warming and consequent climate change are uncertain and
hard to predict says nothing about whether global warming is a real phenomena. All it means is that it is
harder to plan for it as we don't know what changes and of what magnitude to prepare for. Which means
preparing for a range of potential futures at much greater cost than being able to prepare for a known predictable
future.

Which incidentally is one of the many reasons that even if global warming were not a man made phenomena,
we would still be investing heavily in climate modelling. Because just like being able to accurately forecast the
weather saves money and lives, so does forecasting the climate.

Originally posted by googlefudge
No, to all points.

You evidently either didn't properly read, or failed to comprehend, both humy's and my posts.

Firstly, this paper includes a claim that we could potentially see major sea level change in
a period of time as short as 50 years IF we continue emitting CO2 at currently planned levels.
It is unknown as of right now what levels we w ...[text shortened]... ble to accurately forecast the
weather saves money and lives, so does forecasting the climate.

So you are saying that the claims about global warming are not falsifiable. Nice

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that the claims about global warming are not falsifiable. Nice

This trick works surprisingly often. "So you are saying that..."
The answer would be "No, I didn't say that..." and then the discussion is diverted from the topic at hand to who said what exactly.
The purpose is of course that one knows oneself that the argment is too loose and one are in an imminent need to disguise that. Avoidance is the trick. So one tries "So you are saying that...".

Don't fall for this! Be aware of this trick!

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that the claims about global warming are not falsifiable.

No. Nothing he said there implied that at all and you should know it. If any of these above claims about global warming are false, it is possible to prove them false either by empirical evidence or by demonstrating or discovering some logical flaw, if it exists, in the physical model.
That would mean that, by the definition of falsifiable, they are falsifiable.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability
"A statement is called falsifiable if it is possible to conceive an observation or an argument which proves the statement in question to be false."

P.S. to preempt the possible highly erroneous 'counterargument' I once heard from someone else; a theory merely being falsifiable doesn't imply in any way that it is false nor that it probably it false nor by itself give any rational reason to doubt the theory nor by itself give rational reason to rationally think the theory must be any less probable as a result of it being falsifiable.

Originally posted by Eladar
So you are saying that the claims about global warming are not falsifiable. Nice

No, I am not saying that at all.

You are maintaining your unbroken "being utterly wrong about everything and incapable of
basic reading comprehension" streak.

These predictions are absolutely falsifiable, and people are already looking to try to do just that.

However, as I am now about to say for the third time because you were apparently to dense to
understand it the first two times...

THIS PAPER IS NOT ABOUT WHETHER GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING OR NOT

This is an attempt to improve our ability to predict the SCALE of one of the effects of global warming.

I say scale, because the ice sheets are already melting and sea levels are already rising, the question is
not if there will be further ice melt, but how much and how fast.

If reality does not match up to the projections of this research then that will absolutely falsify their work.

What it wont do is falsify the idea that global warming is happening because this paper is not about whether
global warming is happening.

Originally posted by FabianFnas
This trick works surprisingly often. "So you are saying that..."
The answer would be "No, I didn't say that..." and then the discussion is diverted from the topic at hand to who said what exactly.
The purpose is of course that one knows oneself that the argment is too loose and one are in an imminent need to disguise that. Avoidance is the trick. So one tries "So you are saying that...".

Don't fall for this! Be aware of this trick!

In other words, it may be what I mean, but I don't want it to mean that. Since I don't want it to mean that, then it isn't what I mean.

Gotcha

If the prediction is not true, then it has been demonstrated to be false. I believe falsifiable means being able to be shown false.

Originally posted by Eladar
In other words, it may be what I mean, but I don't want it to mean that. Since I don't want it to mean that, then it isn't what I mean.

So you say that it's okay to try to win a debate using rhetorical tricks? You say that the truth is not important because winning the debate is numero uno? So you say that this isn't about climate at all but just to win a verbal fight to boost your personal ego?