Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions. If you weren't mentally unbalanced, you wouldn't have fantasized it. Get help.
Otherwise the interpretation stands.
No one cares how an illiterate irrational lying moron interprets my words. No credibility, remember?
Mostly we're only measuring the bottom 2 or 3 meters of the atmosphere but that's beside the point. Thousands of scientists and statisticians think it's an adequate measure and that's good enough for me. If you think otherwise it's up to you to provide actual scientific evidence.
You can't explain why the assumptions are justified, but now I have a burden of proof?
Nonsense. As an engineer, I have the scientific training to grasp what you can reasonably conclude from a set of data.
Given the assumptions involved, there is very little you can actually conclude form the current "global warming" data.
Your original statement was "It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas." To me that implies you meant by now. No "past future prediction" that I'm aware of said that.
I heard it, that's good enough for me. If that's not what the scientists meant, they should try a lot harder to control the conclusions being propagated.
Ice on the Earth's surface is a complex thing composed of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. It's not particularly surprising that in some places the ice is increasing now. Meanwhile the net amount of ice on the planet is still declining.
The predictions did not say, "some ice will increase". They were wrong, and the popular label of "greenhouse" warming misleads the public. (Greenhouses don't get cold spots amidst their warming)
No one predicted that "global warming" (now "climate change") would result in more ice.
It's been "climate change" since at least the 1950's. Gilbert Plass published a paper in 1956 titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
That's not a prediction that "climate change" will result in more ice.
As I said before the total amount of ice across the whole planet is still declining despite the fact that it is increasing in some areas.
If it's measured like global temperature, there's no credibility here. A quick look also finds that they're talking about AREA, when the important numbers depends on VOLUME. Area can be approximated as volume... but again we are dealing with margin of error contributed by assumptions exceeding the result of concern.
The proposed mechanism is backfilled speculation about a complex system that is still not fully understood.
So are you saying since we don't fully understand it we should treat it as if we understand nothing?
No, I'm pointing out that zero accountability for false predictions results in no integrity for the process.
Actions based on false understanding are more harmful than actions based on little understanding. We can deal with known unknowns far better than unknown unknowns. False understanding results in far more of the latter, by definition.
You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.
You really need to see a doctor and get medicated. Your grip on reality is slipping.
That, or you're an compulsory liar. Still, get help.
Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why.
Go see a doctor, soon. The pills will help quiet the voices in your head, and you'll stop falsely accusing others with the nonsense you hallucinated.
This is the false dilemma the depends on your assumption that I, and not Svante Arrhenius, developed the theory of the greenhouse gas effect? False dilemma indeed!
That's not even close to what I was talking about. Strawman.
This is yet another example of your practical illiteracy. You may have the education to understand phrases in isolation, but you clearly are unable to grasp the ideas they communicate.
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
What magical power do you think the repetition of your irrelevant false premised questions has?
The assumptions of what model specifically? If you're talking about climate models they have nothing to do with the average global temperature.
The model that claims that 39,000 stations provides precise enough measurement of the temperature of 5000 trillion tonnes of air, such that we can derive a "global temperature" and detect 100 year trends.
No one in the scientific community ever predicted that the ice would be gone by now.
I didn't say "now", either. I am describing a past future prediction. Going to no ice is obviously not going to happen when the ice is growing.
Most researchers believe that's likely to happen sometime between 2030 and 2050.
So if this dose not come to pass in 2050, are you willing to accept that this prediction is wrong and the underlying theory has been falisfied?
If the temperature rises from -10 to -5 it's warmer but still cold enough to snow but -5 degree air can hold more water vapor than -10 degree air. That's an incontrovertible scientific observation. At normal Earth temperatures the amount of water vapor air can hold goes up by about 7% for every 1 degree centigrade increase in temperature.
No one predicted that "global warming" (now "climate change") would result in more ice.
I'm not arguing about the low level physics. The proposed mechanism is backfilled speculation about a complex system that is still not fully understood.
By the law of large numbers it's unlikely that the global temperature calculation is wrong.
Not remotely relevant. The accuracy of the global temperature calculation depends on the assumptions of the model. Garbage in, garbage out.
BEST which I mentioned earlier uses temperatures from over 39,000 stations amounting to over a billion observations over the years. You complain that one station is responsible for 10,000 square miles but to be taken seriously you need to show that those stations are not a reasonable representation of the surrounding areas. Researchers who have spent decades looking at the issues have decided they are.
A billion observations of a heterogeneous mix of 5000 trillion tonnes of air molecules.
So over 10 years, you're looking at 1 sample per 50 million tonnes of air molecules per year. 1e9 may sound like an impressive number to you, but there are plenty of other large numbers when dealing with system on a planetary scale.
Even if it turns out to be correct it doesn't contradict global warming.
It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas.
False predictions is theory falsification. Only junk science would ignore that.
In the extreme cold of Antarctica warming actually increases the chances of more snowfall because warmer air holds more moisture than colder air.
Bullshit rationalization to save the theory after the predictions failed. If you turn up the heat in your oven, a corner will become freezing cold, right?
When you're protecting the theory against the evidence, you're not practicing science.
Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
I don't need to cite anything. I am pointing out your logical fallacy.
Yes. You chose to dispute a theory that has been proven experimentally (see Arrhenius et. al.).
I can dispute a theory without adopting a different one. I can say 1+1 = 2 is wrong without providing a different answer. I can say 1+1 = 3 is wrong without providing a different answer.
This is really, really basic logic, and you don't get it. I suggest that you avoid scientific disputes and go into art instead, where your subjective feelings can have free rein.
I don't disagree that it's not a particularly useful number on a local or regional level but as a general indicator of the changing climate on the Earth it works
For differing values of "works". The local dataset is useful just because it provides a record of the local temperature, which is actually observed and has its effect.
The "global temperature" can't be observed, and is only derived by complex calculations. When the local temperature record is wrong, you can observe and correct it. When the "global temperature" calculation is wrong, how do you find out?
as long as they use a consistent methodology to derive the global temperature it should be a good indicator of how temperatures are changing over time.
Not if you factor in the margin of error generated by the assumptions and techniques.
Think carefully about how many cubic feet of air is sampled by one thermometer at one measuring station, and the ratio of that sample to the overall volume of air it represents. 1.47e11 cubic feet per cubic mile. 1 station for 10,000 square miles.
There is a ridiculous amount of extrapolation in the model, and that means tiny errors in measurement create huge margins of error in the results.
Melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals, etc. Nearly all of the changes point in one direction.
The changes do not point in one direction. That is sensationalistic reporting aimed at creating a narrative instead of a balanced perspective.
All these questions have been answered time and time again.
Giving bad answers doesn't count.
The fact you are asking to be educated, and then go on to spout your own conjecture in the full knowledge of your lacking education does not paint you in the best light. If you really seek education, it's out there.
Yes, education is "out there". It's not here, because most of you don't actually know what you're talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Ah - so you didn't say that the greenhouse gas theory was my theory and as yet unproven? You didn't claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)?
If you weren't illiterate, you'd have noticed that I did not claim either of those positions. If you weren't mentally unbalanced, you wouldn't have fantasized it. Get help.
Otherwise the interpretation stands.
No one cares how an illiterate irrational lying moron interprets my words. No credibility, remember?
Mostly we're only measuring the bottom 2 or 3 meters of the atmosphere but that's beside the point. Thousands of scientists and statisticians think it's an adequate measure and that's good enough for me. If you think otherwise it's up to you to provide actual scientific evidence.
You can't explain why the assumptions are justified, but now I have a burden of proof?
Nonsense. As an engineer, I have the scientific training to grasp what you can reasonably conclude from a set of data.
Given the assumptions involved, there is very little you can actually conclude form the current "global warming" data.
Your original statement was "It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas." To me that implies you meant by now. No "past future prediction" that I'm aware of said that.
I heard it, that's good enough for me. If that's not what the scientists meant, they should try a lot harder to control the conclusions being propagated.
Ice on the Earth's surface is a complex thing composed of glaciers, ice sheets and sea ice. It's not particularly surprising that in some places the ice is increasing now. Meanwhile the net amount of ice on the planet is still declining.
The predictions did not say, "some ice will increase". They were wrong, and the popular label of "greenhouse" warming misleads the public. (Greenhouses don't get cold spots amidst their warming)
No one predicted that "global warming" (now "climate change") would result in more ice.
It's been "climate change" since at least the 1950's. Gilbert Plass published a paper in 1956 titled "The Carbon Dioxide Theory of Climate Change".
That's not a prediction that "climate change" will result in more ice.
As I said before the total amount of ice across the whole planet is still declining despite the fact that it is increasing in some areas.
If it's measured like global temperature, there's no credibility here. A quick look also finds that they're talking about AREA, when the important numbers depends on VOLUME. Area can be approximated as volume ... but again we are dealing with margin of error contributed by assumptions exceeding the result of concern.
The proposed mechanism is backfilled speculation about a complex system that is still not fully understood.
So are you saying since we don't fully understand it we should treat it as if we understand nothing?
No, I'm pointing out that zero accountability for false predictions results in no integrity for the process.
Actions based on false understanding are more harmful than actions based on little understanding. We can deal with known unknowns far better than unknown unknowns. False understanding results in far more of the latter, by definition.
You just claimed that I'm a time travelling zombie. Somehow I don't think I'm the one with head problems.
You really need to see a doctor and get medicated. Your grip on reality is slipping.
That, or you're an compulsory liar. Still, get help.
Somehow, I don't think you are in a position to insult anyone, given that you've now implicitly admitted that you entered this conversation because you thought "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic" - and then foamed at the mouth for a week or so while I asked you why.
Go see a doctor, soon. The pills will help quiet the voices in your head, and you'll stop falsely accusing others with the nonsense you hallucinated.
If you don't answer the questions, we'll just assume ...
We? You should stop listening to the voices in your head. Your assumptions suck.
... you have no explanation other than the most obvious interpretation of your remarks.
Nice try, but you've already established you are an irrational, illiterate moron.
"it can be more than 20%"
Yeah, it can be an infinite number of %, if the actual distance travelled is zero, and the random error is not.
That's an odd use case for a GPS.
The witchdoctor waves his hand in solemn ceremony, chanting words with no meaning.
Nothing happens.
The witchdoctor furrows his brow and repeats his words.
This time, this time.
This is the false dilemma the depends on your assumption that I, and not Svante Arrhenius, developed the theory of the greenhouse gas effect? False dilemma indeed!
That's not even close to what I was talking about. Strawman.
This is yet another example of your practical illiteracy. You may have the education to understand phrases in isolation, but you clearly are unable to grasp the ideas they communicate.
Do you still think "thermodynamic" means the same as "exothermic"?
Did you mistake the mechanism underpinning greenhouse gases with the mechanism for warming inside a greenhouse? What's your view now?
Did you claim that the theory of greenhouse gases had nothing to do with the person who formulated the theory (Svante Arrhenius)? What's your view now?
Did you claim that I invented the theory of the greenhouse effect? Do you still think I invented the theory?
What magical power do you think the repetition of your irrelevant false premised questions has?
Logic isn't magic, dumbass.
And this is you, right? The guy whose only apparent argument is an ad hominem fallacy?
You weren't paying attention when I pointed out your false dilemma, huh?
Actually, that's not true, because you change the subject to everything else except your own logical fallacy.
You're running away from your own words but still posture as qualified to prosecute and interrogate.
Asking for citations when dealing with a logical fallacy is a really stupid categorical error. Dumb.
People are laughing at the illiterate fool who commits logical fallacy after logical fallacy when attacking other's positions.
Like a man who smashes himself in the face with a hammer and thinks he's making a point about how dangerous he is.
Dangerous to himself perhaps.
"Science Heretic! Confess now and the Inquisition will grant you a quick death!"
I confess that you're too fat and stupid to pull it off. People are just going to point and laugh.
So is your fantasy to be an Inquisitor interrogating the unbelievers in Science?
Maybe you can wear one of those funny hats. They'll never expect it.
You know which one you falsely attributed to me.
Awww, you still think of yourself as a prosecutor getting to the truth.
Retract your false attribution of "my theory".
Deliberately and falsely attributed theory. Demands to be taken seriously.
Switching topics for a reaction, any reaction.
Hint: Hold yourself accountable for your own words, and then you have credibility to criticize others' positions.
Irrelevant demand is irrelevant.
Logical fallacies remain. Credibility still gone.
Thanks for spoutiing yet more unproven assertions
I've already demonstrated why you have no credibility. The only thing left to do is to mock your impotence.
If you think I'm irrelevant ... why are you wasting your time?
The assumptions of what model specifically? If you're talking about climate models they have nothing to do with the average global temperature.
The model that claims that 39,000 stations provides precise enough measurement of the temperature of 5000 trillion tonnes of air, such that we can derive a "global temperature" and detect 100 year trends.
No one in the scientific community ever predicted that the ice would be gone by now.
I didn't say "now", either. I am describing a past future prediction. Going to no ice is obviously not going to happen when the ice is growing.
Most researchers believe that's likely to happen sometime between 2030 and 2050.
So if this dose not come to pass in 2050, are you willing to accept that this prediction is wrong and the underlying theory has been falisfied?
If the temperature rises from -10 to -5 it's warmer but still cold enough to snow but -5 degree air can hold more water vapor than -10 degree air. That's an incontrovertible scientific observation. At normal Earth temperatures the amount of water vapor air can hold goes up by about 7% for every 1 degree centigrade increase in temperature.
No one predicted that "global warming" (now "climate change") would result in more ice.
I'm not arguing about the low level physics. The proposed mechanism is backfilled speculation about a complex system that is still not fully understood.
When you have no credibility, I don't care what you think of my "irrelevance".
Do you honestly think that anybody cares about your fantasies?
That's an excellent question that you should ask yourself. Logical fallacies, false attribution, and selective quoting - you have no credibility.
On top of that, you're treating "study" with religious dogma. Science isn't a religion.
By the law of large numbers it's unlikely that the global temperature calculation is wrong.
Not remotely relevant. The accuracy of the global temperature calculation depends on the assumptions of the model. Garbage in, garbage out.
BEST which I mentioned earlier uses temperatures from over 39,000 stations amounting to over a billion observations over the years. You complain that one station is responsible for 10,000 square miles but to be taken seriously you need to show that those stations are not a reasonable representation of the surrounding areas. Researchers who have spent decades looking at the issues have decided they are.
A billion observations of a heterogeneous mix of 5000 trillion tonnes of air molecules.
So over 10 years, you're looking at 1 sample per 50 million tonnes of air molecules per year. 1e9 may sound like an impressive number to you, but there are plenty of other large numbers when dealing with system on a planetary scale.
Even if it turns out to be correct it doesn't contradict global warming.
It only happens to contradict previous global warming predictions that all the ice would be gone and we'd have massive floods of coastal areas.
False predictions is theory falsification. Only junk science would ignore that.
In the extreme cold of Antarctica warming actually increases the chances of more snowfall because warmer air holds more moisture than colder air.
Bullshit rationalization to save the theory after the predictions failed. If you turn up the heat in your oven, a corner will become freezing cold, right?
When you're protecting the theory against the evidence, you're not practicing science.
Cite the relevant paper which demonstrates the dependency on the "earths temperature" to prove/disprove the greenhouse gas effect.
I don't need to cite anything. I am pointing out your logical fallacy.
Yes. You chose to dispute a theory that has been proven experimentally (see Arrhenius et. al.).
I can dispute a theory without adopting a different one. I can say 1+1 = 2 is wrong without providing a different answer. I can say 1+1 = 3 is wrong without providing a different answer.
This is really, really basic logic, and you don't get it. I suggest that you avoid scientific disputes and go into art instead, where your subjective feelings can have free rein.
I don't disagree that it's not a particularly useful number on a local or regional level but as a general indicator of the changing climate on the Earth it works
For differing values of "works". The local dataset is useful just because it provides a record of the local temperature, which is actually observed and has its effect.
The "global temperature" can't be observed, and is only derived by complex calculations. When the local temperature record is wrong, you can observe and correct it. When the "global temperature" calculation is wrong, how do you find out?
as long as they use a consistent methodology to derive the global temperature it should be a good indicator of how temperatures are changing over time.
Not if you factor in the margin of error generated by the assumptions and techniques.
Think carefully about how many cubic feet of air is sampled by one thermometer at one measuring station, and the ratio of that sample to the overall volume of air it represents. 1.47e11 cubic feet per cubic mile. 1 station for 10,000 square miles.
There is a ridiculous amount of extrapolation in the model, and that means tiny errors in measurement create huge margins of error in the results.
Melting glaciers and ice sheets, rising sea levels, changes in growing seasons and the ranges of plants and animals, etc. Nearly all of the changes point in one direction.
The changes do not point in one direction. That is sensationalistic reporting aimed at creating a narrative instead of a balanced perspective.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/11/02/nasa-antarctic-ice-sheet-is-growing-not-shrinking/
As far a net energy, calculations find that the Earth is accumulating energy at a rate of around 4 Hiroshima atomic bombs per second.
1. Calculation is not observation
2. Energy in what form? Biomass is chemical energy. We do not have the measurement tools to track biomass accumulation at a global level.
Yes, I said, "The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming"
Yes or no question for you: Did you attribute "increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming" as my theory?
All these questions have been answered time and time again.
Giving bad answers doesn't count.
The fact you are asking to be educated, and then go on to spout your own conjecture in the full knowledge of your lacking education does not paint you in the best light. If you really seek education, it's out there.
Yes, education is "out there". It's not here, because most of you don't actually know what you're talking about.
your theory that increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases leads to zero warming.
"My" theory?
Correct.
Falsely attributing a particular position to me does not make it my theory.
You didn't say The ability to measure "earth's temperature" has insufficient precision or accuracy to prove or disprove "zero warming".?
That statement is irrelevant to the above exchange.