===
===
- David Daniel Ball Facts like what? Like more polar bears? More sea ice? Colder temperatures? All despite a substantial increase in the trace element carbon dioxide? Or do you mean facts like the number of mistakes in the Nobel Prize winning alarmism of an Al Gore movie?
- Jay Kanta Well, there is not more sea ice, that would be a lie. The amount of CO2 in proportion to the other gases also doesn't have any truth, it is an argument from personal incredulity. Bringing up Al Gore is another logical fallacy.
You're not a scientist, are you David? - David Daniel Ball There is more CO2 now than in the recent past. There is certainly more ice now than what was predicted .. and in the last few winters at the same time .. satellite photos show this. More polar bears is a fact too. your logical fallacy theory .. you do know how that works?
- Daniel Bailey The small increase in Antarctic sea ice has been dwarfed by the enormous loss of Arctic sea ice.
Your throwaway reference to winter ice formation is so obviously a red herring as to immediately cast your integrity in doubt here. Really? WINTER ice formation? Seriously?
You'll need to provide a reference to a reputable source to support your "more polar bears is a fact" toss-off assertion. Assertions are not facts unless supported with credible sources.
The one thing you are remotely close to being correct on is that the 40% increase in atmospheric CO2 concentration is due to human fossil fuel usages; that is a "settled fact", as determined by extensive research. Research to which so far you have not demonstrated any substantive awareness of. - Jay Kanta " There is certainly more ice now than what was predicted" <=- yeah, you need a peer reviewed citation to make that claim, and you need to differentiate between extent and volume.
- David Daniel Ball You can see the data .. and you know about the CO2 .. so the logical fallacy is in your argument .. probably to do with my credentials. Feel free to check them .. look in your latest copy of the IPCC
- Daniel Bailey Sir Black Knight:
I can see your reference (the putrefaction known as Bolt), but if you refer to the embedded graphic within it, that is not data. It is an output OF data to be sure, but only that data deemed inconvenient to hour prescribed message. The message also including Godwin's Law, BTW.
In reality, when examining ANY time-span starting in the instrumental record (any of the global datasets) and ending in the present, note that the data shows that:
• Over no period is warming statistically excluded. NONE.
• Over no period is the hypothesis of "no warming" statistically supported WRT a null hypothesis of the longer term trends. NONE.
• And over any period with enough data to actually separate the two hypotheses – there is warming. ALWAYS.
A further reality is that our climate has built up 423,239,835 Hiroshima bombs worth of accumulated heat since 2005 (Levitus 2012).
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Total_Heat_Content_2011.jpg
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Nuccitelli_OHC_Data.jpg
Per the linked video below, the human contribution to global warming over the last 16 years is essentially the same as during the prior 16 years, meaning the ongoing warming trend continues, unabated. Human-caused greenhouse warming, while partially hidden by natural variations, has continued in line with model projections and is significant at the 99.99% level.
Unless greenhouse gas emissions are brought under control, we will see faster warming in the future.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/16_more_years_of_global_warming.html
And, per Balmaseda, Trenberth, and Källén (2013):
“Aside from the volcanic cooling episodes, there is an additional cooling episode following the huge 1997–98 El Niño event after 1998, which mainly affects the upper 700 m. The event led to a global warming of the atmosphere and made 1998 the warmest year on record to that point as heat came out of the ocean, largely through evaporative cooling [Trenberth et al., 2002]. After 1998, there was a rapid exchange of heat between the regions above and below 700 m (Figure S01 in suplementary material). The heat exchange between the layers above and below 700 m during 1998 is consistent with a recent study based on Argo data for more recent events [Roemmich and Gilson, 2011]. Then after 1999 the warming starts again dramatically, this time also involving all depth ranges. This signals the beginning of the most sustained warming trend in this record of OHC. Indeed, recent warming rates of the waters below 700 m appear to be unprecedented.”
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/BTK13Fig1.jpg
Note, too, that including the Argo data increases the global energy imbalance:
“The magnitude of the warming trend is consistent with observational estimates, being equivalent to an average 0.47 ± 0.03 W m-2 for the period 1975–2009. There is large decadal variability in the heat uptake, the latest decade being significantly higher (1.19 ± 0.11 W m-2) than the preceding record. Globally this corresponds to 0.84 W m-2, consistent with earlier estimates [Trenberth et al., 2009]. In an observing system experiment where Argo is withdrawn, the ocean heating for the last decade is reduced (0.82 ± 0.10 W m-2), but is still significantly higher than in previous decades.”
Meaning less short term warming at the surface…but at the expense of a greater earlier long-term warming, and faster sea level rise.
So the warming of the oceans is actually accelerating, not decreasing...
Fake-skeptics (AKA "deniers") such as you and Bolt choose to focus on just 2.3% of the Earth system: the surface temperature record. In doing so, you selectively omit as being inconvenient the remaining 97.7% of the Earth system, the oceans and the Cryosphere (where the bulk of the heating is currently being sequestered.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/Escalator_2012_500.gif
http://www.skepticalscience.com/graphics/GW_Components_500.jpg
http://www.skepticalscience.com//pics/WhereGWisgoing1.gif
There exists a tight intercoupling between atmospheric CO2 levels, global temperatures and global sea levels. As evidenced by the continued warming of the 97.7% of the Earth system that "skeptics" ignore due to the inconvenient warming being experienced there.
"Skeptics" who do as you are taking a ride on the Escalator.
http://skepticalscience.com/still-going-down-the-up-escalator.html
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Global-Warming-is-Accelerating-but-its-Still-Groundhog-Day-at-the-Daily-Mail.html
So you have 2 options before you:
1. Acknowledge you have been misled by those playing you as a fool (Bolt et al) and begin to use your mind to learn the actual science of climate change.
or,
2. Double-down on your denial by shrilly insisting (like the Black Knight of Monty Python and the Holy Grail fame) that it's still "not happening". And forever sear your reputation in the minds of those following this venue that you are a clueless, deluded and hapless denier.
http://youtu.be/k5-JJuQJQZY - David Daniel Ball I needed to package the link so Bolt, Blair et al could follow and enjoy .. I got the name from a former friend ..
- Daniel Bailey Doubling down on denial, option number 2: check.
Going through life as a caricature of a fool, as you do, is no recipe for success in life, as the occupation of court fool ceased being viable many decades ago. Despite the best efforts of Bolt, Delingpole, Goddard, Morano, TVMOB & Watts to reinvigorate the field. - John Samuel Poor Bolt. He must scare himself. First he says there's no such thing as global warming and you can't trust the models. Then one paper emerges that uses a model to state warming might be ever so slightly less than the consensus and he gets his knickers in a twist misunderstanding the paper saying warming's ended. Doh. Never mind that that the lead author, Otto,says Bolt is wrong. Gullible Libertarians lap this stuff up.
And, next week, where another one comes in slightly higher than the consensus the self-same numpties will be back to complaining that the science
I prefer science to lead my ideology, not the other way about.http://watchingthedeniers.wordpress.com/category/andrew-bolt/ - Jay Kanta Mr. Ball cites two useless blogs to try to prove......something. Andrew Bolt isn't a scientist, he's never done scientific research and neither has Mr. Ball. At least you and Bolt have something in common.
- David Daniel Ball They are ecumenical abusers .. they abuse everything, even stuff they held up to support ..
- David Daniel Ball Out of curiosity, other than abusing Bolt or those who feed his site, do you have any grounds for doing so .. something scientific? Which actually has data not corrupted by special interests?
- Daniel Bailey "Which actually has data not corrupted by special interests?"
This is where those in denial (you), promptly reject every scientific dataset that disagrees with your prespecified non-warming agenda. Which, since the warming signal is pervasive through all of the datasets, precludes all of them.
See, I saved us both some time and effort there.
Back to you for some more ideologically-based vapidity. - John Samuel Dear Mr Ball - there is corruption. Seehttp://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/feb/14/donors-trust-funding-climate-denial-networks. It's not the scientists doing the corrupting.
- David Daniel Ball I like to believe that conservatives and left wing liberals (forgive me, I don't mean to sound abusive, but in Australia, where I am, the conservatives call themselves Liberals) are able to argue on a level that doesn't finish with pointing at polemics. The Guardian has launched in Australia .. and its most viewed article here is how a vagina differs from a laptop .. I haven't read it so I can't tell you what they identify as differences. I tend to follow the debate on AGW on wikipedia and I can't claim that the debate has matured yet. A few winters ago, Russia claimed they were warmer than every state surrounding them .. that is a joke.
- Jay Kanta Nice to see that YOU are the one offering zero proof, just conspiracy theories and lame excuses, Mr. Balls.
- Daniel Bailey "I tend to follow the debate on AGW on wikipedia and I can't claim that the debate has matured yet."
In the discussions around global warming and its anthropogenic causation, there are those who focus on the science using the scientific method and logic, seeking reproducible evidence that best explains what we can empirically measure.
Then there is everyone in the minority, those who ignore the above in favor of slander, innuendo, unsupported assertion and character assassination in favor of promulgating false equivalence to support the ephemeral facade of "debate" and "sides". Those like David Daniel Ball, above.
But it is not about the science, the bulk of the science was settled, decades ago. Deniers posing as skeptics set up a charade tableau of false equivalence to poison the well of public acceptance of that science.
A parsimonious harping at the font of stolen, out-of-context and context-less emails proven not germane to the science is continuing on in the prosecution of the agenda of denial.
Truth, science and reputable journalism all sacrificed to the unholy alter of false equivalence under the guise of promulgating a fallacious "debate".
You are a human lampoon of a real skeptic. Props on making yourself the joke of this thread.
No comments:
Post a Comment