Off Topic Dark Matter and other Astronomy information.
- Thread starter BBFs Unpopular View
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
- Status
You come here trolling me and call me troll
[HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG]
I've already made my point, and backed it up with a source.
You claimed to have evidence that 'proves' that the idea of glacial retreat in Antarctica is incorrect.......I think it's time you posted it
You asked me this several times today and I owned it
Now you shed your skin like a snake as usual
You've owned it? How exactly?You come here trolling me and call me troll
[HASHTAG]#meltdown[/HASHTAG]
You asked me this several times today and I owned it
By posting a piece that says that glacial ice retreat will add to sea levels over the course of the 21st Century?
hahahaha, you've been hoisted by your own petard, you plank.
Wondering how it is ouch, are you reduced to point scoring about where a map came from, one with no legend and no shred of credibility?
It is a result of GISS analysis ******
Everyone's a '******' eh lad....
There's only you - the sole seeker of truth and justice, who's 'informed', everyone else knows jack and you are an armchair expert.
You've got some serious issues.
@astro(Klopp's footbo)naut - aren't you a scientist by trade mate?
Now you are embarrasing yourself, you are talking about a prediction now, a minute ago you were talking about what the glaciers are actually doing and have been doing.
This is what you said "
"You claimed to have evidence that 'proves' that the idea of glacial retreat in Antarctica is incorrect.......I think it's time you posted it "
This is what I replied. Oh I also love the way you call the fourth report assessment AR4 from the IPCC and a scientific study by NASA "a piece"
You literally cannot be consistent from one post to the next, now you are all " will add to sea levels" in the future, again a goalpost move
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
You must log in or register to see images
Now, I know science is stupid when making points.
Here is the NASA study that says the Antarctic gains more ice than it loses, or as we like to say in the real world, is growing.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071
And I quote "Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1"
glacial ice retreat will add to sea levels over the course of the 21st
It came from the Berkeley group, who doubted the original curves, and whose "climategate" youtube video you have quoted
So they reanalysed all the data and found the global warming was still there
Berkeley Earth was conceived by Richard and Elizabeth Muller in early 2010 when they found merit in some of the concerns of skeptics. They organized a group of scientists to reanalyze the Earth’s surface temperature record, and published their initial findings in 2012. Berkeley Earth became an independent non-profit 501(c)(3) in February 2013.
From 2010-2012, Berkeley Earth systematically addressed the five major concerns that global warming skeptics had identified, and did so in a systematic and objective manner. The first four were potential biases from data selection, data adjustment, poor station quality, and the urban heat island effect. Our analysis showed that these issues did not unduly bias the record. The fifth concern related to the over reliance on large and complex global climate models by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the attribution of the recent temperature increase to anthropogenic forcings. We obtained a long and accurate record, spanning 250 years and showed that it could be well-fit with a simple model that included a volcanic term and, as an anthropogenic proxy, CO2 concentration. We concluded that the record could be reproduced by just these two contributions, and that inclusion of direct variations in solar intensity did not contribute to the fit.
There's the [HASHTAG]#ouch[/HASHTAG]
what data did they analyse? Copy paste pretending to understand does not cut it Astro tard, you also have ignored everything I asked you and just come back with unrelated copy pastes.
What data? There are different data sets
what data did they analyse? Copy paste pretending to understand does not cut it Astro tard, you also have ignored everything I asked you and just come back with unrelated copy pastes.
What data? There are different data sets
Data and source files here: http://berkeleyearth.org/data/
That sums up your view on the World in a nutshell. You ask for data, I provide it, you can't even be bothered reading it, and then have the temerity to ask if I haveFor your information, it concludes that 80% of the glacial mass in Antarctica is retreating and the small areas that are gaining mass (1.6%) doesn't in any way cover the net loss.
The [HASHTAG]#standard[/HASHTAG] MO of a conspiraloon
10 characteristics of conspiracy theorists
A useful guide by Donna Ferentes
1. Arrogance. They are always fact-seekers, questioners, people who are trying to discover the truth: sceptics are always "sheep", patsies for Messrs Bush and Blair etc.
2. Relentlessness. They will always go on and on about a conspiracy no matter how little evidence they have to go on or how much of what they have is simply discredited. (Moreover, as per 1. above, even if you listen to them ninety-eight times, the ninety-ninth time, when you say "no thanks", you'll be called a "sheep" again.) Additionally, they have no capacity for precis whatsoever. They go on and on at enormous length.
3. Inability to answer questions. For people who loudly advertise their determination to the principle of questioning everything, they're pretty poor at answering direct questions from sceptics about the claims that they make.
4. Fondness for certain stock phrases. These include Cicero's "cui bono?" (of which it can be said that Cicero understood the importance of having evidence to back it up) and Conan Doyle's "once we have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however unlikely, must be the truth". What these phrases have in common is that they are attempts to absolve themselves from any responsibility to produce positive, hard evidence themselves: you simply "eliminate the impossible" (i.e. say the official account can't stand scrutiny) which means that the wild allegation of your choice, based on "cui bono?" (which is always the government) is therefore the truth.
5. Inability to employ or understand Occam's Razor. Aided by the principle in 4. above, conspiracy theorists never notice that the small inconsistencies in the accounts which they reject are dwarfed by the enormous, gaping holes in logic, likelihood and evidence in any alternative account.
6. Inability to tell good evidence from bad. Conspiracy theorists have no place for peer-review, for scientific knowledge, for the respectability of sources. The fact that a claim has been made by anybody, anywhere, is enough for them to reproduce it and demand that the questions it raises be answered, as if intellectual enquiry were a matter of responding to every rumour. While they do this, of course, they will claim to have "open minds" and abuse the sceptics for apparently lacking same.
7. Inability to withdraw. It's a rare day indeed when a conspiracy theorist admits that a claim they have made has turned out to be without foundation, whether it be the overall claim itself or any of the evidence produced to support it. Moreover they have a liking (see 3. above) for the technique of avoiding discussion of their claims by "swamping" - piling on a whole lot more material rather than respond to the objections sceptics make to the previous lot.
8. Leaping to conclusions. Conspiracy theorists are very keen indeed to declare the "official" account totally discredited without having remotely enough cause so to do. Of course this enables them to wheel on the Conan Doyle quote as in 4. above. Small inconsistencies in the account of an event, small unanswered questions, small problems in timing of differences in procedure from previous events of the same kind are all more than adequate to declare the "official" account clearly and definitively discredited. It goes without saying that it is not necessary to prove that these inconsistencies are either relevant, or that they even definitely exist.
9. Using previous conspiracies as evidence to support their claims.This argument invokes scandals like the Birmingham Six, the Bologna station bombings, the Zinoviev letter and so on in order to try and demonstrate that their conspiracy theory should be accorded some weight (because it's “happened before”.) They do not pause to reflect that the conspiracies they are touting are almost always far more unlikely and complicated than the real-life conspiracies with which they make comparison, or that the fact that something might potentially happen does not, in and of itself, make it anything other than extremely unlikely.
10. It's always a conspiracy. And it is, isn't it? No sooner has the body been discovered, the bomb gone off, than the same people are producing the same old stuff, demanding that there are questions which need to be answered, at the same unbearable length. Because the most important thing about these people is that they are people entirely lacking in discrimination. They cannot tell a good theory from a bad one, they cannot tell good evidence from bad evidence and they cannot tell a good source from a bad one. And for that reason, they always come up with the same answer when they ask the same question.
A person who always says the same thing, and says it over and over again is, of course, commonly considered to be, if not a monomaniac, then at very least, a bore.
http://www.urban75.org/info/conspiraloons.html
This'll go well
Now you are embarrasing yourself, you are talking about a prediction now, a minute ago you were talking about what the glaciers are actually doing and have been doing.
This is what you said "
"You claimed to have evidence that 'proves' that the idea of glacial retreat in Antarctica is incorrect.......I think it's time you posted it "
This is what I replied. Oh I also love the way you call the fourth report assessment AR4 from the IPCC and a scientific study by NASA "a piece"
You literally cannot be consistent from one post to the next
https://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-6-5.html
You must log in or register to see images
Now, I know science is stupid when making points.
Here is the NASA study that says the Antarctic gains more ice than it loses, or as we like to say in the real world, is growing.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/igsoc/jog/pre-prints/content-ings_jog_15j071
And I quote "Cloud and land Elevation Satellite (ICESat) data (2003–08) show mass gains from snow accumulation exceeded discharge losses by 82 ± 25 Gt a–1, reducing global sea-level rise by 0.23 mm a–1"
I thought the IPCC were all [HASHTAG]#fraudsters[/HASHTAG] btw?
....and you've spent half the thread calling NASA's information bent.
But as is your standard MO you find one graph amongst a piece that concludes with;
Thawing of permafrost is projected to contribute about 5 mm during the 21st century under the SRES scenario A2
...and decide that it debunks my statement of fact that the Antarctic glacial mass has been retreating. You're barking mad.
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1031/2012/tc-6-1031-2012.pdf
Raw data does not tell me what data set they used as there are limited options.
Did they use surface temp data, SST, RSS UAH GISS NOAA RS?
Don't just give me a link, I always at least provide the raw data and the plotted data in graph form as none of us can read raw ****ing data ******
LOL you can't even tell the difference between measurement and prediction. or past present and future
I posted actual fact, what is measured.
You posted this
Thawing of permafrost is projected to contribute about 5 mm during the 21st century under the SRES scenario A2
Now I wonder what the other scenarios foretold as A2 is one of several
But lets be honest, all the "scenarios" for the arctic said no ice by 2010, no ice by 2012, no ice by 2013, no ice by summer 2014 and no ice by 2015 and they are still going
So tell me what use is a scenario, a prediction, when assessing if the glacier is melting today or for the last 10 years?
I am shocked at how ******ed and ****ing thick you are
And you call me mad, [HASHTAG]#******[/HASHTAG]
It's brain numbingly duh how ****in stupid both you and astro are given the size of your egos
this is like playing connect 4 vs. a caesar salad.
Ye aint even got as far as taking a turn yet. No arguments made whatsoever, just leaky egotistical arses
this is like playing connect 4 vs. a caesar salad.
Ye aint even got as far as taking a turn yet. No arguments made whatsoever, just leaky egotistical arses
It's brain numbingly duh how ****in stupid both you and astro are given the size of your egos
this is like playing connect 4 vs. a caesar salad.
Ye aint even got as far as taking a turn yet. No arguments made whatsoever, just leaky egotistical arses
Be honest, you've lost to a number of salads in the past, haven't you?
There no other logical explanation why you would make such a claim.
Source?
Are you saying I am not always right? That's a woman's complaint Didn't I tell you never to go full ******? Dont associate yourself with those two clowns
Oh dear, this is about to get even more embarrassing for you.....LOL you can't even tell the difference between measurement and prediction. or past present and future
I posted actual fact, what is measured.
You posted this
Thawing of permafrost is projected to contribute about 5 mm during the 21st century under the SRES scenario A2
Now I wonder what the other scenarios foretold as A2 is one of several
But lets be honest, all the "scenarios" for the arctic said no ice by 2010, no ice by 2012, no ice by 2013, no ice by summer 2014 and no ice by 2015 and they are still going
So tell me what use is a scenario, a prediction, when assessing if the glacier is melting today or for the last 10 years?
I am shocked at how ******ed and ****ing thick you are
And you call me mad, [HASHTAG]#******[/HASHTAG]
As the IPCC graph that you've posted as your empirical fact (irony alert), shows the actual current i.e. factual rise in sea levels due to ice retreat and then shows the modeled data for 2090-99 which isn't 'fact' merely a prediction.....
Hence the reason the piece concludes with a prediction, i.e. the one that I posted - that predicts a sea level rise.........
What a ****tard
Not only using a data source that you've continually discredited, but not even bothering to read it properly,,, an epic fail even by your standards.
Here's that actual factual stuff that you couldn't be arsed reading again btw
http://www.the-cryosphere.net/6/1031/2012/tc-6-1031-2012.pdf
- Status
Similar threads
