Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


- - - - -

Global floating ice in "constant retreat"


  • Please log in to reply
103 replies to this topic

#91    Mattshark

Mattshark

    stuff

  • Member
  • 16,985 posts
  • Joined:29 Dec 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Liverpool, UK

  • Sea Shepherd, making conservation harder.

    If you care about wildlife, do not support these pirates.......

Posted 02 May 2010 - 12:55 AM

View Postdanielost, on 01 May 2010 - 05:07 PM, said:

mattshark you dont take anything into account that doesnt prove your point.  which is why no one listens to you.


you still havent answered my question that i asked you directly

Oh daniel, you don't listen because you are immune to learning, but that is irrelevant. I take everything into account, unlike you read proffered evidence and not just dismiss it our out right lie about what I say because you have some petty little vendetta against me.


Now, what was the question you asked me directly because I didn't see it.

Algae : Protists not Plants!

YNWA

#92    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 May 2010 - 11:00 AM

View PostWatchers, on 01 May 2010 - 09:54 PM, said:

Your NASA link pretty much reiterates what I'm saying. I don't see how it tells a different story. Instead of just posting a link, please explain in your own words.

Here's the source of the graphs I used: http://wattsupwithth...erature-part-2/

I must say it was mighty underhanded to specifically omit the the first two graphs which show a rise  in water vapour. It undermines the otherwise fair argument you were trying to make. Its called cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#93    Watchers

Watchers

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 May 2010 - 06:40 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 May 2010 - 11:00 AM, said:

I must say it was mighty underhanded to specifically omit the the first two graphs which show a rise  in water vapour. It undermines the otherwise fair argument you were trying to make. Its called cherry picking.

Br Cornelius

That was to avoid confusion...and to avoid going into an entirely other issue that requires more explanation. Those graphs show moisture mainly in the troposphere--which responds differently. The increase in moisture that climatologists have been predicting and focusing on is in the stratosphere.


#94    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 May 2010 - 08:14 PM

View PostWatchers, on 02 May 2010 - 06:40 PM, said:

That was to avoid confusion...and to avoid going into an entirely other issue that requires more explanation. Those graphs show moisture mainly in the troposphere--which responds differently. The increase in moisture that climatologists have been predicting and focusing on is in the stratosphere.

I think you will find that the predictions covers the troposphere as well and is equally important if not more so, so leaving it out was meant to mislead.

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#95    Watchers

Watchers

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 May 2010 - 09:40 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 May 2010 - 08:14 PM, said:

I think you will find that the predictions covers the troposphere as well and is equally important if not more so, so leaving it out was meant to mislead.

Br Cornelius

No it was excluded to prevent confusion, and to prevent you coming back and saying exactly what you're saying "Oh but it's increasing." Global warming activists don't include that altitude layer in their models of predicting future temperatures, nor does it have an effect. From a global warming perspective, I included all pertinent layers that are used in modeling.


#96    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 May 2010 - 09:51 PM

View PostWatchers, on 02 May 2010 - 09:40 PM, said:

No it was excluded to prevent confusion, and to prevent you coming back and saying exactly what you're saying "Oh but it's increasing." Global warming activists don't include that altitude layer in their models of predicting future temperatures, nor does it have an effect. From a global warming perspective, I included all pertinent layers that are used in modeling.

Not true.

http://www-eaps.mit..../trwavaclsn.pdf

Br Cornelius

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#97    Watchers

Watchers

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 May 2010 - 10:30 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 May 2010 - 09:51 PM, said:


Apparently you have made quite the habit of citing pages that do nothing but support my argument and refute your own. Perhaps you should consider reading more than just the title of the articles that you google before submitting them.

Here's an excerpt from your own source, the second paragraph:

Quote

The contribution of water vapor in layers of equal mass to the climate sensitivity varies by about a factor of
2 with height, with the largest contribution coming from layers between 450 and 750 mb, and the smallest from
layers above 230 mb. The positive feedback on the global mean surface temperature response to doubled CO2
from water vapor above 750 mb is about 2.6 times as large as that from water vapor below 750 mb. The feedback
on global mean surface temperature due to water vapor in the extratropical free troposphere (above 750 mb) is
about 50% larger than the feedback due to the lower-latitude free troposphere water vapor.

The range of graphs I provided for you covers the entire area discussed here--and more in fact. As I said, the reason I limited my bounds to what I did was to not confuse anyone. My graphs cover 850mb (5000 feet) to 300mb (30,000 feet).

The one error that I will admit on my part is the referencing of the layers--the area that my graphs target is technically still the Troposphere--I had mistakenly thought that the Stratosphere started at a much lower altitude than it actually does. The Stratosphere does not begin until about 50km up (164,000 feet). However, the area your article discusses as being the most important is that of 450 mb - 750mb, or approximately 20,000 feet to 8,000 feet.

Either way, my graphs still hold true as being completely relevant in contradicting global warming models.


#98    Br Cornelius

Br Cornelius

    Forum Divinity

  • Member
  • 10,652 posts
  • Joined:13 Aug 2008
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Eire

  • Stupid Monkeys.

    Life Sucks.
    Get over it.

Posted 02 May 2010 - 10:37 PM

View PostWatchers, on 02 May 2010 - 10:30 PM, said:

Apparently you have made quite the habit of citing pages that do nothing but support my argument and refute your own. Perhaps you should consider reading more than just the title of the articles that you google before submitting them.

Here's an excerpt from your own source, the second paragraph:



The range of graphs I provided for you covers the entire area discussed here--and more in fact. As I said, the reason I limited my bounds to what I did was to not confuse anyone. My graphs cover 850mb (5000 feet) to 300mb (30,000 feet).

The one error that I will admit on my part is the referencing of the layers--the area that my graphs target is technically still the Troposphere--I had mistakenly thought that the Stratosphere started at a much lower altitude than it actually does. The Stratosphere does not begin until about 50km up (164,000 feet). However, the area your article discusses as being the most important is that of 450 mb - 750mb, or approximately 20,000 feet to 8,000 feet.

Either way, my graphs still hold true as being completely relevant in contradicting global warming models.

The Stratosphere starts at 10Km so your wrong again. The lower troposphere is not insignificant, just not dominant. You made a valid point but thought that showing contrary data would diminish your thrust so you omitted it. It would have been better to include it and let let the data speak for itself. Cherry picking makes you look bad and it was totally uncalled for.
Let the reader by the judge rather than doctoring the data.

Br Cornelius

Edited by Br Cornelius, 02 May 2010 - 10:40 PM.

I believe nothing, but I have my suspicions.

Robert Anton Wilson

#99    Watchers

Watchers

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 02 May 2010 - 10:47 PM

View PostBr Cornelius, on 02 May 2010 - 10:37 PM, said:

The Stratosphere starts at 10Km so your wrong again. The lower troposphere is not insignificant, just not dominant. You made a valid point but thought that showing contrary data would diminish your thrust so you omitted it. It would have been better to include it and let let the data speak for itself. Cherry picking makes you look bad and it was totally uncalled for.
Let the reader by the judge rather than doctoring the data.

Br Cornelius

Ah you're right, the diagram I was looking at when I was comparing the graphs I presented did seem a bit funny. I did indeed read the numbers wrong. So I was right in the first place when I argued that the more significant part happens in the Stratosphere (since it begins at 10km and not 50km). I guess when I went back and looked at the layers, I misread the end of the Stratosphere to actually be the beginning. Now it makes a bit more sense.

As for the cherry picking--I agree, it does look bad, but like I said, the reason I did it was simply to avoid a headache of having to get into more things that certainly are above even my head in knowledge regarding climate models etc.

But perhaps in the future I'll consider presenting it all and seeing where that gets me.


#100    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,380 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 06 May 2010 - 05:23 AM

View PostWatchers, on 01 May 2010 - 08:29 AM, said:

As for your leaky bathtub example, it's a nice try, but you're forgetting to include saturation levels in the atmosphere. The majority of water vapor added from humans (through agricultural uses or the creation of man-made lakes), gets nearly instantly turned back into liquid H20. The remaining effect is less than .001% on the natural occurrence of water vapor. We're doing nothing to add to it.

However, guess what does add to it all the time!? Volcanoes!



Also, you may need to refresh yourself on the issue of which I speak--Snowball Earth. At that period, there already was negligible life due to the Earth being completely covered in ice. The thing that SAVED the planet, or brought us out of that period of complete ice-devastation was a rapid increase in C02 levels caused naturally by volcanic and seismic activity.

As for the farmland example, I was referring to all types of land...obviously not just fertile land. I thought that would be obvious, but apparently not. Either way, the amount of land that is farmed compared with all of the other land out there is negligible.

And lastly, I never said anything about killing off species not changing the world. Stop twisting my words. But either way, they don't have an effect on CLIMATE CHANGE. That's what this topic is about...it's about CLIMATE CHANGE, not saving the whales.


Wow, the whole liberal fanatic statement shows me just how much stock I should put in your opinions.


#101    Watchers

Watchers

    Apparition

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 345 posts
  • Joined:19 Mar 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia, USA

Posted 10 May 2010 - 10:47 PM

View PostFurthurBB, on 06 May 2010 - 05:23 AM, said:

Wow, the whole liberal fanatic statement shows me just how much stock I should put in your opinions.

And your logic of pulling out one rash statement and claiming it falsifies my arguments/evidence shows me just how much stock should be put in anything that you say.


#102    FurthurBB

FurthurBB

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,380 posts
  • Joined:21 May 2008

Posted 11 May 2010 - 02:52 AM

View PostWatchers, on 10 May 2010 - 10:47 PM, said:

And your logic of pulling out one rash statement and claiming it falsifies my arguments/evidence shows me just how much stock should be put in anything that you say.

Awww, that comeback was pretty weak and kind of makes me feel sorry for you.


#103    indsloan

indsloan

    Alien Embryo

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 34 posts
  • Joined:04 Apr 2010
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Johannesburg,Ca. 93288

  • the fools wonders, the wise people asks.

Posted 11 May 2010 - 06:13 PM

Have 2 Gravity gen. More pic. on the way. 1 with fishing weights & 1 with water pic coming soon. It takes 2 to prove that i'm right.   more info at indsloan myspace.Attached File  IMG00168.jpg   100.22K   2 downloads


#104    J.B.

J.B.

    Alien Abducter

  • Member
  • 5,427 posts
  • Joined:23 Sep 2007
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:United States

  • Deadpan snarker in your midst: Jokers beware. I eat jokes for fun and spit out seriousness just because that's how I roll. :P

Posted 13 May 2010 - 06:20 PM

Cut out the sniping, you two. Besides, the AGW crowd hasn't added anything new to the Green vs. Corporate argument. I used to think they had set a timelimit, but I realized. . . everything the green movement has talked about already has a timelimit.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users