3 ms·

You're strawmanning, please don't do that. The original claim was about long term ice trends/projections and what they do or don't mean, but now you're trying t

by nvm0n2 3y ago

You're strawmanning, please don't do that. The original claim was about long term ice trends/projections and what they do or don't mean, but now you're trying to claim there's a dispute over satellite measurement accuracy (there isn't). As for your claims of consensus, please just stop. Almost nothing about the climate has a consensus outside of the physical absorption bands of various gases. Constantly claiming you don't need to respond to people's points because there's a "consensus" when there obviously isn't is an illegitimate tactic. Engage with the point or don't, but don't try and pretend you're in the right to ignore it.

kristopolous 3y ago
That's not the claim. It's almost invariably political ideology propagated by conservative intellectual dark web conspiracy peddlers like Sam Harris, Weinsteins or Rush Limbaugh type characters using rhetorical tricks to create FUD and blow smoke in order to support a political agenda. They're propagandists and liars. I'm tired of that game and I've got no time for their tricks. I've seen them all before and it's just feeding the trolls. They're being insincere frauds. The chemistry works. The physics works. There's no dispute on the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. No dispute on the current measurements or the physics of it. Nobody is saying the ph levels of the ocean are not being measured accurately or that certain biological chemistry doesn't only work at specific levels. There's no rogue satellite returning different data. Even the American Petroleum Institute doesn't dispute any actual data. Very fundamental chemistry and physics would have to foundationally change for climate change to be fake. I've yet to find anyone with a scintilla of evidence to show how this alternative model actually works. That's because it doesn't. It's all rhetorical hand waving nonsense by internet celebrities and talk show yappers who can't balance a chemical equation yet alone propose an alternate GCM. Their criticisms are just uninformed bullshit.
- nvm0n2 3y ago
  What are you talking about? Do you really think all you need to accurately predict global climate trends hundreds of years into the future is the chemical properties of a single gas? If you do actually believe that then your knowledge of climatology is very poor indeed. The problems with the science here are legion, starting with the fact that the climate is far too complicated to predict given only knowledge of the chemical properties of CO2! Consider the thousands of factors you need to also fully understand. Climate models don't properly handle the effects of clouds, they don't understand how energy is absorbed by the ocean, and they aren't even calibrated against reliable temperature measurements which is one reason estimates of the core ECS variable (the key to the whole thing) have been getting wider over time, not narrower. As in, literally, the constant you want to see scientists agree on has been losing consensus, not gaining it. Your problem is that you think reality is very simple, and that's why you struggle to understand why anyone could possibly disagree with your views. Go spend a few months trying to explain why the models are diverging both from observation and each other - a scientific fact - and then you may start to find it possible to understand "talk show yappers" or whoever else you imagine is your enemy.
  - kristopolous 3y ago
    This is beyond useless. That's all wrong. Plenty of GCMs deal with cloud cover. You're pretending like extremely small nuances and details are ground shifting giant fundamental questions. That's another right wing FUD game
    - nvm0n2 3y ago
      They attempt to deal with it, but there are still massive problems with their simulations of it. Go read the papers, the model authors talk about the issues themselves. Nothing right wing about climatological papers, is there, far from it. Re: ocean warming. These aren't small details. For over a decade climatologists reported that there had been a long term pause in global warming. Thousands of papers were written about it, wondering where the heat went. They started to argue that it had disappeared into the ocean, in an event not anticipated by the models. Literally that all global warming had been absorbed this way since ~2000. That's a huge detail to miss! Around 2015 or so they resolved the problem in a different way: they modified the temperature databases to erase the pause from the record. All those papers, apparently studying and trying to explain something that had never even happened. So the uncomfortable fact remained that by their own telling, either: 1. They didn't understand heat absorption of the oceans. or 2. They didn't know how to measure global temperature despite their entire field being based around these measurements. But actual history is just "right wing fud", right? It's impossible for pure minded academics to ever be corrupted by power, pride or a lust for status. They're just born better than right wing people.

by nvm0n2 3y ago

kristopolous 3y ago

That's not the claim. It's almost invariably political ideology propagated by conservative intellectual dark web conspiracy peddlers like Sam Harris, Weinsteins or Rush Limbaugh type characters using rhetorical tricks to create FUD and blow smoke in order to support a political agenda. They're propagandists and liars. I'm tired of that game and I've got no time for their tricks. I've seen them all before and it's just feeding the trolls. They're being insincere frauds. The chemistry works. The physics works. There's no dispute on the chemical properties of carbon dioxide. No dispute on the current measurements or the physics of it. Nobody is saying the ph levels of the ocean are not being measured accurately or that certain biological chemistry doesn't only work at specific levels. There's no rogue satellite returning different data. Even the American Petroleum Institute doesn't dispute any actual data. Very fundamental chemistry and physics would have to foundationally change for climate change to be fake. I've yet to find anyone with a scintilla of evidence to show how this alternative model actually works. That's because it doesn't. It's all rhetorical hand waving nonsense by internet celebrities and talk show yappers who can't balance a chemical equation yet alone propose an alternate GCM. Their criticisms are just uninformed bullshit.

nvm0n2 3y ago
What are you talking about? Do you really think all you need to accurately predict global climate trends hundreds of years into the future is the chemical properties of a single gas? If you do actually believe that then your knowledge of climatology is very poor indeed. The problems with the science here are legion, starting with the fact that the climate is far too complicated to predict given only knowledge of the chemical properties of CO2! Consider the thousands of factors you need to also fully understand. Climate models don't properly handle the effects of clouds, they don't understand how energy is absorbed by the ocean, and they aren't even calibrated against reliable temperature measurements which is one reason estimates of the core ECS variable (the key to the whole thing) have been getting wider over time, not narrower. As in, literally, the constant you want to see scientists agree on has been losing consensus, not gaining it. Your problem is that you think reality is very simple, and that's why you struggle to understand why anyone could possibly disagree with your views. Go spend a few months trying to explain why the models are diverging both from observation and each other - a scientific fact - and then you may start to find it possible to understand "talk show yappers" or whoever else you imagine is your enemy.
- kristopolous 3y ago
  This is beyond useless. That's all wrong. Plenty of GCMs deal with cloud cover. You're pretending like extremely small nuances and details are ground shifting giant fundamental questions. That's another right wing FUD game
  - nvm0n2 3y ago
    They attempt to deal with it, but there are still massive problems with their simulations of it. Go read the papers, the model authors talk about the issues themselves. Nothing right wing about climatological papers, is there, far from it. Re: ocean warming. These aren't small details. For over a decade climatologists reported that there had been a long term pause in global warming. Thousands of papers were written about it, wondering where the heat went. They started to argue that it had disappeared into the ocean, in an event not anticipated by the models. Literally that all global warming had been absorbed this way since ~2000. That's a huge detail to miss! Around 2015 or so they resolved the problem in a different way: they modified the temperature databases to erase the pause from the record. All those papers, apparently studying and trying to explain something that had never even happened. So the uncomfortable fact remained that by their own telling, either: 1. They didn't understand heat absorption of the oceans. or 2. They didn't know how to measure global temperature despite their entire field being based around these measurements. But actual history is just "right wing fud", right? It's impossible for pure minded academics to ever be corrupted by power, pride or a lust for status. They're just born better than right wing people.