re: #flatearthers please check in. NYPost editorial shits all over climate change

quote:

---

, I'm just not taking this discussion seriously. I only presented information that I learned in the manner that I understand it.

---

You can google peer reviewed papers about the 98% number. They thoughtfully go into why it is and was bullshite.

Have fun.

quote:

---

You really know nothing of the climate modeling, do you?

---

Calculus is just a tool shared by many disciplines. Quacks can understand calculus but they're still quacks when they hold themselves out as experts when they're really not. Both sides of this controversy have their share of frauds, including Al Gore. The real proof is going to come from rigorous peer-reviewed research, not from pundits, politicians, and op-ed writers.

quote:

---

You can google peer reviewed papers about the 98% number. They thoughtfully go into why it is and was bullshite.

---

Interesting

quote:

---

But he's not a quack. he knows the math, hell he even works with similar models in astrophysics. Those guys in astrophysics build better models all the time.

---

I doubt that a "scientist" who has not published anything other than op-ed pieces since 1981 has built many models of anything, astrophysics or climate change.

quote:

---

: Is the peer reviewed system broken?

---

The peer review system is only as good as the integrity of the peers.

Sadly, it may not be what it once was.

quote:

---

The peer review system is only as good as the integrity of the peers.

---

Perhaps if you could equally publish and be recognized for negative results. But I guess that doesn't look very sexy to funding agencies.

quote:

---

His field of expertise is astrophysics not climatology or other relevant disciplines. It's like asking your insurance agent's opinion on your upcoming brain surgery.

---

Odd. This is the first time I recall you making this criticism. You have had ample opportunities, though.

Though, as noted, numerical modeling techniques are pretty ubiquitous.

quote:

---

Fulks is a whore who works for a conservative think tank and writes op-ed pieces on global warming.

---

Why does that make him wrong?

quote:

---

He has published only two peer-reviewed studies, the last one in 1981.

---

as long as we're doing ad hominem...When was your last climate paper published?

What are your specific criticism of the piece (not the person)?

quote:

---

We currently have no efficient alternative to coal. The Govt should not increase regulations to shut down coal plants because it will cripple the economy. They should leave that industry alone, not subsidize it either.

I would support the Govt granting money to research green projects to find better alternatives. But we shouldn't try to shut down coal until we actually have an alternative and the infrastructure to use it.

---

And herein lies the paradox. Im not in favor of shutting coal down. I am in favor of forcing the energy sector to develop alternatives and waning out dependency of it. I think grants and all that BS just line people pockets. The industry wont budge on finding an alternative unless someone makes them.

Thats a tough line to walk.

quote:

---

What are your specific criticism of the piece (not the person)?

---

Well we can start with this:

quote:

---

Satellites also show that a greater area of Antarctic sea ice exists now than any time since space-based measurements began in 1979. In other words, the ice caps aren’t melting.

---

This is a dumb argument. Maybe it's a dumb argument because the guy is a partisan and trying to score points. Maybe it's a dumb argument because he has emeritus disease. Maybe he's actually dumb (dumb physicists do exist).

But that's beside the point: This argument is dumb for a very obvious and straightforward reason: Antarctic sea ice is not "the ice caps." It's not even "the Antarctic ice caps." If you put Antarctic sea ice gains up against Arctic sea ice losses, it's no contest. If you put Antarctic sea ice gains up against Antarctic land ice losses, it's also no contest. And it's even been predicted by climate models as old as grunge. It's not exactly some devastating paradox. It's what happens when you get melt runoff from a big-arse continent covered in ice sheets. Or to fancy it up: owing to the intensification of the near-surface halocline caused by the increased supply of water at the oceanic surface, the convective mixing of cold near-surface water with warmer, underlying water becomes less frequent, resulting in the increase of sea ice and slight reduction of sea surface temperature.

So there's a specific criticism of the piece. If you would like to defend the thesis that Antarctic sea ice gains prove the health of the polar ice caps, go ahead. But I'm not going to engage some other "look a squirrel" about how Al Gore said a Dumb Thing in 2009, or What's the Ideal Temperature, or Why I Hate Freedom, because none of those things have to do with the premise of the argument. Which, again, is hella dumb. Anyone who uses "Antarctic Sea Ice ++" as a talking point is basically marking themselves as Nega-Gore (or Nega-Tuba in the context of this forum), someone who will say anything to hate on AGW regardless of factual merit.

quote:

---

How much sea ice loss did the Arctic experience this year as compared to last? How about last year compared to the previous year?

---

I'm sorry for providing so much "extraneous" data. I know you only wanted to talk about the changes of the last two years for some totally arbitrary reason. But I'm sure you can pick out the last two years just fine. If you need another month just holla.

quote:

---

Now then, since you're attempting to tie extent of arctic ice with anthropogenic influence, what would that extent be without man's influence?

---

For the summer, about ~9m km2, give or take?