You should explain yourself better as your strange statement is hard to understand. What I posted in posted 184 and 185 are supported by the official sea ice data, I stand by it.
You seem to suggest that junk science and unverified research claims are good enough for you, when real science doesn't help you at all.
Actually I simply suggest it is science rather than junk, and my clarity in reply has never been questioned until right now.
This is what I responded to: which is a reply to what I wrote: Far into the future modeling scenarios are scientifically unverifiable, thus worthless. When the NULL hypothesis is ignored and the Scientific Method is cast aside, you have only fantasies left. That is Pseudoscience to me.
The headline of this thread was a QUESTION, which I have answered in post 184 and 185 If all of the sea ice in the world melted, how much would sea level rise? My reply there was to point out something too few people consider. The SEA ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions are already on the water surface to start with, so if all melted sea level remain essentially unchanged. Then we have Antarctic ice SHELVES that are largely on the water as well, thus if it all melt, little change in sea level to be expected. I have showed that ALL 11 COASTAL temperature stations, AVERAGE mean is below freezing year round. The interior of East Antarctica is much colder.... Simply there is too little easy to melt ice left to work with to make sea level go up fast anymore.
Meanwhile Sea Level was around 2 meters HIGHER than now, a few thousand years ago, while CO2 was hovering around the 275 ppm level, this was posted by a Geologist: The Holocene Sea Level Highstand Selected Excerpt: Figure 1. Holocene sea level curves from Moore & Curray, 1974. LINK
And since it is imperative that the desired conclusion be drawn, it must be considered sufficient to support said conclusion, irrespective of its actual competence in that respect. Got that about right, haven't I?
Then you have nothing but fantasies to offer since they don't exist as they are far into the future crystal ball modeling musings. This is hilarious!
I would recommend you inform those thousands of scientists that they are wasting their time...you might as well call NASA as well to tell them the models they use to guide spacecraft as useless. While you are at it...call NOAA as well and your local weather person so they can ditch all those pointless forecasts.
Climate models to year 2050, 2100 and beyond are all examples of Pseudoscience since they are not FALSIFIABLE, lack demonstrated forecast skill and doesn't advance research to the next level. It is clear you have abandoned the NULL hypothesis and the Scientific Method. Your fallacies are silly, better to get back into REPRODUCIBLE research instead.
Clearly you mistake models and forecasting for real time data, rather than the informed estimates they actually are. My understanding of scientific method is quite sufficient and useful in my pursuits but if you wish to debase my understanding it makes no difference to me. I might however recommend you at least look into what a fallacy is: fal·la·cy /ˈfaləsē/ noun noun: fallacy; plural noun: fallacies a mistaken belief, especially one based on unsound argument. "the notion that the camera never lies is a fallacy" synonyms: misconception, mistaken belief, misbelief, delusion, false notion, mistaken impression, misapprehension, misjudgment, miscalculation, misinterpretation, misconstruction, error, mistake, untruth, inconsistency, illusion, myth, fantasy, deceit, deception, sophism; More sophistry, casuistry, faulty reasoning, unsound argument "the fallacy that we all work from nine to five" Logic a failure in reasoning which renders an argument invalid. faulty reasoning; misleading or unsound argument.
Sigh, it seems that I am talking to a Brick Wall since you completely ignored The NULL hypothesis and The Scientific Method, there is a reason why you ignore them because you are a Pseudoscience believing cultist. The issue is CLIMATE Modeling. You couldn't see the obvious fallacies in YOUR quote? Authority Fallacy is the obvious one here: "Description: Insisting that a claim is true simply because a valid authority or expert on the issue said it was true, without any other supporting evidence offered. Example #1: Richard Dawkins, an evolutionary biologist and perhaps the foremost expert in the field, says that evolution is true. Therefore, it's true. Explanation: Richard Dawkins certainly knows about evolution, and he can confidently tell us that it is true, but that doesn't make it true. What makes it true is the preponderance of evidence for the theory." You really need to stop now, since you stray farther and farther away from the ideals of REPRODUCIBLE science research. You have ignored the precepts of the Scientific Method which specifically states that a hypothesis MUST be testable in real time. "The Scientific Method is an organized way that helps scientists (or anyone!) answer a question or begin to solve a problem. There are usually six parts to it. Purpose/Question – What do you want to learn? An example would be, “What doorknob in school has the most germs ?” or “Do girls have faster reflexes than boys?” or “Does the color of a light bulb affect the growth of grass seeds?” Research – Find out as much as you can. Look for information in books, on the internet, and by talking with teachers to get the most information you can before you start experimenting. Hypothesis – After doing your research, try to predict the answer to the problem. Another term for hypothesis is ‘educated guess’. This is usually stated like ” If I…(do something) then…(this will occur)” An example would be, “If I grow grass seeds under green light bulbs, then they will grow faster than plants growing under red light bulbs.” Experiment – The fun part! Design a test or procedure to find out if your hypothesis is correct. In our example, you would set up grass seeds under a green light bulb and seeds under a red light and observe each for a couple of weeks. You would also set up grass seeds under regular white light so that you can compare it with the others. If you are doing this for a science fair, you will probably have to write down exactly what you did for your experiment step by step. Analysis – Record what happened during the experiment. Also known as ‘data’." Conclusion – Review the data and check to see if your hypothesis was correct. If the grass under the green light bulb grew faster, then you proved your hypothesis, if not, your hypothesis was wrong. It is not “bad” if your hypothesis was wrong, because you still discovered something! Please stop embarrassing yourself with your lack of science literacy.
This is why to me most people who claim to follow "climate science" fail. I do not look at it like somebody looking at a few decades of recent history, to me it is a subject covering hundreds of thousands and millions of years that I observe through Geology. Yes, we have had "Snowball Earth" situations in the past, where almost the entire planet was covered in glaciers. We have also had "Hothouse Earth", where life flourished on all continents, and animals even evolved over millions of years to roam all over a completely ice-free Antarctica. And most of them completely fail to understand even the most basic science facts. I had one try to explain how much the sea levels would rise if the entire Arctic Ice Cap melted. The idiot could not understand how displacement worked, and that if that happened the ocean levels would not rise at all because the volume of the ice has already been displaced from the oceans because it is floating in them. Another idiot tried to use the record calving of ice bergs from Antarctica as proof of global warming. Idiot does not even understand how and why glaciers calve, his evidence actually shows the opposite. When snowfall levels drop and glaciers are "melting", they do not advance and calve more bergs, they recede and drop less ice bergs. They are pushed to the sea because of increased weight from more snow pushing them faster. Less snow, they no longer move and largely remain in place, loosing mass due to melting. Geologically speaking, we are still in an "ice age". And the driest era of climate in the history of the planet are during ice ages. When things get warmer, they also get more humid. Not drier, the increased hear encourages more water to accumulate in the air (the opposite of an ice age, then the cold precipitates the moisture out of the air). And people think it is hot now? The global average temperature is (at the most high measure by GISS) is a "sweltering" 58.62f. If they think that is hot, it is good they never lived in the Carboniferous era. Where life flourished like it has never been seen before or since, giant forests covered most of the planet, the oceans were teaming with life. And the average global temperature was over 68f. No ice caps at all anywhere, and this increased CO2 is what let the plants explode like they did. The huge thick layers of coal around the world are primarily from this era. And this has been "rinse and repeat" for hundreds of millions of years. Things get cold, things die, glaciers form, things evolve for the new climate, things warm up, old animals die yet again and new ones evolve for the warm. This happened even before the first dinosaurs evolved, let alone mammals or humans. Heck, today you are going to find "wild native" growing palm trees much further north than Central California. Oh yes they can survive further North, primarily brought in by humans and on their own they do not thrive or spread. But 50 million years ago when there was no Arctic Cap at all and the Antarctic is believed to be a seasonal cap, palm trees thrived in North Alaska. And that lasted for at least 100,000-200,000 years. So when somebody comes up to me and screams about 5-25 year "trends", I pretty much sit back and laugh. Hell, even 2,000 years geologically is faster than the blink of an eye. And in the last 2,000 years we have gone from the Medieval Maximum where the climate was hotter than it was now, to the Little Ice Age where glaciers were again advancing and wiping out villages in Europe. And we are now heading back towards a maximum again. Heck, 2,000 years ago "Death Valley" as we know it was actually a very hospitable place. With a giant inland lake teaming with life. But the glaciers finally all melted away, and water stopped entering the area. 30,000 years ago there was not even a "San Francisco Bay". It was just a valley in the coastal mountain range that 2 rivers flowed through to get to the ocean (about 25 miles to the West). To me the height of arrogance and vanity is to assume any changes are caused by yourself.
Yes the there have been warmer and colder phases in the past than now, yet life goes on. CO2 is an overrated molecule because it has such a small spectral impact and largely outside the main outflowing terrestrial IR flow, which means it doesn't absorb that much IR in the first place. It is a trace gas with a trace IR absorption band, which is why temperature sensitivity is very low. Here is a chart showing the DECREASING values of CO2 climate sensitivity effect:
Actually, I am very alarmed at the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere. But I do not believe it has anything to do with the increase of emissions. Our planet has the amazing ability to adapt and balance itself. Increase CO2, and plant life flourishes. Remove it, and plant life dies. CO2 literally is "plant food", and the more you have in the atmosphere, the more plants will spread to take advantage of it. But we are cutting our rain forests at an ever increasing rate. We are currently cutting down almost 30,000 square miles of rainforests per year. And it absorbs around 300 metric tons of CO2 per square mile. In other words, every single year we are destroying 9,000,000 tons of CO2 absorption. We only emit around 150,000,000 tons of CO2 per year. That means in the last 25 years we have destroyed enough rainforests to more than offset the entire human production of CO2. THAT is what I see is the problem. I say pump out as much CO2 as you want, the plants will take it out of the atmosphere and turn it into food so they can grow. But if you instead cut down those trees (and then burn them which releases even more CO2), you then have a vicious circle which we may soon be beyond help. But the problem is, you can not tax and charge poor dirt farmers in Africa or South America. So instead they are essentially taxing those in countries that have wealth for the destructive practices of people half a world away.
There is agreement in some quarters and not in others. I don't think people argue the warming. They argue the significance and source of it.
"Some quarters"?? All the major science institutions and the vast majority of climatologists throughout the world agree that humans are the primary cause of the current warming.
You're carefully ignoring that the issue isn't about a specific authority - it's about the vast majority of all scientists in the field. Listening to that is how one AVOIDS authority fallacies, not how one falls victim to them. (Plus, your step 6 is weak in that it hardly suggests the serious work of attempting to falsify and it suggests science provides a method of proof - which it doesn't.)
I certainly agree with the point that significant advances, those we recognize, usually break any consensus that might have existed. However, its also true that science has no positive proof - only falsification. Thus a theory could potentially last for a significant period of time with scientists being reasonably unanimous of its truth - only to have that collapse at some point when a falsification appears. The valuable theories are those which are used as tools in further exploration. Theories don't gain that kind of credibility or acceptance overnight. They gain greater and greater trust as they prove to be useful. Scientists reviewing papers will see the tool as acceptable as they see its results hold up. While there certainly are issues with consensus, I think the worse problem is that too many seem unaware that science can't produce fact. When consulting science, one can't note that the scietists is claiming confidence intervals, etc., not stating the result as fact. Too often this gets interpreted as the scientists not actually knowing what the "answer" is. That has a serious effect, I think, on how our decision making process is informed by science. I'm not a scientist, so hit me!
At the IPCC, [International Panel for Climate Change], they publish the confidence. Ultimately this is based on the margin of error in all the measurements used. The propagation of errors is well understood and allows us to produce a hard number to represent confidence. As of today. for example, confidence that humans are significantly responsible for global warming, is over 90%.
