By popular request, here is the Jonas thread. All comments by Jonas and replies to his comments belong in this thread.
- Log in to post comments
More like this
By popular request Flying Binghi has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that FB can post to, and all replies to any comment to FB should go here.
I can't move comments, so I will delete comments that do not follow these rules.
By popular request sunspot has his/her own thread. This is the only thread that sunspot can post to, and all replies to any comment to sunspot should go here.
By popular request, Brad Keyes is only permitted to post in this thread.
By popular request. Comments from Brent and folks arguing with him are cluttering up more useful discussions. All comments by Brent and responses to comments by Brent should go in this thread. I can't move comments in MT, so I'll just delete comments that appear in the wrong thread.
>As long as v > 0, frictional force is constant.
Good grief.
__Frictional force for an object traveling with an initial momentum is not constant.__
Let me say that again:
In the real world, __Frictional force for an object traveling with an initial momentum is not constant.__
Friction is a parasitic force, dependent on the force it opposes. As friction reduces the force of the initial momentum of the object, so too, is the force of friction reduced. A consequence of this is the __rate of deceleration is also reduced__. It is this very parasitic nature of not only friction, but also aerodynamic drag and viscous resistance that makes any of them negative feedbacks. Not merely that they are an opposing force, and as such negative in sign, as you would like to believe (We have been trying to tell you, that would make any force obeying Newton's third law a negative feedback, meaning every freaking force in the universe, and thus making the term feedback virtually meaningless), but that they have some diminishing dependence on the forces they are opposing.
If you find this hard to believe, you can test this under controlled laboratory conditions. I can guarantee it will be confirmed. What I find hard to believe is your virulent mathturbation of setting the frictional force constant for any v > 0, and the necessary conclusion this constant force just suddenly disappears without a thud when v = 0. That is so astoundingly and risibly unphysical, it practically brings tears to my eyes from laughter.
Your difficulty in comprehending this is only comprehensible if one concludes you are being a willful idiot. That is, your delicate and narcissistic ego precludes you from ever admitting a mistake.
I'm sorry if you think from selectively quoting my statement [@ 1177](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5421779), that under the stated conditions for an object freely traveling with unforced momentum, I ever believed or truly meant the frictional force is constant. It is also obvious that the explicit meaning of 'constant friction' isn't coherent with the argument I present in the entire context of the comment. I have already apologized for and admitted to the vagueness and ambiguity of that comment and that what I really meant was a __constant coefficient of kinetic friction__. Here I do so again. I'm sorry if my vague and ambiguous language has given you the wrong understanding of what it is that I am arguing, and hope that in this post and previous posts I have done a better job of making that argument clearer and more precise. It should, if you're an honorable person and not a complete idiot, be incumbent on you to take my admission of making a mistake and correction thereof to heart, and reappraise my argument in that light. Likewise, should you come to understand and admit the boneheaded errors you've made concerning the mechanics of friction and the nature of feedbacks, I will freely admit you aren't quite the complete idiot you have so far demonstrated yourself to be.
If you feel confident enough at partial differentiation, you can do the math for a variable frictional force with a constant coefficient dependent on variable velocity and you may discover something that seems, at first glance, paradoxical. If you can do that, or even guess it intuitively, I will gladly explain the physics of why it really isn't such a problem.
As I noted in #1111, it's the only strategy they've got. Expecting them to do otherwise like expecting criminals to plead guilty.
Support for my position that GSW should be restricted to this or his own thread.
I find it faintly amusing that a person that would choose as his nom de plume that of a 16th Century [religious fanatic](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olaus_Petri) should characterize those who agree with the robust conclusions of over a 150 years of scientific research as religious believers. Also, that such a person should pepper his epistles with juvenile taunts and puerile insults, and apparently believe he has thus revealed his unparalleled wit and intelligence.
This strikes me as someone who has heard of the word 'irony', but has some difficulty in grasping the concept.
I suggest, should one wish to dignify such a cretinous intellect by addressing it at all, that he should be instead addressed by the moniker, Alanis Morrissette. That would at least imbue him with an [image](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSaXkHz-V-XDagnnqxdUT0NaC7RadU-…) much prettier than the one he [projects](http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSWXbp1pfi1wyUbZ_ui7OQxGy9QZtdL…) on his own.
Once again Jeffie, you pop up like a angry rooster and use many high-pitched words to show us how uninterested you are of Jonas and GSW. Very convincing. "You are not doing a good job saving face", a shrink would say. ;-)
The thing relevant here is that you truly believed you brought something to the climate science table, and when finding out that all you had to show for it was semi-religious garbage (wrapped up in buzz-words), you couldn't take it, hence all the name calling and whimpering.
If you want to be adored Jefie, which seems to be your top priority, get back from where you once belonged Yoko. You are ruin something good here â climate science.
LB, good effort there. Keep it up. Next time you get it right, I'm sure.
luminous, your are losing it completely ...
You are writing complete gibberish. And you have for quite a few comments. Complete gibberish!
You are still in violation of Newton's second, and you are still completely misunderstandinga and/or misrepresntning Newton's third. You contradict yourself on multiple instances.
What you refer to, and correctly call *"a constant coefficient of kinetic friction"* is commonly called Coulomb friction. Look it up and learn something!
As long as two bodys are sliding relative each other (ie if v > 0), the frictional force is
> F = - µ·N
where N is normal force (eg weight m·g of the puck) and µ is **constant** coeffiction of friction. As you stated! The minus signifies 'opposing the direction of sliding'!
There still is no velocity v in that equation whatsoever. There is no gradually less and less reduction of the speed, of that puck and its momentum whatsoever! None! Still, speed loss is proportional to elapsed time only:
> F·ât = m·âv
When it (the puck) comes to a stop (when v = 0) that frictional force vanishes, and the puck stays at rest.
If your claim anything to the contrary (esp since you explicitly state the same preconditions as I do, ie constant coefficient of friction µ) you are in violation of Newton's second law! Whenever you've talked about gradually slowing the puck less and less (because of friction) you've been wrong.
You can laugh as much as you want, but embarrassment is the more appropriate feeling. I know you've been wrong. The entire time, and I don't hold the 'spelling mistakes' against you. Or the vague formulations. But the core statement, which you still defend, or are trying to save face from, ie:
>When [an] object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down. Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters over a fixed period of time is reduced, thence slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount, and so on.
Which i (quite mildly, I might add) pointed out is in violation of Newton's second law, is still and completely wrong, and you are still trying defend the indefensible.
And no! There is no physics I can learn from somebody who comletely, and for many days, fucks up Newton's second law or think that the third say something about masses, positions, stiffnesses and springs. Nothing whatsoever!
What I have been giving here is a tutorial, on Wikipedia-level. But since it is me, quite a few seem to feel that they compulsively need to take a contrarian postition.
As I said, I don't mind, this is what i (generally) expect from Deltoid hang arounds.
Jonas, you write excessively long posts.
Obviously its an avoidance technique. Ask a psychologist about this.
And please clarify for us, do you *deny* that CO2, a greenhouse gas, traps heat that would otherwise escape into space?
Ask a psychologist about why you can't bring yourself to accept this basic physical reality.
Stop Jonas, stop. I'm still two days away from my new shipment of irony meters.
Vince, If you really really think you have a point, what would that be point be then?
*You are ruin something good here â climate science*
Since when Olaus, have you discussed anything about climate science on this thread? And I mean REAL science? All you've done is scribble adoring emails about your poster boy.
I will certainly discuss the environmental and ecological effects of warming. As I have said many times, science has moved well beyond the "how much of a human fingerprint is there on the warming?" question to focus now on the potential consequences on natural and managed ecosystems. Jonas, you, GSW and your acolytes seem to be stuck in 1st gear and are at least 15 years out of date. The only reason that there is ANY debate now about the factors underpinning the warming is because of a very well funded and organized disinformation campaign. As James Hansen said in London yesterday, scientists are generally lousy at communicating their findings as opposed to the so-called skeptics, who admittedly have pulled out the big guns using all kinds of well-honed PR techniques (e.g. perception management focusing on uncertainty) to spread their gospel of doubt.
I will acknowledge that the skeptics are winning the political debate on the basis of this. But the science? Never, ever. And, as Hansen said, when systems are pushed beyond certain thresholds, then nature will respond with nasty consequences that exceed the ability of any technologies humans possess to counter them.
As an aside, I reckon your "love of science and scientists" includes James Hansen, Michael Mann and the countless other climate scientists who contribute to our growing knowledge of the human fingerprint on climate change?
Jeff H
Stop your ridiculous posturing:
>Since when Olaus, have you discussed anything about climate science on this thread?
You have not been close to neither *climate science*, nor even the *climate*, and not even *science* ...
>And I mean REAL science
Ridiculous too! You know nothing at all about **real** science or the scientific method, and your many postings have shown beyond any doubt that you just are a politically emotionally motivated sorry excuse for an academic ...
And Michael Mann does not work on *climate change* and its *causes*. If anything he works on, it is historic reconstructions .. but
And FYI ... prophecies of fututre *tipping points* (in dynamic, non linear, chaotic systems) has absolutely nothing to do with real science.
Whoever talks about such is not, cannot be a real scientist. So it makes sense you bringing them up ...
*You know nothing at all about real science or the scientific method, and your many postings have shown beyond any doubt that you just are a politically emotionally motivated sorry excuse for an academic ...*
And I am supposed to be the one who exhibits 'self-idolatry'. What a load of hypocrisy. What an arrogant little twerp. Here I am being lectured about science and the scientific method by a guy who will not tell everyone here what his professional qualifications are in any related field, who has never published in the peer-reviewed literature, who has never attended a scientific conference, who has never give a scientific lecture... well that about sums Jonas up. A legend in his own mind, as I have said.
The whole discussion comes full circle. Jonas, darling, you appear to think that you have science on your side. You have claimed to 'know what you are talking about', and that '95% of climate scientists would agree with you'. You have provided zero evidence of either. Certainly, the climate science community would not touch you or your arguments with a barge pole. But you appear stuck in a dream of your own making: that expertise in a field requires no specialist training, no university study, no peer-reviewed work, no discussions with scientists at their labs or in universities and conferences. And you dare lecture me on science. Listen, sonny boy. When you have provided one small shred of evidence that you possess any qualifications in any field of science, then people might, just might, give you some attention (and I do not mean your sycophants on this thread, both of whom are bottom feeders like you). Until then, you are confined to your own pitiful little thread on Deltoid or any denialist websites that soak up your drivel.
You could not stand in a university lecture room next to me, Mann or Hansen, Jonas, because you would be way, way out of your depth. I have spent 22 years of my life in science, and, like it or not, I HAVE done the mileage. I have published the papers, supervised the students, attended and spoken at the conferences, and been also an editor at Nature. Michael Mann has shown his pedigree in science for longer than I have, and he and s*&$s all over you in terms of knowledge and expertise. Same for Hansen. You have done NONE of these things and never, ever will. So before you mouth off again, consider how arrogant you sound to the vast majority of posters on Deltoid. You've only got Olaus (who, as I said, has not discussed science in any way except to ridicule those who support the evidence for AGW) and GSW - both intellectually equivalent to benthos - to bolster your swelled ego.
Jeffie, it quite simple. Jonas address scientific topics, you prance around looking foolishly self obsessed, blabbering about your credentials instead of following up on the topics Jonas put forward.
Why is that?
Jonas' CV has nothing â NADA â to do with the accuracy of his arguments, even though it becomes very obvious that his training includes more physics than yours. Regardless its not relevant. The quality of the arguments is. If you could silence Jonas with better arguments, that is NOT repeating all over again that you are gods gift to science, I would support you and not Jonas.
But so far diatribes and emotional eruptions are all you got.
In one sense you are correct though. You have left science far behind to slavishly follow a doctrine in an effort to save the earth from evil. But thats not science Jeffie, its a religious/ideologic quest.
And I believe you when it comes to your CV. No need for you to repeat it again. I have heard it many times already and I have never questioned it. But still you are a wacko when it comes to real climate science. You are noting but a believer in that respect.
Deal with it or show us your money (NOT your CV).
Vince Whirlwind
For information, Jonas has already somewhere above denied that CO2 traps heat, instead he says that CO2 prevents the planet from cooling. Go figure. All along he has been playing word games and indulging in rhetoric and bluster. The angry little man in his head has left him with the deep conviction that his rhetoric is science and that he is right. I saw the results of a poll the other day that indicated Sweden was the least 'sceptical' country in Europe. Despite all their efforts, Jonas et al are failures, well off the bell curve, and outliers in their own country.
*Jonas' CV has nothing â NADA â to do with the accuracy of his arguments*
WRONG. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. I would not go to an auto mechanic to check my blood pressure. His arguments are only meaningful in a broader sense if they are tested before an audience of experts in the field. But of course, he doesn't do that. He is clearly afraid to, so he sticks with a few blogs where he can pound hic chest and boast of his brilliance in a field that he has never studied. Pure Dunning-Kruger effect, whether you like it or not.
I could start going on at length here why Hubble's neutral theory of biodiversity is bollocks in my view, and you wouldn't have a clue what I was talking about. Most of those contributing here have not studied the field of ecology, so any of their arguments would have to be based on what they knew of the competing theories in the field. So would I be correct in trashing Hubble's theory because no one on Deltoid could counter it? Would that mean that I was correct? Of course not. Not until I went before real experts in the field including Hubble himself and defended my arguments.
I have been honest - unlike you and Jonas - in saying that I am not a climate scientist and instead go with the prevailing wisdome of my peers in the field on this subject. So much for 'self idolatry'. But Jonas is like a car without brakes. No training required to become an instant authority, whilst refusing to test that 'innate wisdom' before a more specialized audience. If I was to debate ecology and environmental sciecne with you, I would tear you, Jonas, GSW and shreads. No problemo. When the discussion shifted to polar bears and related subjects, then Jonas and your profound ignorance on the subject was exposed. But, if you are correct in that a CV has nothing to do with one's arguments, then, hell we ought to do away with universities and let the armchair expert brigade run the show.
*You have left science far behind to slavishly follow a doctrine in an effort to save the earth from evil*
This bizarre and idiotic statement does not even deserve a dignified reply. You are a complete twat, Olaus.
That's a surprise.
Yes because it doesn't get any easier for you to read it the second time, does it?
Yes but you would dispute that, wouldn't you?
What the hell is wrong with that?
i.e. your obvious bluster is already on the table.
I'm sorry but I can recognize bluster with very little effort.
OK so your evidence amounts to argument from the authority of a "real scientistâ¢", one who spent years trying over and over again to get his pet hypothesis accepted but just ended in failure. I'm sorry but he sounds like a bit of crank to me, even if he is a "real scientistâ¢" (whatever that means).
You just want to not get it, don't you? I do care that there are intellectually dishonest people in the world with even a tiny amount of influence. The thing I don't care about is any anonymous person trying to use their opinion to make an argument. An anonymous opinion means didley squat.
I'm just pointing out that you're wasting your time stating them.
Something like what?
OK, so you're making it up again, just like your meaning for feedback that no-one in climate science uses.
You haven't addressed any argument here. You've just been getting confused, asserting observations are just hypotheses and spending a lot of time off with the fairies making up your own definition for feedback that no-one in climate science uses just so you can call aerosols a feedback. What addressing is there in any of that?
So Chris, have you read the preceding chapter, the one Rahmstorf wants to take issues with in his poorly written collection of arm waiving opinions about what should count as 'evidence'?
Or were you not even aware of it being an attempt to counter Lindzen and other real scientists?
Jeffie, again you start bragging hysterically about your merits. So far nobody has questioned those. Its not only off topic, its embarrassing. You are like a single car crash Jeffie. Tremendously awful to watch, but still a concerned crowd assembles around it hoping the driver will get well again (and use a better car next time).
But finally you reach some insight, the second in fact (the first eureca-moment came some two weeks ago when you told us you were going off to canvass the refs regarding the 90-something figure. Any news in that department by the way?). You acknowledge that you don't know a thing about real climate science, and that's why Jonas can undress you from top to bottom â climate scientist or not.
Jonas' CV has nothing to do with his high level of success at Deltoid. It could though, explain why his arguments are so much better than yours. But that's another matter Jeffie. A CV isn't a scientific punch in a debate, its a rhetoric one. Jonas called your bluff Jeffie and took your inflated cujones and squeezed all the hot air out of them.
You have my sympathies though.
Chris contd.
>I'm sorry but I can recognize bluster with very little effort.
Sorry, but the opposite is true. You read Rahmstorf's chapter, and not only did you not recognize the pletiful empty blustering, but you also swallowed it blindly and though this was 'the science' ..
Well, I'd expect something like that from somebody who claims that the lag between temperature- and CO2-level changes is *'irrelevant'*
So no, Chris, I have pretty low expectations of you understanding any points being made here. You tell me that you read what you think is 'science', whereafter you repeat (or copy?) the words, and believe it then is an 'argument'.
The word 'consistent' for instance, or the word 'empirical' .. They both migh correctly describe (parts of) what has been done, or what it shows. But taken as words by them selves doesn't mean much. Not even when they are uttered by 'climate scientists' ..
I would even argue that you'd have to be extra careful then.
*You acknowledge that you don't know a thing about real climate science, and that's why Jonas can undress you from top to bottom â climate scientist or not*
Well, at least I am honest. Jonas sure isn't. He doesn't know what the hell he is talking about, as other posters have shown. And to claim that he has 'undressed me'? In your wet dreams, pal. When Jonas ventured briefly into ecology, his posts were as shallow as a puddle. I assume his climate science posts are equally shallow. You and your hero refuse to tell me why he won't submit his ideas to a scientific journal, or present them at a conference. I have explained exactly why, and all you can do is retort with posts extolling how great Jonas is. Since you are a slimeball, and scientifically (as well as grammatically) only semi-literate, then tell Jonas to put his money where his mouth is and send his Earth-shattering ideas into the scientific arena. But, as I have said, a sad, anonymous blogger he will stay, because he knows exactly what will happen when he comes up against experts in the field.
*Jonas' CV has nothing to do with his high level of success at Deltoid*
HA! According to who? YOU? GSW? Let's take a straw poll of posters and readers on this thread and on Deltoid and see exactly how well Joans' success is measured. Let me guess: you and GSW and perhaps 1 or 2 others will wade in here on his behalf. On the other side will be 20 or 30 others. A 10-1 ratio against your motion. You lose, dickwad.
The clown has no idea what the term 'feedback' means. His take on feedbacks in ecology was grade-school level tripe.
And as for Jonas' statement: *being an attempt to counter Lindzen and other real scientists*
So who qualifies as a 'real scientist'? I am sure Jonas would leave out Mann, Hansen, Trenbarth, Schmidt, Viner, and a large number of researchers he doesn't like. But Lindzen fits the bill. Hmmm. Isn't Lindzen a prominent climate change sceptic? Like Baliunas, Plimer, Soon, Michaels, Balling, Carter, Ball, et al.? I suppose to Jonas these are all 'real scientists'. I suppose the little matter of accepting $2500 a day in consulting fees from the coal and fossil fuel lobby doesn't disqualify someone from being a 'real scientist'. Just as long as they deny the human fingerprint on warming, they can take all of the cash they need from the polluting industries.
http://dieoff.org/page82.htm
http://www.logicalscience.com/skeptics/Lindzen.htm
You guys are real a@@@@@@@ you know that?
Jeff Harvey
You ask, and rightfully so:
- How can I determine that you are not a **real** scientist?
But I have answered that question many times, even rubbed it in your face. And the answer is very simple:
Because you incessantly make up your own facts! I don know how many times you have 'declared' what I am not, what I don't know, and what I do not do professionally.
In almost every comment directed at me, you invented your own 'truth'. And not only are you inventing your own 'facts and truths' freely from your own wishful imagination. You even truly seem to believe that they must be true, since you've repeated them to yourself so many times!
That, however, is nowhere near real science, it is not even near (unreal) science. It is self delusion, and nothing else.
Anyway, you have been too scared to even remotely touch upon any of topics actually discussed. I hoped that this indicated some grain of survival instinct, of self preservation ...
But (at least) I am aware that this is a mere (but flattering) hypothesis about you. I have no evidence or emirical support for that
> 1326 Jeff Harvey
> You ask, and rightfully so:
> How can I determine that you are not a real scientist?
Where does he ask that?
Fact: he didn't.
Again your hallucinations become clear to all.
Again Jeff,
while I was writing the previous comment, you once more confirmed my point:
Although being asked repeatedly, you haven't even managed to forumlate my alledged 'earth shattering' ideas!?
That the IPCC AR4 claim about 90% certainty wasn't based on any real science!?
Well it ain't Jeff. You even ackowledged (not that itself, of course, becaus you couldn't) but the possibility. And you were right!
And again, you use 'outnumbered' as an argument. You just are a very very slow learner
(Note: That again was an flattering, but yet unsupported hypothesis. Nothing else!)
> Although being asked repeatedly, you haven't even managed to forumlate my alledged 'earth shattering' ideas!?
See, the problem is that not even idiot boy here knows what he's thinking!!!
> That the IPCC AR4 claim about 90% certainty wasn't based on any real science!?
Is that your contention, that there is NO SCIENCE whatsoever behind the 90%+ certainty?
And since you agree that the science says that it's actually 95-100%, this means WHAT exactly? Saying that we're MORE certain than the 90% confidence given by the AR4 summary is hardly earth-shattering.
So Jeff,
You make more claims like:
>The clown has no idea what the term 'feedback' means.
Was that another *'straw poll consenuses establishment of facts'*? Or was it the *Jeff-fantasizing-freely-variety*?
I know far more physics than anybody here has revealed. And that's being modest. And a sorry-assed excuse for a 'scientist' like yourself, comes here and claims the opposite? What a farce ...
But as I've said many times:
>I don't mind the least! Neither the insults, nor the abyssmally poor grasp of physics some here wilfully display ..
Jonases, you really are just basically stupid liars. With the emphasis on 'stupid'.
"That the IPCC AR4 claim about 90% certainty wasn't based on any real science!?(sic)"
It is based on 'science', numbskull.
As referenced at the beginning of this thread and repeatedly since and even before this thread.
That you are incapable of understanding how that is, or need to misrepresent it for your clique of fellow travelling idiots is your problem alone.
> I know far more physics than anybody here has revealed.
Even you have not managed to reveal as much physics as you know.
Deliberately. Even to the extent of making up meanings of common words as you go along to avoid revealing anything about what you know.
chek ... Yes, if repetition of a claim i 'science' then it is based on 'science'
That's why I inserted the relevant qualifier **real** before science. And no, a figure with caption in the AR4 is not 'the science' .. But I guess I'm way over your head again here.
> That's why I inserted the relevant qualifier real before science
Except you haven't defined what real science is.
Mostly because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.
PS a figure is science if it represents science. If it's in AR4 WG1, then it's going to be science. That's where the science is. AR4 WG1 isn't non science just because you repeat the phrase "it's not real science".
Poor ole Gonads, he's going visibly nuts on this thread, isn't he. Though he's so incoherent I wonder if he's not actually here to troll GSW...
His cred with his climatescam mates is shot to hell, that's for sure. In retrospect I think GSW just imported him as an idiot distraction.
I don't think even Watts or Curry would have indulged him as long as Tim has.
wow, the IPCC-statement that "2035" will be the year when the Himalayan glaciers are gone, is science. Because the IPCC said so. :-)
And apparently the 90-something figure has the same scientific color. :-)
That statement was corrected by IPCC scientists before your denialist buddies had even got out of bed, Jonases.
[This illustrates](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-15216875) that it's already happened in some locations, it's happening now, and it will continue to happen until there's nothing left, maybe in 300 years time.
You really should start realising that having an ego as tall as a 100 storey skyscraper and an intellect as tall as a bulldozed bungalow is not a great combination.
> wow, the IPCC-statement that "2035" will be the year when the Himalayan glaciers are gone
You mean NOT the WG1?
> Climate Change 2007: Working Group II: Impacts, Adaptation and Vulnerability
is where that came from.
Sorry, no bikkit for YOU.
PS when are you going to "correct" McIntyre's paper?
> And apparently the 90-something figure has the same scientific color.
Nope, apparently you can't read.
Working Group I != Working Group II
But poor ol idiot boy here can't tell the difference!
But there's nothing supporting that assertion anyway. By that light, the denialists are far far FAR behind the curve what with all their known lies and fakery.
Olaus
Follow chek's link where a photographer shows pictures of glaciers, and to the tune of soft music explains that their beauty 'gets peoples attention' because the 'tell a story about how the world will look like then' ..
But more interesting is the claim (@2.30) about what this means for the **water supply** ... also in 2060 .. for the **500 milion more** (ie today non-existing) people.
I think that might be the missing 'science' that some poor folks around Uppsala have been telling the most gullible tabloid readers here ..
** :-) **
> about what this means for the water supply ... also in 2060 .. for the 500 milion more (ie today non-existing) people
So you're such a dickless wonder, you assume that nobody else is getting any for the next 50 years?!?! Or is it you're a jaffa and you think there'll be shagging but no babies for 50 years?
PS that would be more information in WGII, not WGI, but you already know that.
*I know far more physics than anybody here has revealed. And that's being modest*
There's Jonas again with his self idolatry. Oh, sorry, er, um, Jonas doesn't do the 'self-idolatry' gig. Only I do. I grovellingly apologize to the God of modesty, Jonas.
The our resident wank@@ writes about me: *How can I determine that you are not a real scientist?*
Gee, who do I believe? Am I am real scientist or not? On the one hand there is a semi-literate clown from Sweden (Jonas) who has no pedigree in any scientific field, no papers, no academic affiliation, no street cred at all, and on the other are my many peers who have reviewed my papers and grant proposals, attended my lectures, and professional collaborators I have in universities in several countries or whom I have met over the past 22 years at conferences.
Sorry Jonas, you bonehead: I will stick with the latter. Am I a real scientist? You betcha. And nothing you, Olaus, GSW or your brethren will say can ever change that simple fact. I have the CV and the pedigree to prove it. You don't.
Game, set and match. Now you can go back to your kindergarten-level climate science tirades.
@Jeff
Sorry Jeff have to ask, are you on any sort of medication? If not you should probably consider it.
You come across as someone on the edge of a mental collapse, your last few posts have been near hysterical.
Well, given your inability to see insanity in Gonads, your eyesight is seriously in question. But I guess you don't have anything other than aping your betters to do, have you.
Why don't you go somewhere and be all concerned over the tribulations Michael Mann is undergoing, why don't you?
Sweetheart, with that level of wishful thinking you should go straight for a pony.
Wow @1343 - that's applied Jonasthink in action.
Jonasthink being a totally useless branch of science with no predictive capability. There will be no births tomorrow, or the day after, or the day after that, and so on - because obviously they don't exist here, now, today.
With Jonasthink, you don't bother to invent a smoke alarm, you instead invent a fireproof talking box that announces from somewhere in the smoking ruins that your house has burnt down. The 'benefit' being it's vaguely conceivable you might not have noticed.
Normally I define 'stupid' as having no ability to learn, but this latest example of Jonasthink is way beyond that, somewhere off in crackerland.
For a good laugh, one can go back and read the comment from 1 1/2 months ago where Jonas N introduced himself. Please put away any hot beverages before you read this:
>Thanks for the compliment, Holly Stick.
>
>But you got the facts wrong. I'm not the one who needs to tell lies in any debate or about anything. I mean what I post, and can stand for what I posted months/years later. And have no problem with correcting my stance if I was wrong.
>But it's true: I don't change my opinion to adhere to a
>(claimed/perceived) majority, or because someone tries to bully me.
> I listen to the best arguments people can muster, and evaluate
> them. And I have lite patience or respect for people who willfully
> must lie when arguing their position.
>
> ...
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick\_perry\_peter\_wood\_and\_the.php#comment-4939101
Jeff - and still you are sitting there, making up your own 'truths and facts' about a reality you don't know and don't understand.
And tell us that you are a **real** scientist!
Seriously, has no one ever told you that a real scientist doesn't ever close his eyes to conjure up the facts he so desperatly wnats to be true?
And still that's what you've been doing for a month and a half. In full view of everyone who can bear to watch.
And the 'support' you get here is from the likes of Wow, Stu, Chek, Michale, Bernard J and a few more ..
I agree, that among those 'peers' you fit in quite well. Among that lot, I am certain you'll find your much needed consensus ...
This is beyond funny, but also bit scary. The more than bitch-slapped Jeffie is pulling the CV-stunt again! My, my, my....Drowned in his own scientific shortcomings and self-obsession he can't take on board the fact that his a major laughing-stock.
@ Jonas.
The cheekie is working ass hard as ever with his lower hemispheres, and the outcome? Pure but smelly crap. What a surprise! ;-) He even managed to reinforce your main point by proving his "case" linking to ANOTHER of these CAGW-myths/figures lacking scientific back up whatsoever: the 500 million (yetis?) running out of fresh water.
Well, its a travesty of science all right.
Just curious, Jonas: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? Or are you using real as another new, magical synonym for "those few that agree with me"?
What is it about [projection](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection) (see #1351) that confers such uncanny accuracy on the perpetrator.... oh wait.
So let's try that again and see about that whole 'cap' and 'fitting' business ...
"This is beyond funny, but also bit scary. The more than bitch-slapped [Jonas is pulling the CV-stunt again"!](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/08/rick_perry_peter_wood_and_the.p…)
"My, my, my....Drowned in his own scientific shortcomings and self-obsession he can't take on board the fact that his (sic) a major laughing-stock".
Yes, that's much more congruent with the 1300+ post reality most here are actually living through. So it appears the Jonases' awareness is there - it just hasn't graduated to the 'self-' part yet.
You did watch the slide show and therefore must have noticed the difference between the photos taken 90 years ago with today? Or does Jonasthink⢠inescapably lead you to believe, as it must, that one day in c.300 years time they will all just disappear overnight in a puff of magic smoke? < (rhetorical question)
Cheekie, you are avoiding the true topic of the thread â again. :-)
I'll help you out; "Why is CAGW-science full of numbers/figurers lacking scientific back up?"
In your latest effort (to prove your scientific standing) you came up with another one even more ridiculous (500 million). Unfxxxxbelievable!!!! Have you no self preservation at all, no dignity whatsoever?
You are a sitting duck for sure, and a lame one at that. I strongly suggest that you, from now on, do what you really master: writing love poems about Jeffie von Münchaussen.
Jonases @ #1354 - as has been repeatedly explained to you, your use of 'CAGW' is defensive.
Your admittedly brainless use of the term already implicitly agrees AGW is in progress, it's just that lowest rung deniers (you know, the type that donkey-brays that real scientists don't understand science and similar comedy gems) can't understand it - and probably never will.
Jonas,
When kinetic friction is opposing a larger constantly applied force, you would be somewhat correct, except the velocity never goes to zero. Instead it goes to some constant terminal velocity, depending on the magnitude of the force, where acceleration is zero. In this case there is no feedback, just a net balance of forces.
This is the primary explanation of friction given in freshman science for boneheads classes with the usual examples being a block sliding down a ramp or a sled pulled by a tractor, and exactly what you are reading at Wikipedia.
We're talking about friction opposing a freely moving body with an initially large momentum (mv), but zero constant applied force (ma). This change in conditions means Coulomb's Law (as derived from the opposition of constant electrostatic forces) no longer applies. According to Coulombs Law, the net resistance over time from a constant applied force is constant. The net friction over time from a smaller constant force is, however, smaller than that of a larger constant force. Therefore, as the remnant of the inherent force from falling momentum gets smaller as a result of friction, the net friction over time also gets smaller.
Chek # 1355, as been repeatedly explained to you, the use of numbers unaccounted for (in the literature) isn't science, its more or less fiction. Ergo it's brainless to pretend that fiction is science. Get it? Sure you do, mr 500 million. ;-)
Or are there any refs you want to share regarding the 500 millions? You need to assist though. I really have tried to find these refs. But I'm just me and not you chek.
I'm sure you can help me out. Fingers crossed.
@ LB, I appreciate your well behaved post #1356 (no sarc).
Keep going Olaus, I'm getting close to logical fallacy bingo. This one is an oldie but a goodie.
Anyway, we've done this dance before. You've all tried to use this pathetic tactic before. See #1029. All of your pathetic points have been addressed several times, even the ones about polar bears. You do not like the answers, and are extremely insecure. That's fine, we obviously like playing with you when we're bored. Could you try being a little less predictable and dense though? It would up the entertainment value quite a bit.
PS: So would this. Yes, Olaus, even you can at least superficially stop looking like an abject moron. You're welcome.
Sorry Stu, but its not close to anything it that region. What's not farfetched, however, is that "500 million" is mumbo-jumbo and not science. Chek (and you?) thinks its climate science of some kind) but its just a buzz-word like so much else in the robust belief system surrounding the CAGW-cult.
By the way Stu, you are a very poor dancer, but you already knew that. Still its rather fun watching your catatonic moves: "hey-we-got-ya-because-we-said-so."
Oh, where have I heard that one before? ;-)
The Jonases at @1358 blustered
: "Or are there any refs you want to share regarding the 500 millions? You need to assist though. I really have tried to find these refs. But I'm just me and not you chek.
Well Jonases, that's probably because I'm me and you're just a braindead fuckwit with neither the wit nor the intelligence to follow up on the version of the world that Visocunt Monckton informs you about in his "newsletters".
As you're so helpless, [here's one reference](http://bprc.osu.edu/Icecore/Kehrwald%20et%20al%202008.pdf)
the currently relevant bit of which I'll reproduce here for the benefit of other components of your personality disorder.
"Geographic regions where water supply is dominated
by melting snow or ice are predicted to suffer severe
consequences as a result of recent warming [Barnett et al.,
2005]. Negative impacts including seasonal shifts in water
supply, flood risks, and increased precipitation variability
will eventually offset benefits incurred by short-term
increases in runoff from glacier melt [Cruz et al., 2007].
TP ice fields are a critical resource for one sixth of the
worldâs population because they provide dry season runoff
for major rivers [Cruz et al., 2007]. More specifically,
Naimonaânyi and other glaciers in the region form the
headwaters of the Indus, Ganges, and Brahmaputra Rivers
in the southwestern Himalaya (Figure 1). The Indus and
Ganges Rivers currently have little outflow to the sea during the dry season and are in danger of becoming seasonal rivers due to climate change and increased water demand [Cruz et al., 2007]. The surface area of glaciers across the TP is projected to decrease from 500,000 km2 measured in 1995 to 100,000 km2 in 2030 [Cruz et al., 2007], thereby threatening regional rivers and water resources. Estimates of the impact of Himalayan glacier retreat on water resources have not accounted for mass loss through high elevation thinning such as is currently occurring on the Naimonaânyi ice field. If Naimonaânyi is characteristic of other glaciers in the region, glacier meltwater surpluses are likely to shrink much faster than currently predicted with substantial consequences for approximately half a billion people".
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L22503, doi:10.1029/2008GL035556, 2008
Hey and remember Jonases, your already predictababble and therefore inevitably stupid arsewipe of a 'rebuttal' should also be peer reviewed to carry any weight.
Jonas,
>And FYI ... prophecies of fututre[sic] tipping points (in dynamic, non linear, chaotic systems) has absolutely nothing to do with real science.
Actually it is called [catastrophe theory](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catastrophe_theory) and it has a lot to do with the very real science of dynamic, nonlinear, chaotic systems.
But, since it is so far beyond someone who is incapable of the proper application of Newton's laws of motion, I can see how it seems unreal to you.
Poor dear.
LB, re. a recent post, I thought you might [enjoy this.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT1TVSTkAXg)
Also, notice the Jonases' collective's confused identity problem surfacing yet again @ #1357, for reference.
Bravo. That's an entirely new level of batshit-incoherent metaphor mangling. And not a single spelling error, too! Thank you for stepping it up, we all appreciate it.
luminous
Utter nonsense! And more Newtonian violations:
>When kinetic friction is opposing **a larger** constantly applied force, you would be somewhat correct, except the velocity never goes to zero
Nope, No way! It would **accelerate** for ever, due to net difference between the **larger constantly applied force** [Q] ]and the opposing and constant (lesser) frictional force [F]. It would do so according to your own (previous) statement:
> (Q-F)·ât = m·âv
here Q > 0 is in the direction of v, whereas F > 0 is (now) in the opposite. The Q (> F) can for instance be the downward component of the block weight (m·g) on a sloping ramp (angle α):
> Q = m·g·sin(α)
And the constant friction force F is determined by the component normal to that ramp, and the constant coefficient of friction, through:
> F = µ·m·g·cos(α)
Combined we get (for the block on the sloping ramp):
> (Q-F)·ât = m·g[sin(α) - µ·cos(α)]·ât = m·âv
or simpler
> g[sin(α) - µ·cos(α)]·ât = âv
ie constant **acceleration** âv/ât > 0, if friction is overcome. Which incidentally happens if the angle α exceeds the friction angle α (also implicit in the above equation). Ie there is a net (positive) downward and **constant acceleration** if:
> tan(α) > µ
And as you said, this is elementary freshman level mechanics, which you've bungled so many times by now. For it to reach terminal velocity, you need one more component; you need an opposing force which increases with velocity v. As you would get from a viscous fluid, drag, or a damper etc present. As I've told you many times before. But you haven't! Accoridning to your own statements (#1267) we are studying **"constant coefficient of friction" µ**.
But there I see why (possibly?) you have bungled this so completely and repeatedly, violating all kinds of physics (not only Newton's laws) as you went on. You wrote:
> Or you could look friction not being a constant force, but merely a constant coefficient of friction, i.e., **the fraction of** frictional force opposing an externally applied force being constant. The constant coefficient of friction **times applied force** is the net frictional force
I'm sorry to have overlooked that error before, because the first sentence is is a bit unclear (in addition to wrong). The second is clearer though. And also wrong.
Because friction and the constant coefficient µ **is not** the ratio between (opposing) frictional force and applied external force. Instead it is the ratio between frictional force F and normal force N applied to the two sliding surfaces.
Did you get that? [I'll repeat, see eg 1st Fig here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction#Angle_of_friction): The frictional force F, opposing the motion/direction of sliding is given by
> F = µ·N
where N is the contact force perpendicular to the slidning surfaces, and to the direction of motion. **Perpendicular**, luminous!
Further, a momentum (m·v) **is not** a force, although you have treated as if it were: *"the **inherent force** from falling momentum"*. You have repeatedly (it seems) viewed an initial large momentum, as a *'force'* which is reduced by the opposing friction (which you seem to have 'understood' as µ times that *'force'*) although I already in my first comment (#1181, in response to your now infamous #1177) pointed out that force and momentum have different dimensionality.
Because, it this is what you have believed all along, if you thought:
1. That momentum (m·v) is a 'force' causing that same motion (v),
2. But that its **time** derivative **also** is a force (as in F = m·âv/ât, see #1257 which is correct), and
3. That 'net friction' (as you called it), with a **constant** coeffictient of friction µ, is obtained by (dimensionless) µ times your momentum ('force') in the opposite direction. That is, if you thought that:
4. A large momentum (m·v) 'wanting' to move the body in one direction, and your (version of) 'net friction' µ·m·v in the opposite 'wanting' to slow it down gradually, so that you indeed are *"slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount, and so on"* ...
.. then your many nonsensical unphysical claims and statements here would be, at least ... ehrm ... 'understandable'. But still totally wrong!
Because it means that you:
- violated the laws of Newton (second and third),
- misunderstood momentum,
- misunderstood friction, coeffictient of friction µ,
- and what entity it should be applied to (multiplied with),
- and violated dimensionality
..and indeed you did, luminous!
And I'm sorry. I actually should have seen where you fucked up earlier. I correctly spotted your misconception, your need of the velocity v in your 'net friction'. But couldn't possibly fathom that you both mistook 'momentum' for an external driving 'force', and misunderstood friction as a fraction of that (non-) 'force'.
As you said, luminous, this is freshman physics and mechanics. And you totally, and I mean really completely, bungled it Big time!
But I am glad we got this sorted out. And also amused at that so many of your Deltoid-fellow-travelers here let you go on with this nonsense so long, possibly believed and hoped you had a point, or even noted your fuck-ups but couldn't bring themselves to stop you from making a total horse's ass of yourself, because that would viewed as defeat or a concession in the struggle for 'the righteous cause' (or something like that)
Well OK, the last one is a rather faint possibility. Judging from what the crowd here has performed, a grasp of even elementary (freshman) physics is not a requisite ...
As a final note. Your:
>We're talking about friction opposing a freely moving body with an initially large momentum (mv), but zero constant applied force (ma). This change in conditions means Coulomb's Law .. no longer applies.
is also wrong, and on two counts:
Firstly, if there is net friction, there is a nonzero force, ie it would slow down and acceleration a < 0.
Secondly, Coulomb's law perfectly well describes the conditions. Together with Newton's second, I gave it above for a sloping ramp:
> g[sin(α) - µ·cos(α)]·ât = âv
With no externally applied force (in the direction of v, downward the ramp), this corresponds to a body with an initial large momentum (m·v) on a level surface, ie with α = 0, simplifying the above to:
> -µ·g·ât = âv
or
> âv/ât = - µ·g = a < 0
as I already wrote in #1275
Hehehe...God lord chek, are you aware of what you just did with your fine ref in #1360? :-) I guess not. You really have no clue what a scientific proof is. In my previous post I told you that there was no science behind the 500 million figure, that it was just a buzz-word, and you direct med to an article proving mer right. You even excerpted the relevant part for "the benefit" of others. Hilarious.
Let me help you out Chek. The article doesn't deal with the "500 million", hence it does not present a method/calculation for how the figure came about. You know why? It can't be done. And if you knew how little melt-water from glaciers there is in Ganges, Bramaputra and Indus, you would know that too.
I give you that "500 million" sounds very good for a doomsayer in business. But that's not science.
luminous
Utter nonsense! And more Newtonian violations:
>When kinetic friction is opposing **a larger** constantly applied force, you would be somewhat correct, except the velocity never goes to zero
Nope, No way! It would **accelerate** for ever, due to net difference between the **larger constantly applied force** [Q] ]and the opposing and constant (lesser) frictional force [F]. It would do so according to your own (previous) statement:
> (Q-F)·ât = m·âv
here Q > 0 is in the direction of v, whereas F > 0 is (now) in the opposite. The Q (> F) can for instance be the downward component of the block weight (m·g) on a sloping ramp (angle α):
> Q = m·g·sin(α)
And the constant friction force F is determined by the component normal to that ramp, and the constant coefficient of friction, through:
> F = µ·m·g·cos(α)
Combined we get (for the block on the sloping ramp):
> (Q-F)·ât = m·g[sin(α) - µ·cos(α)]·ât = m·âv
or simpler
> g[sin(α) - µ·cos(α)]·ât = âv
ie constant **acceleration** âv/ât > 0, if friction is overcome. Which incidentally happens if the angle α exceeds the friction angle α (also implicit in the above equation). Ie there is a net (positive) downward and **constant acceleration** if:
> tan(α) > µ
And as you said, this is elementary freshman level mechanics, which you've bungled so many times by now. For it to reach terminal velocity, you need one more component; you need an opposing force which increases with velocity v. As you would get from a viscous fluid, drag, or a damper etc present. As I've told you many times before. But you haven't! Accoridning to your own statements (#1267) we are studying **"constant coefficient of friction" µ**.
But there I see why (possibly?) you have bungled this so completely and repeatedly, violating all kinds of physics (not only Newton's laws) as you went on. You wrote:
> Or you could look friction not being a constant force, but merely a constant coefficient of friction, i.e., **the fraction of** frictional force opposing an externally applied force being constant. The constant coefficient of friction **times applied force** is the net frictional force
I'm sorry to have overlooked that error before, because the first sentence is is a bit unclear (in addition to wrong). The second is clearer though. And also wrong.
Because friction and the constant coefficient µ **is not** the ratio between (opposing) frictional force and applied external force. Instead it is the ratio between frictional force F and normal force N applied to the two sliding surfaces.
Did you get that? [I'll repeat, see eg 1st Fig here](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friction#Angle_of_friction): The frictional force F, opposing the motion/direction of sliding is given by
> F = µ·N
where N is the contact force perpendicular to the slidning surfaces, and to the direction of motion. **Perpendicular**, luminous!
Further, a momentum (m·v) **is not** a force, although you have treated as if it were: *"the **inherent force** from falling momentum"*. You have repeatedly (it seems) viewed an initial large momentum, as a *'force'* which is reduced by the opposing friction (which you seem to have 'understood' as µ times that *'force'*) although I already in my first comment (#1181, in response to your now infamous #1177) pointed out that force and momentum have different dimensionality.
Because, it this is what you have believed all along, if you thought:
1. That momentum (m·v) is a 'force' causing that same motion (v),
2. But that its **time** derivative **also** is a force (as in F = m·âv/ât, see #1257 which is correct), and
3. That 'net friction' (as you called it), with a **constant** coeffictient of friction µ, is obtained by (dimensionless) µ times your momentum ('force') in the opposite direction. That is, if you thought that:
4. A large momentum (m·v) 'wanting' to move the body in one direction, and your (version of) 'net friction' µ·m·v in the opposite 'wanting' to slow it down gradually, so that you indeed are *"slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount, and so on"* ...
.. then your many nonsensical unphysical claims and statements here would be, at least ... ehrm ... 'understandable'. But still totally wrong!
Because it means that you:
- violated the laws of Newton (second and third),
- misunderstood momentum,
- misunderstood friction, coeffictient of friction µ,
- and what entity it should be applied to (multiplied with),
- and violated dimensionality
..and indeed you did, luminous!
And I'm sorry. I actually should have seen where you f_cked up earlier. I correctly spotted your misconception, your need of the velocity v in your 'net friction'. But couldn't possibly fathom that you both mistook 'momentum' for an external driving 'force', and misunderstood friction as a fraction of that (non-) 'force'.
As you said, luminous, this is freshman physics and mechanics. And you totally, and I mean really completely, bungled it Big time!
But I am glad we got this sorted out. And also amused at that so many of your Deltoid-fellow-travelers here let you go on with this nonsense so long, possibly believed and hoped you had a point, or even noted your f_ck-ups but couldn't bring themselves to stop you from making a total horse's ass of yourself, because that would viewed as defeat or a concession in the struggle for 'the righteous cause' (or something like that)
Well OK, the last one is a rather faint possibility. Judging from what the crowd here has performed, a grasp of even elementary (freshman) physics is not a requisite ...
As a final note. Your:
>We're talking about friction opposing a freely moving body with an initially large momentum (mv), but zero constant applied force (ma). This change in conditions means Coulomb's Law .. no longer applies.
is also wrong, and on two counts:
Firstly, if there is net friction, there is a nonzero force, ie it would slow down and acceleration a < 0.
Secondly, Coulomb's law perfectly well describes the conditions. Together with Newton's second, I gave it above for a sloping ramp:
> g[sin(α) - µ·cos(α)]·ât = âv
With no externally applied force (in the direction of v, downward the ramp), this corresponds to a body with an initial large momentum (m·v) on a level surface, ie with α = 0, simplifying the above to:
> - µ·g·ât = âv
or
> âv/ât = - µ·g = a < 0
as I already wrote in #1275
luminous
In the light of the above, I found this sentence of yours (in #1305) particluarly cute:
>If you can do that .. I will gladly **explain the physics** of why it really isn't such a problem
PS The red arrow (in the second to last equation of #1365) is obviously (supposed to be) a minus-sign!
Jonases @ #1364 "You really have no clue what a scientific proof is".
As expected, a major fail from you. If you had the slightest clue how 'science works' you'd know that farting your disbelief from your own incredulity is the weakest of weak arguments. Your 'assessment' is pitiful.
What you now have to do is reference or produce a paper refuting the GRL paper, which as expected you've signally been unable to do.
Stu, help me out will ya? :-) Chek truly thinks factoids are science. He really believes a fantasy figure, and a very absurd one at that, is science because its mentioned in a paper. No refs whatsoever backing the figure up. Like I said, the amount of melt water from glaciers in Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra, is very little (in the areas where the 500 million live). I'm sure some sherpas and all the yetis on the hillsides will suffer if the glaciers melt away. But 500 million human beings? No way! And that's way chek can't come up with a ref. It can't be done with science, only with goredian talk and wishful thinking.
And then chek wants me to conduct research to prove him wrong. :-)
The flying green spaghetti monster is indeed hovering over Deltiod. :-)
Jonases, some anonymous internet knobend with expertise in arse scratching and nose picking (if that) saying that he dontz believez it - no way - is not a refutation of a peer reviewed, referenced paper.
I'm sure you wish it was because that's all you've got, but it will not do. That's not how science works.
chek, a friendly advice from someone wiser; when you are in a hole and want to get out, stop digging. :-)
Instead of referring to nose-picking an what not, I kindly suggest that you admit your shortcomings. No harm in that chek, it's not a crime suffering from science-dyslexia.
And what IS accomplished in 'your' paper isn't the topic chek, it's what's NOT accomplished that IS. I'm sure your peer reviewed paper have some scientific value, but NOT with regard to the 500 million figure.
:-)
So Jonas, how much meltwater is there in those rivers. Percentages will do.
Its good to know that there are some intelligent young people in Sweden named Jonas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tcJkVQSLb-Q
Yes Jeff, that's more like it. I understand why you feel at home.
A kid and some activists chanting *'Act now! Act now! ..'* to *' .. do something good'*
:-)
Jeffie, I quote the scientific essence of your young Swedish media group buddy: "I see this as an opportunity to deal with many other issues..."
And the shaking tent in the end of the clip...what a laboratory.
:-)
Hey guys, Come on, lighten up! Its good to see that there are different perspectives on the issue in Sweden...
I want to ask you both a simple question:
Did you support the US/UK invasion of Iraq in 2003, and the recent USUKisNATO invasion of Libya? And if so, why?
You may think I digress, but there is a method here...
I do beg your pardon. My [1371](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5514435) should have been addressed to Olaus, not Jonas. So hard to tell them apart sometimes.
So Olaus, let us keep it simple and confine this to 1 river â The Indus. What percentage of the Indus river is meltwater?
sidcup .. the relevant question is what percentage of the total flow is net melting of the actual glaciers.
Meltwater, is not gonna disappear anywhere soon, precipitation usually is considerend to increase with higher temperatures ..
But more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau of course won't conjure up any alarmism ...
The percentage is infinitesimal. But if I understand it, the AGW-alarmists se that net melting of glaciers as a threat. And want to stop it now already, thus already reducing the water to what it would be if the glaciers were all gone.
But that's 'climate logic' for you, as opposed to logic ..
Ah, I get it. It's all about real melting of real glaciers.
By the way, Jonas: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? Or are you using real as another new, magical synonym for "those few that agree with me"?
> Meltwater, is not gonna disappear anywhere soon
Heh. Had to snigger at this one too.
Kid, meltwater runs into the ocean. It's no longer meltwater then.
Not really. Monsoon rain and monsoon snow that quickly melts will add to flooding rivers and be quickly back in the sea. Monsoon snow that adds to glaciers will gradually melt and provide water through the dry season. Glaciers are important as reservoirs.
Your understanding is wrong - but you will never admit it.
Holy hakalela, I jumped the gun and replied before reading the rest of that gem.
Obvious and stupid lie.
40% for the Indus and Ganges basins. Infinitesimal? Were you dropped on the head as a child?
If they were all gone, they would not be there to act as reservoirs. You do know what reservoir means, don't you? The glaciers being completely gone would increase flow in winter (increasing the chance of floods) and decrease flow in summer (when it would be nice to have water). That's even ignoring that without glaciers weather patterns in the region would change.
Yes, but precitation tends to be seasonal. If the ice retreats what happens when it isn't the rainy season? What happens when it is the rainy season? How much of the increased precipitation you refer too goes straight down the valleys?
Here is a paper that rather on the conservative side and is critical of the IPCC:
[Climate Change Will Affect the Asian Water Towers](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5984/1382.full)
"We conclude that Asiaâs water towers are threatened by climate change, but that the effects of climate change on water availability and food security in Asia differ substantially among basins and cannot be generalized. The effects in the Indus and Brahmaputra basins are likely to be severe owing to the large population and the high dependence on irrigated agriculture and meltwater."
Furthermore:
"Brahmaputra and Indus basins are most susceptible to reductions of flow, threatening the food security of an estimated 60 million people."
60 million people. That is 6 times the population of Sweden.
The Jonases really are pitiful. Pulling lint lumps out of their navels and randomly hitting whichever keys they land on would likely make more sense than the garbage verbiage that pours out. Unreferenced, worthless statements based on a non-existent expertise tumble out as freely as shit from a sewer pipe and with about as much value.
Here's [another reference](http://meteora.ucsd.edu/cap/pdffiles/barnett_warmsnow.pdf) by real scientists doing real science, as opposed to useless internet ball-janglers like the Jonases making shit up as it suits them.
HimalayaâHindu Kush region. Perhaps the most critical region in which vanishing glaciers will negatively affect water supply in the next few decades will be China and parts of Asia, including India (together forming the HimalayaâHindu Kush (HKH) region), because of the regionâs huge population (about 50â60% of the worldâs population). The ice mass over this mountainous region is the third-largest on earth, after the Arctic/Greenland and Antarctic
regions. The hydrological cycle of the region is complicated by the Asian monsoon, but there is little doubt that melting glaciers provide a key source of water for the region in the summer months: as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50â60% of the flow in other major rivers(ref 40,41,42). In China, 23% of the population lives in the western regions, where glacial melt provides the principal dry season water source (ref 43).
40. Singh, P. & Bengtsson, L. Hydrological sensitivity of a large Himalayan basin to climate change. Hydrol. Process. 18, 2363â-2385 (2004).
41. Singh, P., Jain, S. K. & Kumar, N. Estimation of snow and glacier-melt contribution to the Chenab River, Western Himalaya. Mount. Res. Develop.17(1), 49â-56 (1997).
42. Singh, P. & Jain, S. K. Snow and glacier melt in the Satluj River at Bhakdra Dam
in the western Himalayan region. Hydrol. Sci. J. 47, 93â-106 (2002).
43. Gao, Q. & Shi, S. Water resources in the arid zone of northwest China. J. Desert
Res. 12(4), 1â-12 (1992).
You mean Lindzen's poorly written collection of arm waiving opinions? I'm sorry but I've already heard enough from Lindzen and already read enough of his writings and about his 'work' to know that he's a crank with an agenda. You may be a glutton for punishment but don't come asking me why I'm not one too.
You don't even understand the point of what I'm saying but I'd expect something like that from somebody who claims that aerosols are a climatic feedback, quotes notwithstanding. If someone can't even communicate using climate science terminology, they haven't got a hope of understanding what the climate scientists are on about.
This coming from someone whose uses meanings for words that no-one else uses. Oh the irony.
So no, Jonas, I have pretty low expectations of you understanding any points being made here. We know that you have not displayed an understanding of the statement "aerosols are not a feedback". What hope, then, is there of anything else?
Richard S
You got that roughly right: The snow falling at higher altidudes will melt gradually during the seasonj. And it will do so regardless of if it fell on top of an existing glaciour, or nearby.
Apart from the net melting of the existing glaciers, it will be the same water that runs down through the river systems that rained/snowed on the land.
Compared to that water, the net effect of glacier volume decreasing is infinitesimal. And far more effictient reservoirs (than a cold surface for the snow to land on) are available today. They are called dams. And they provide electricity too ...
The threatened freshwater for half a billion people is another climate scare dud ... It has nothing to do with the glaciers and their size ..
Hope Jonas is prepared to dig deep into his pocket to pay for all those dams. Only fair since it is the emissions he is merrily releasing that are resposible for the loss of ice. Glaciers are free and can spread uphill. Dams are expensive and can't.
At a different time. But hey, nice job on the backpedaling, throwing in dams and "net effect of glacier volume decreasing". So all we need to do is build five major dams and hope really, really hard that the climate isn't affected, correct?
By the way, why are you avoiding my question about what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Only problem is, the snowline will start higher up so snow will fall on a smaller area.
And the above moron thinks he has a handle on logic. Oh the irony.
So to summarize Jonas' position:
The threatened freshwater for half a billion people is another climate scare dud*
It has nothing to do with the glaciers and their size**
* They should just build a bunch of dams, which will not displace anyone, cost any money, or affect the climate at all.
** Well, of course it does, but I've already solved the problem by building those dams so it's all irrelevant.
Chek, Chris, Wow et al.
I have dealt with enough anti-environmentalists over the past 15 years to understand the strategy of denialists such as Jonas and Olaus.
I explained this earlier in another thread: they argue that without 100% absolute proof of a process, then there is no problem. This is the analogy I used in that its like trying to win a pissing match with a skunk. The analogy was first described to me by an ecologist at North Carolina State University who is a leading expert in the study of acid rain and its effects on terrestrial ecosystems. He told me that we knew without doubt that levels of acid in rainwater in the upper Appalachians (e.g. Great Smokey Mountains) was 100-500 times higher than low-level ambient. He also said that there was significant evidence of harm in decidious forest ecosystems and especially boreal forests, where the ability of the soils to deal with low pH precipitation was already compromised. But, he told me, that to fully understand the effects of acid rain on highly dynamic systems which exhibit immense complexity in nutrient cycles and turnover, water retention, and other conditions mediated by a range of abiotic and biotic parameters would require billions of dollars - never to be funded. So, as long as he could not provide iron-clad evidence of the long-term deleterious effects of acid rain, then, to the anti-environmentalists (of which Jonas and Olaus clearly are), the problem not only was exaggerated, but it did not exist at all. This is the contrarian scenario: demand concrete proof of a process knowing science does not work that way, and when you do not get it, then discount the problem with a simple waving of your hand.
Thus, the Jonas brothers would like to see nothing done about climate warming until ALL of the data are in. By this I mean 100% proof of a mass extinction event, 100% proof of a water-borne disaster in the Himalayan Basin, 100% proof of an Arctic melt-down, 100% proof of agricultural drylands becoming deserts etc. etc. etc. This is why I asked about their opinions on the Iraq war earlier. Bush, Blair and co. used spurious arguments (to say the least) to justify a war, and yet here we have a lot more evidence of a looming environmental catastrophe unfolding before our eyes with considerable empirical support and yet we have the contrarians demanding data that will only come in once we have sent our planetary life-support systems to hell.
They will only be satisfied once the horse has bolted from the barn. By then it will be too late: since Jonas is on a "reality" kick, it is clear that REAL scientists (meaning most working in the Earth and Life Sciences - see 'World Scientists Warning to Humanity [1992]) realize this.
Chris O'Neill
So you haven't read the preceding chapter. But still think you know its contents and quality.
I understand, that is just about how I view how the information gathering is conducted here. Blindly guessing and hoping ...
Further, your incessant nagging about feedbacks is wrong and stupid! The idea that everything only can be viewed, understood and/or described what you call 'climate science terminology' is equally stupid! And you don't seem to be aware that aerosols indeed are used as 'feedbacks' also by the 'climate scare crowd', but in a different way.
Anyway, I stated what I meant in a perfectly clear way. And you, who thinks that resonance merely is Newton's third law, are the last one to lecture me on what feedbacks are, how that word is used or what that term describes in a physical system.
So please stop that pathetic whining. Because it is really really pathetic!
And no, you didn't have a point Chris. You repeated what you had read in chapter 3 (nudging that 1°C a bit upwards though) and believed it was gospel.
Even the simplest pointers, eg that effect has to follow cause, seem to advanced for many here to grasp. Insted we hear weeks and weeks of whining like: We don't appropve of how you describe the holy climate science ...
What a farce Chris, and you have definitely joined the derailers here who've given up the last remnants of their integrity and resort to whining and blind wishful thinking ... like:
>If it says: " .. the growing understanding of **abrupt climate changes**, the record-breaking hurricane season of 2005, or the renewed concerns of the stability of the ice-sheets"... then this just has to be science!
What a farce, Chris!
Chris (contd.)
I see you are about to walk into yet another trap, and jumping on the glacier--freshwater-half-a-billion-threat-bandwagon.
Be my guest! You will once more manouver and dig you down into a hole where you can't come ot without losing more face.
But I know how hard it is for you to backpedal, to retract your face, to correct when you got it wrong ..
There will be more soure grapse from you ... that's (almost) a promise!
Wonderboy Jeff H again 'knows' without knowing! And calls that 'real' science. What a surpise ...
> So you haven't read the preceding chapter.
Gosh, Chris hasn't even said what chapter(s) he's read, but our latest butt-boy knows that he hasn't read "the preceding chapter". Not only knowing he's not read one, but which chapter Chris *has* read!
> and/or described what you call 'climate science terminology' is equally stupid!
Really? So how are you supposed to talk about the climate when talking about technical terms?
> Even the simplest pointers, eg that effect has to follow cause, seem to advanced for many here to grasp
Nope, pretty sorted here.
CO2 causes warming. CO2. Then temperatures rising. Cause. Effect. Correct order.
> And you, who thinks that resonance merely is Newton's third law
Aaaawwww. You're imagining things again!
> You repeated what you had read in chapter 3 ... and believed it was gospel.
No, knew it was science.
> We don't appropve of how you describe the holy climate science ...
We don't approve using words in non standard ways as a way to describe ANYTHING.
You, of course, having no clue, don't know how to describe anything, therefore have to use your own meanings because you live only in your private little world of fantasy.
> and blind wishful thinking ... like:
Why then do you make a QUOTE of something not quoted here? Aaah. I get it. The pixies in your head said it and you can't separate reality from fantasy.
Gotcha.
Thanks for the review article chek. I have read it before and also the relevant refs mentioned (41,42,43). Now I suggest you do it too. Start with:
Singh, P., Jain, S. K. & Kumar, N. Estimation of snow and glacier-melt contribution to the Chenab River, Western Himalaya. Mount. Res. Develop. 17(1), 49â-56 (1997).
Then show me the science behind "500 million". :-)
> But I know how hard it is for you to backpedal, to retract your face, to correct when you got it wrong ..
You're presuming something Chris said is wrong.
Care to show what that was and how it is wrong?
> Then show me the science behind "500 million". :-)
[Here you go](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_reproduction)
Jeff Harvey
Let me remind you here, from what part of the crowd you'd like to draw your support.
You already showed us the Jonas Eriksson kid, and his activists. You have repeatedly referred to Michael here being right. You expressed your reverence to Bernard J. You mentioned chek, stu, and Wow, and I am pretty sure you also refered to luminous as one of them who got it right ..
I find that rather fantastic. But then you also told me you have deep intelectual discussions with other scientists in your lunch room ...
I can only imagine how that would sound ... well, probably just like here!
Pure gold!
There was no point to that last post, Jonearse. You just wasted a pile of electrons.
Jonases, it's already been done for you. But as I said before, when your ego's as high as a skyscraper and your intellect's lower than a hole in the ground, you just aren't capable of comprehending it.
Plus your blindingly stupid strategy of only referencing references already provided to you with the laughable claim that you've 'read them before' wouldn't even fool your fan club who can plainly see what an insufferable jerk you are and will surely take any future grandiose claims by you - or 'lies' as we call them out here in the real world - with a metric tonne of salt.
As Chek said.
The point I am asking, Jonas clones, is exactly what amount of empirical evidence you think is required to suggest that there is a real problem. You are great in dismissing the current evidence for AGW and for melting glaciers in the Himalayas, but you never tell us all here exactly what you think we ought to know.
We all want specifics. You want science? I am asking what you think we need to know, and how we will get that evidence before it is too late to do anything about it. Like creationists, your trick is not to provide positive evidence in favor of your thesis, but to find holes in the evidence for AGW, as if this somehow disproves it entirely. The entire concept of taking remedial action is based on being able to predict harmful consequences of a process. If we require 100% certainty, then we will already be going over the metaphorical cliff before we act, and of course by then it will too late.
I know your strategy because I have seen it a million times before. You are hardly original. You dismiss peer-reviewed studies with the magic wave of a hand (see above), and will continue to do so until - well until when? As I said, the same trick has been used by anti-environtalists in dismissing a range of anthropogenic assaults across the biosphere - habitat destruction and loss of biodiversity, acid rain, other forms of pollution etc. My guess is that you both think these are'nt problems either.
chek
Guessing blindly is not a very good method. As I have many of the activists here. But still they try .. Neither is telling lies, and I don't need to do that.
[Here](http://www.theclimatescam.se/2009/11/06/jan-ericson-m-om-al-gores-pudel…) is a discussion by me (more than two years ago) about the contents of refs 40, 41, and 42 in said paper of #1383.
If it would be of any real interest to you, I could inform you that none of the references supported the claim made.
Ref [40] is a dud. Modelruns for various scenarios being 1-3 °C warmer(?). And of course mainly dealing with snowmelt. However not Ganges, but Satluj
Refs [41, 42] actually deals with snow (and glacier) melting. But for rivers Chenab and Satluj. But of course almost all of the water is melting snow (or rain) that fell during the season (only an infinitesimal part is net decreasing glacier volume).
So it seems you provided a good example of one of those perpetuated climate lies, found in the so called 'climate scien´ce literature'.
Conveniently, your reference Barnett et al #1383, left out that almost all water is (rain and) melting seasonal snow. And instead wrote:
*"but there is little doubt that **melting glaciers provide a key source of water** for the region in the summer months: as much as 70% of the summer flow in the Ganges and 50â60% of the flow in other major rivers40, 41, 42"*
And the reason of course is the obvious. And you you here are the 'proof' that it works as intended.
So chek, I don't need to tell lies, but the reference you provided tried to get away with a big fat bold lie
A real scientist of course discovers those, while those who got their PhDs from the back of a cereal box, wouldn't ..
Jeff H, the discussion never was about whether or not Himalayan glaciers have been retracting since ~1800 or so (even earlier). They have!
The topic is whether they are the main source of freshwater, and if their shrinking threatens half a billion people.
Let me repeat it for you: Water supply is indeed a problem inin the plains. But not because of the net glacier loss over 100s of years.
You assert this. We've provided references that say 40-70% of it comes from glaciers. Where do you get your data from? You'll forgive me if I don't take your word for it.
By the way, why are you avoiding my question about what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Jeff H
I have posed the question before (and hinted the answer) :
The question, whether politicians would be able to control the earth's climate, if they were only given enough power and money ..
... really is a no-brainer!
And still, many argue as if the answer to the above were an unconditional: 'Yes, Yes!'
@Jonas,
I think I'd call that an outright win, Jonas.
Det är som att ha hört oraklet i Delfi!
:)
[Jonas,](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5512605)
Me:
>When kinetic friction is opposing a larger constantly applied force, you would be somewhat correct, except the velocity never goes to zero
You:
>Nope, No way! It would accelerate for ever, due to net difference between the larger constantly applied force [Q] ]and the opposing and constant (lesser) frictional force [F].
Let me try to explain this with a simple thought experiment so you can hopefully understand the hole you've dug for yourself.
Imagine you are working in a warehouse pushing boxes across a smooth and level concrete floor.
Let us say you are pushing a 100kg box at constant speed of 0.5m/s and have to exert a constant force of 500N, maintaining a constant momentum of 50kg·m/s. Since the velocity and momentum are constant we know that the frictional force is in balance with the constant applied force from you pushing the box (net force = 0) and therefore equal to -500kg·m/s2.
Since we know the mass and that the floor is level, we can easily calculate the normal force to be mg = 981N. We can then calculate the coefficient of friction μ = Ffriction/Fnormal) under these conditions to be -0.51.
Are we together so far?
Now, let us say, your boss complains you're going too slow and you'll have to pick it up. So you double your effort and apply 1000N of force pushing the box.
__If what you have written above is correct__, this effort will cause the box to accelerate at a constant rate.
>Given; 1000Napplied force - 500Nfriction force = 500Nnet force, then; a = 500Nnet force/100kg = 5m/sec2)
As a consequence, you and the box would end up flying out the dock door, into the waiting truck and slamming up against the front of the trailer with great force. Let us say that distance is 11m. My calculations show the box would be traveling at 37.8km/hr after only 2sec. With a final momentum of about 1050 kg·m/sec and given an estimated impulse time of 0.1sec for a fairly rigid box and trailer wall, that would be a collision force on the order of 38,000N. Wow!
O dear, I forgot to account for aerodynamic drag, didn't I? Let's see: A BOE calculation for a cubical 100kg box with dimensions of 0.5m at sea level and temperature of 10C would lower the final velocity before you and the box hit the wall by about 3.3km/hr. Your drag would be considerably less considering your slippery shape and that you'd be mostly drafting behind the box. Hmmm, doesn't seem to have that large of an effect, does it?
Is this what really happens?
I would suggest, either your frosh physics is terribly wrong or you are misinterpreting it. I'm tired of trying to explain it to you. You'll have to figure it out on your own.
What the hell are you talking about? What politicians want to "control" the climate? Can you even tell the difference between "control" and "attempt not to unduly influence"?
I have trees in my back yard. I make it a point not to take a chainsaw to them. Am I "controlling" them?
By the way, why are you avoiding my question about what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
I get it finally!
Jonas is failing bonehead physics and needs a tutor, but is too cheap to hire one, so he just comes here wearing his underwear over his head and gets all of his misconceptions fixed by Ms luminous. Well-played sir.
The best part is that if he ever does learn physics, the enormous piles of shit he posted here will not be associated to him (Jonas not being his real name and all).
Yes luminous
What I have written is correct, and your calculations (it seems) are correct too.
Sliding that box over the warehouse floor with a applied external force Q requires that I overcome friction F = µ·N. Once that is done, the required force Q - F = 0 regardless of velocity.
Now, for you, it may appear that going at v = 5m/s is harder work than 0.5m/s, because the power you exert P = Q·v is accordingly higher. But the force you'd apply would be the same (only your feet would be moving faster). And you'd also reach your destination (the wall) quicker accordingly, so that the total work you have done P·t would be the same, namely Q·d (d = distance), regardless of velocity.
> P·t = (Q·v)·t = Q·(v·t) = Q·d (if d/t = v)
Only difference would be the extra work accelerating it to a higher speed, which you would lose when colliding with the wall. The work covering the distance is independent of velocity, the **force** you need to maintain that velocity is too. (Drag is not accounted for)
You got that completely right. And it is all very simple, it is the consequence of the frictional opposing force F being constant (regardless of speed)
> F = -µ·N = -µ·m·g
You see, the velocity is still not in there anywhere.
I really don't know what it is you take issue with here. The simple Wikipedia description has it quite right. And you (seemling) still boneheadedly are trying to violate the second law of Newton.
Why!? Do you hope to score some brownie points? With whom?
The amusing thing is that Jonas is psychologically unable to admit that CO2 is actually a greenhouse gas.
Presumably this basic element of denial allows him to hold on to the rest of his bizarre and non-factual world-view on climate science.
I don't see the point in getting into argument with him about other details when he can't even make it through the front door, so to speak.
GSW simpered: "I think I'd call that an outright win, Jonas".
Of course you would GSW, but that's chiefly because you're an even bigger moron than the Jonases. Incredible as it may seem to you, a 'reference' to some blogposts by the Jonases with a couple of unsupported claims thrown in are not considered the Ultimate Reference.
And because we're not all pursuing a denier agenda at all costs like some here, it takes time to read up on what we're presented with. Which nevertheless does turn up some nuggets such as the Jonases' admission that they've only read the abstracts of the papers they feigned such in-depth knowledge of. Oh dear so much for the Wellreads, to nobody's surprise.
In addition of course as we all know, AGW has progressed at an accelerated rate since those '90's papers referenced in the Barnett paper, and additional references such as the more recent satellite assisted USGS PP1386 (2010) paper take a little time to study.
But you keep counting those unhatched chickens while you can still dream.
@chek
"AGW has progressed at an accelerated rate since those '90's papers referenced in the Barnett paper, and additional references such as the more recent satellite assisted USGS PP1386 (2010) paper take a little time to study."
Fair enough chek. I think you've missed the point being made though. You come back when you've found something. Good Luck!
;)
What point? The egregious lunacy about glaciers?
Vince - CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don't think I've ever said anything to the contrary.
But inventing your own 'truths' seems endemic here.
Such as conflating snow melt with loss of glacier mass ...
chek - are you really claiming that the Barnett statement was about glaciers only? And not included seasonal snow melt in what was descibed as glaciers?
Because if you were, you would be as stupid as the rest here, hoping to find flaws by blindly guessing.
And Re: "feigned such in-depth knowledge of"
Had you really checked those references yourself? Or are you just lying when you claim that this is indeed science?
Just like all the others who blindly hope that if they've seen the words somwhere, it also has to be science and therefore true?
Your problem here is that you've been caught out presenting a balatant non-truth. That 70% of the Ganges summer flow, is supposedly due to **glacier melting**.
Well if you truly belive that, go ahead and repeat that (nonsense) claim. And you will be laughed at because of that.
Since not even the presented references, anywhere get close to that claim. But reading references isn't really your thing, is it?
Your thing is more like trash talking with the Jeffs, the Wows, the Stus, the luminous, the Chris etc in the thread, who have equally no knowledge at all about the topic ... and trying to compensate that lack of knowledge with 'numbers' with how many you are ... and how dearly you agree.
Obvious and stupid lie. See #755.
It's not? Then what is it? Infinitesimal, right? Do you have sources for that yet?
By the way, why are you avoiding my question about what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Jonas --
If you knew anything *at all* about glaciers you would know that snow melt and and glacial mass are intimately related. But you don't and you won't bother...
Next thing you'll be telling me that I'm blindly guessing and hoping about everything I haven't read by holocaust deniers.
aerosols not being
Ah yes, proof by exclamation mark. The hallmark of a .. moron.
Another strawman from the moron. I'm sure people can use any name they like for whatever they like. But there are limits if people actually want to communicate. Of course in your case, communication is not an objective.
As I said, communication is not one of your objectives.
Where did I say that?
Please stop that pathetic hypocrisy.
We know what that exclamation mark means.
And no, you didn't have a point Jonas. You have provided exactly zero justification for any doubt for what the vast majority of climate scientists are agreeing on with climate sensitivity. Only a couple of cranks with an agenda differ from all the others. Where is your one iota of justification in your enormous pile of trash? Words like "poorly written" and "arm waiving" do not amount to justification. They simply add to your pile of trash.
I think the problem that most of you have here is that you've never actually learned to think for yourselves. I guess you CAGW lot consider it a 'high risk strategy', easier to just hide behind what someone else thinks.
Chek, for example, going off to look at a glacier atlas, hoping that in there, somewhere, someone will tell him what to say, think and believe. Any references to being 'doomed' will be consumed and regurgitated on the thread - nothing much else will stay with him however.
Jeff, doesn't read the papers, doesn't question what he's told, just accepts the gospel. Well, we've been thru all that already, disappointing- but Jeff trumpets it as some kind of virtue, Bizarre!
LB has put some time in effort into understanding basic mechanics, you can't knock a man for that. I'd encourage him to continue, consider the practical implications of his calculations, work out for himself the 'reason' the real world may not pan out the same way as his theoretical (based on the physics) model. There's pleasure in the understanding. ;) (Note to LB, other than the occasional snide/pejorative comment, I think you're doing not too bad)
stu, why don't you read the posts and work it out for yourself. #1414 How can you possibly interpret #755 as Jonas saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? #1415 (Glaciers) Read the words, think about it, it's all been explained in posts over the last day or so, you express your view as to how it works. Just start writing it out as a post, you won't get very far before you realize that Jonas is right, I dare you.
Jonas
;)
*The question, whether politicians would be able to control the earth's climate, if they were only given enough power and money*
This isn't an answer... it's pure gibberish... what the hell are you talking about, man? Humans profoundly influence the carbon cycle, the nitrogen cycle and hydrological cycles... so what does your waffle mean? There's no science in it, which is odd given your penchant for always going on about 'real science'...
One last point to the Jonas brothers:
On the Web of Science (ever heard of it?), I typed in several key words to see how many peer-reviewed articles were published on the subject.
1. Climate change and biodiversity = 3772
These 3772 articles have generated 78149 citations
2. Climate change and ecology = 3519
3. Climate change and extinction = 2276
What this shows is that climate change and its effects on the environment are being studied by many thousands of scientists around the world. But, of course, watch our three non-scientists wade in with put-downs, insults and dismissive remarks. After all, you don't need to be trained in any scientific endeavor to be a "REAL" scientist.
GSW, the reaosn I don't 'read the papers', is because I have to 'read the papers' in my own field, and I do a heck of a lot of that. It seems to me that you, Olaus and Jonas don't read much science aside from cursory glances through a few climate-change related articles. You also all seem to have a heck of a lot of time to write to Deltoid. It seems as if Jonas is like a vulture circling the site because he tends to respond to comments on this thread within a few seconds of their being posted most of the time. Does the guy have a life?
Oh, now you are going to accuse me of self-idolatry because I claim that, as a scientist, I have to read a lot of material and write papers and the rest.... save me your sermon on my 'arrogance'...
Chris you are just boring and pathetic ..
What constitutes a feedback is pretty simple. And judging from what you have written here, I know far more than you about that (too!)
And every claim you've made about me, my person, has been wrong. I'd assume you aren't doing much better when reading other stuff, more only looking for buzz-words to confrim your preconceived notions ... And Rahmstorf gave you a whole lot ..
And no, *'communicating'* has not been your objective for quite a few weeks now. You've been looking for moronic excuses to write your moronic *'moron'* ... and aren't even doing that particularly well.
But I was right about the **sour grapes** ...
:-)
So have you figured out why the C=2 lag behind temperature changes actually does matter and is relevant to the question whether or not CO2 is driving the climate, and if so if it may be a concern? Or are words like
>abrupt climate changes .. record-breaking hurricane season of 2005 .. stability of the ice-sheets
all you can take in?
Jonas N:
I'm not jumping on any bandwagon. I just wanted to point out yet another example of what a dunderhead you are when you said:
Your conclusion about more snow on the himalayas with higher temperatures is unadultered crap. There will most likely be less snow falling on the ground (and more rain below the higher snowline) which will lead to a reduction in the average ice volume, i.e. less water storage in the form of glacier ice. You have just given us another demonstration of your incompetent thinking.
Jeff H
Since you ask so nicely, I'll try to answer that as clearly as I can, so that even you may understand what I mean:
Lets assume that CO2 to some extent can influence the climate (that is the hypothesis, remember)
We know that climate does change all by it self, even without humans burning fossil fuels and emitting (extra) CO2
The question I ask is was whether or not politicians would have any realistic means to influence the (global) CO2-level in the atmosphere, so that its alleged impact on climate/global mean temperature could be detected at all?
We know that presently, humaity, civilisation if you will, uses coal and oil to fuel essentially everything. There is water- and nuclear power too to generate elcetricity, but using oli and coal will not stop anywhere soon.
What I am asking you to do (and I know it's a tall order) is to assess the volumes of coal/oil presently being consumed, and to envision how much of that realistically can be reduced. And thereafter how politicians (through using law/power/money) can accomplish anything like that ..
.. so that it would amount to somthing observable. First in the ammount of CO2-level, and thereafter (if the hypothesis holds) an observable impact on climate.
I am asking you to estimate the size of the involved quantities we are talking about (fully aware of you being incapable of doing anything like that, but others may try .. and you can talk to them too (*))
And the (my!) answer is: There is no way that politicians globally can accomlish anything that even has a remote impact on global CO2-levels and even less on global climate (if indeed that hypothesis would hold)
Politicians can do other useful things. Such as enabling technological progress, giving permits for say, new nuclear powerplants. But what the cannot do is commanding progress to occur and with the desired performance. And they will not be able to realistically curb the use of coal/oil anytime soon. This will/may occur do to completely different reasons (technological progress and availability)
That's what I am saying, Jeff, and I am truly sorry that you find things so hard to understand. Even simple things. (I think your fanatsies running amok, are a major part of the explanation)
(*) It's similar to asking people to extimate how much of the summertime flow in eg the Ganges river can be due to net mass loss of Himalayan glaciers
> We know that climate does change all by it self
No we don't (Ok, maybe YOU do).
The climate has no "self" and cannot decide to change.
What happens is that changes in climate drivers change and the climate changes.
CO2 is a climate driver.
CO2 has done so in the past.
It is doing so now.
What is the source of extra CO2 now? Humans.
Chris
Learn to read ... otherwise you will just look as stupid as the rest of them.
I did not anywhere **conclude** anything like what you fantasize about. I am telling you (and everybody else) that what anually flows through the river system is determied quite directly by the precipitation.
Net loss of glaciar mass is not anywhere a factor.
Your assertion, however, about 'likely less snow' could qualify for your own description. But since you are only speculating, I don't think I need to call it *incompetent unadultered dunderhead crap* ..
You know, its funny: For weeks bnow, you have been looking for excuses to call me names. And failed miserably. Instead you have been caught out making all kinds of ... ehrm ... no-so-very-smart mistakes, while trying!
Do you still think that the phenomenon 'resonance' only is the existence of Newton's third law?
(Because I really do not see any reason at all why you'd brough that up ... other than the obvious one ;-)
Rattus N
I am sure, that when you actually have a point you'd make it ...
**Stu**
You wonder why I am not particularly interested in responding to one of your many queries and statments!?
As I have told people here, I think that some of the commenters really are abyssmally stupid. Really! (And unfortunately! Because I think these are (formally) adault people, who are expetced to function somehow in society)
But I don't feel any need to point out who they are or to call them that. I think that would be totally superfluous. And anyway, others are doing that perfectly well already ...
Let's just say that I neither feel that responding to you would be worthwhile ..
**pid**
Congratulations GSW on producing the most effingly, blindingly, sublimely stupid post I've ever seen on Deltoid, ever. And there have been some contenders for the league over the past three or four years since I've been visiting here. Maybe some of the older regulars will confirm how far 'up it' you really are.
This comment from you: "I think the problem that most of you have here is that you've never actually learned to think for yourselves. I guess you CAGW lot consider it a 'high risk strategy', easier to just hide behind what someone else thinks".
illustrates well the stunningly stupid, Dunning-Kruger incompetence that drives the entire denier industry from McIntyre to Watts to Monckton and that whole ridiculous crew. Nobody with any sense cares what those amateur clowns 'think'. What matters is the ability to appraise reality from an informed viewpoint they are untrained in. Like the Jonases, they just vainly like to mistakenly think they don't need to be due to some imagined superiority they confer on themselves. You would no more trust their 'view' than you would allow a quack doctor with the same attributes (but no training) to operate on your child. Why would the future of civilsation on Earth be any less of a concern?
That's where the amateurs on this side of the fence differ. People like John Cook or Peter Sinclair make a point of deferring to the science because that's the sane approach.
The morons like you and your crew really are merely cracker-barrel dupes for a global machine whose PR industry doesn't want the tap turned off on the greatest stream of riches the world has ever seen and encourages your 'ability' to 'think for yourselves' as long as it's in ignorance and their favour.
Ah - so the Jonases @ #1425 aren't smart enough to understand how glaciers form or what they're made of, otherwise RN's point would be perfectly obvious and the Jonases' artificially manufactured 'distinction' would appear as meaningless as it is in reality.
*The question I ask is was whether or not politicians would have any realistic means to influence the (global) CO2-level in the atmosphere, so that its alleged impact on climate/global mean temperature could be detected at all?*
Let me answer this politely. Policy makers had a huge influence on banning the use of CFCs when it became clear that they destroyed ozone molecules. There was a huge resistance to this by CFC manufacturers but in the end the Montreal Protocol was a success.
There is little doubt that human activities are responsible for the rapid increase in atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide. If, and for your benefit I say this - IF C02 is the major driver of climate change, then it is in our power as a species to do something about it. We should not fool oursleves into believing that we possess such wisdom that we can adapt to every assault that we inflict on nature. This is pure folly.
I think Jared Diamond's analogy using Easter Island as a model of the planet in microcosm is appropriate. I visited Easter Island in 2009, and what struck me (besides the awe-inspiring site of the Moais) was the utter ecological devastation over the entire island. It was impossible to think that it had once been covered in a native palm tree and that it was rich in biotic resources. It was a skeleton, and the only plants were invasive weeds and trees like black mustard and Eucalpyptus. When the island was first colonized by Polynesians 1200 or so years ago, it must have been a paradise. What happened is the stuff of horror stories. Most of the island's economy was invested in constructing moai statues in honor of the chieftains. Trees were felled to roll these massive structures from one place to another, as well as the 'top knots' on their heads. As the population grew, it clearly began to outconsume the sustainable supply of natural capital, a point which must have become clear at some stage to the inhabitants. But when? I am sure that those who raised the alarm early - like many scientists are doing now - were greeted with derision. And so the destruction continued, until there were no trees or native species left and no way of escaping the island. Of course when the predicament became clear it was far too late to do anything about it. The population, which peaked during the 'golden preiod' at perhaps 25,000, but was 90% less when Roggeveen arrived in 1722. Cannibalism and disease was rampant, rats overran the island and it was a living hell.
Expand the scale of the human enterprise to the current day, and we are doing exactly the same thing on a planetary scale. Only this time we are not only devouring our natural capital, we are altering the chemical composition of terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems and thus changing the face of the planet in the mere blink of an evolutionary eye. Those scientists raising the alarm - Paul Ehrlich, Stuart Pimm, Edward O. Wilson, James Hansen, Peter Raven, David Tilman - and many, many more - are derided as being 'doomsayers' and 'cassandras' and worse. Just read some of the choice words Olaus has made on this thread.
Given that humans are a potent global ecological (and evolutionary) force, I cannot understand why it seems so far-fetched to you that we have the capacity to affect climate regimes. Furthermore, as I asked yesterday, at what point do you think there will be sufficient evidence that humans are driving climate change and that we ought to do something about it? Or do you think that, irrespective as to what we know in 5 or 10 year's time we just ought to forget about it and 'adapt'. As I have tried to explain before, the question is not as to whether humans can adapt to climate change and other stressors, but whether nature can adpat in such a way as to continue supplying vital supporting ecological services that sustain and nourish our civilization. If natural systems are pushed beyond a certain point, we have no guarantees of this being so.
This is why so much effort is being invested in the environmental sciences to study climate change and other human-mediated assaults on natural and managed ecosystems. The studies I cited above are only dealing with climate change. Throw in habitat loss and fragmentation, invasive organisms, declining groundwater supplies, overharvesting etec., and the number of studies would exceed 10,000-15,000. Do you think that the authors of these studies are not 'real scientists'?
Yet another substance-free claim and pretty rich coming from a boring pathetic jerk.
I know. Pity you don't even quote someone's definition, expect your own screwed-up version of course.
Sorry but your judgement is worthless.
You would say that, wouldn't you?
That's great Lindzen projection.
What a hypocrite.
Hardly worth bothering with while communication is impossible.
At least I can take in words like "aerosols are not a climatic feedback", unlike some people.
Jeff
Please try to focus a little, will you?
> I cannot understand why it seems so far-fetched to you that we have the capacity to affect climate regimes
We are discussing AGW here, and the (simplicitic concept of a) climate sensitivty, and what it might be etc, remember?
And it is the very premise for my questions that the IPCC guesstimate is indeed correct (or close enough)
What I was asking you to consider whas the size of what we are talking about, the magnitudes. I asked you (or others who have a sense of mmagnitudes, who can make quantitiative comparisons) to assess what policy realistically can accomplish wrt global CO2 levels and/or use of energy (esp fossil)
CFCs volumes in comparison are/were miniscule, and mostly in closed regrigerating/air conditioning systems. And alternatives were/are available.
Do you think that politicians can commande the climate, or the glaciers to obey their whims? Or the weather? Globally and in unison?
(In comparison, you may ponder about how well they perform locally. With public scholols, and health care and other menial tasks. You know, such things which can readily be accomplished by resoruceful humans)
Chris, your intro is quite right there ..
>Yet another substance-free claim and pretty rich coming from a boring pathetic jerk
> We are discussing AGW here, and the (simplicitic concept of a) climate sensitivty, and what it might be etc, remember?
Yes.
You DO remember that "A" stands for "Anthropogenic", don't you? And you DO know what "Anthropogenic" means, don't you?
> What I was asking you to consider whas the size of what we are talking about,
OK, it's been considered.
> I asked you to assess what policy realistically can accomplish wrt global CO2 levels and/or use of energy (esp fossil)
Easy:
1) Don't waste any energy
2) Use renewables and carbon-free fuels
Since 100ppm has been put in to the atmosphere by fossil fuels and other human causes, we can reduce the CO2 global levels by 100ppm.
Chris (contd.)
[Aerosols too are are climate feedbacks ... ](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/308/5718/67.full)
It sucks to be a sucker, don't you think?
:-)
It sucks to be around you, Gonads.
You asked a question, but seem uninterested in the answer, preferring to call someone else a sucker.
PS that paper doesn't say "Aerosols are climate feedbacks.
Sucker.
It refers to a paper: "Aerosol Forcing of Climate" but that's a forcing, not a feedback.
Or do you mean "Forcing" when you say "feedback", but don't know what the word is for "something that causes a change to start"?
@GSW:
Coming from someone who has done nothing but raise pom-poms for Jonas the entire thread, that is a stunning level of projection.
I don't know, it must have been the part where he said
But you're right, it must simply have been stunningly poorly communicated pedantry, right?
@Jonas:
Are you seriously saying that because it will be difficult, we shouldn't be doing anything? What an awful world you live in.
Hey, wait. Weren't you the one arguing for just building a handful of major dams to solve the freshwater problems in the Indus/Ganges basin?
How conveniently selective and hypocritical.
What a lovely, bold and bald assertion. What are your references for this? I'm sorry if we don't take your word for it.
Ah yes, another Jonas Special Redefinition of a commonly used term. Building more nuclear power plants is "technological progress" in Jonas-world.
You're not even trying anymore, are you?
It's a good thing nobody is advocating that then. Another straw man viciously slain. Good work! But you're right, no government has ever made a huge effort to accelerate technological progress that paid off.
Says you.
Another straw man viciously slain! "Oops, I'm wrong... I'll just slip in 'net mass loss' and nobody will notice", right, Jonas? Still waiting on those references I asked for in #1415, too. Not holding my breath.
No, not "directly". That's the entire point. If it was "determied quite directly", we'd have an entirely different category of problems.
Yes, because you've been harping on real scientists. Therefore, I think it's highly relevant what percentage of climate scientists you consider to be real. I think the answer could be quite educational. But then again, so is you avoiding the question over and over.
That can stand alone. Priceless.
Obvious and stupid lie. You just did it again. In the previous paragraph. What the hell is wrong with you?
Are you talking about the blatantly obvious high-road low-road puppetry you have going on with "Olaus"? You're failing at even that, Jonas.
See, I'm not saying you rape babies, because I don't need to.
But you just did Jonas, so that is yet another lie. All you are doing is avoiding one simple question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Why?
Oh for crying out loud, you actually think a volume comparison between CFCs and CO2 is relevant? That might be the dumbest thing you've said yet, and that's saying something.
Do we really now need to explain to you how CFCs affect the atmosphere, or will you do the right thing and take that nugget back?
Very well, thank you.
The US health care system says hello. It's readily accomplishing the same task public health care systems do around the world, just at double the cost and not for everyone.
If you'd like to change the discussion to the lunacy of libertarianism, I'm all game. But you might be better off sticking with vague and deluded hand-waiving about the climate. Much more gray area for you to back-pedal into.
You missed the "neener neener", Jonas.
"One important part of this system is the iron cycle, in which iron-containing soil dust is transported from land through the atmosphere to the oceans, affecting ocean biogeochemistry and hence having feedback effects on climate and dust production. [Emphasis added]
So are we now adding in the ecosystem? It was not what was being discussed, but hey, you've moved the goalposts so many times already that one more time shouldn't hurt.
...says the guy spouting nonsense for free when he could have an oil company pay him to do it (assuming he improves his general literacy).
@stu
"How can you possibly interpret #755 as Jonas saying CO2 is not a greenhouse gas?.....
......
But you're right, it must simply have been stunningly poorly communicated pedantry, right?"
Stu, it's not just that Jonas does not actually use the words "CO2 is not a greenhouse gas", if can explain;
The 'popular' science explanation of the greenhouse effect is that atmospheric greenhouses gases 'trap heat' in the atmosphere. The actual physics of the 'effect' cannot be likened to those of a greenhouse however. Referring to these gases 'trapping heat' is not strictly correct, but the model is useful for conveying understanding at a particular level (we all 'get it' when described in this way).
By analogy, Niels Bohr's model of the atom is not strictly correct, but it is a useful way of talking about nuclei and electrons at a particular level, so we live with it.
So Jonas' "CO2 traps heat phrase. ...Well, it doesn't." is correct, but this is not the same as saying "C02 is not a greenhouse gas" as you are suggesting.
Personally I'd have let the "C02 traps heat" go (a bit like our conversation about 666 and 616, it's as much right as wrong), Jonas from a personality point of view, likes to be a little more 'precise' I suspect.
Anyway, Jonas DOES fully accept that C02 is a greenhouse gas, believe me.
There was a discussion at Judith Currys recently about renaming the 'effect' to avoid confusion.
I'll dig out a link for you later.
GSW: Very well, in the sea of blatant misconceptions, lies and redefinitions this one is not that relevant anyway. I'll just operate under the assumption that it was poorly worded pedantry that merely implied that CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.
@stu
Judith Curry link I promised.
http://judithcurry.com/2011/01/31/slaying-a-greenhouse-dragon/
John Nielsen-Gammon wants to call it the "Tyndall Gas Effect"
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2010/11/the-tyndall-gas-effect-part-…
Eli Rabett prefers "The Ãngström Effect"
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2011/01/angstrom-effect.html
The physics aren't disputed, just what it should rightfully be called.
Personally I think it will always be called the "Greenhouse Effect", even though it is something of a misnomer. ;)
Stu, don't let GSW/Jonas's bullshit sophistry take you in ... the point is that Jonas denied that CO2 "traps heat" and accused people of "clining (sic) to" the phrase and "posturing about" it.
ianam: I thought "poorly worded pedantry that implies" kind of indicated that. I just didn't want to distract Jonas from letting us know what percentage of climate scientists he considers real scientists.
Jonas,
>Now, for you, it may appear that going at v = 5m/s is harder work than 0.5m/s, because the power you exert P = Q·v is accordingly higher. But the force you'd apply would be the same (only your feet would be moving faster). And you'd also reach your destination (the wall) quicker accordingly, so that the total work you have done P·t would be the same, namely Q·d (d = distance), regardless of velocity.
This is so wrong in so many ways, but we may be nearing a breakthrough here.
As you have said several times, yet have failed to fully understand, frictional force is independent of velocity. What this really means is while frictional force is dependent on displacement, it is not dependent on time. It doesn't matter how long it takes to travel distance s, the work dissipated by friction across s is always the same.
The power of Ffriction is different. Because we add another dimension of time, the power of friction does become dependent on velocity:
Pfriction = Ffriction · s/t = Ffriction · v
If it takes a shorter time to travel distance s (greater velocity), Pfriction is larger, and inversely, at lower velocity, Pfriction is smaller.
Conversely, the work and power of a constantly applied force are both constant and both dependent on velocity, because, if this force were unobstructed by friction, its acceleration would be constant, and the displacement constant in relation to velocity at any initial point vo and final point vf where; Îv = vf - vo is constant, and thus constant over time.
What happens when you push your box over the floor with a greater force is the box accelerates until the constant, but larger, Papplied is matched by the increasing Pfriction, when once again Pnet = 0. At this point the Ffriction and Fapplied are again in balance and the velocity becomes constant but greater than what it was. Because a part of the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater momentum at the now constant but greater velocity, thereby becoming not a force, the (net) Fapplied is equal to the constant Ffriction.
This is why when engineers speak of the effect of friction they speak of power loss, or, at reduced input power, power gain, not work loss or work gain.
Which makes me think I may have had the sign of the feedback wrong. O well, nobodies prefect.
Jonas @1424
The annual flow rate is not the most important point. Flooding for three months and drought for three months, with six months in between, is not the same as a year of more or less moderate flow. The buffering effect of glaciers is the primary issue.
Jeff @1429: I've long been convinced that economists (and politicians) would benefit from a population ecology course.
@Stu
You're right, sorry.
So that's what you meant when you said:
It's funny though, I can't see anything about "aerosols from burning of fossil fuels" in the citation (didn't notice the word "aerosol" in the abstract either). Looks like proof by irrelevant citation. So I'm still waiting for a citation that says something about aerosols from burning of fossil fuels being a feedback. Until then, I'll take the "N" in Jonas N" to mean Numbskull.
By the way, as another has noted, it would be useful if you could let us know what proportion of active climate scientists are "real scientists", especially as how it is so important to you that we pay attention to "real scientists".
Jonas Numbskull:
Take your own advice.
Imagine, someone as stupid as Jonas N warning others about looking stupid.
You made a plain assertion of fact in particular circumstances, i.e.:
which is plainly unsupportable if not plainly wrong. Until you withdraw that assertion of fact, I'll know that you are just a bullshitter (if I didn't know that already).
What do you mean "still"? You obviously weren't paying attention when I asked:
But as we all know, paying attention is not your long suit.
GSW:
> "So Jonas' "CO2 traps heat phrase. ...Well, it doesn't."
> is correct,"
Absolute rubbish.
Absent CO2, the heat radiates to space.
Present CO2, less heat radiates to space.
What has happened is that the CO2 has trapped heat.
This is why it is called the "Greenhouse effect", because everybody knows that greenhouses also trap heat.
Your (and your fellow deniers') contortions on this issue are infantile.
And by denying that CO2 traps heat, you, Jonas, and the rest of your fellow-travellers are demonstrating a textbook case of Denial.
Richard S
AS you said, the annual flow is essentially unaffected by net glacier loss of mass. Entirely, I'd say, by any applicable measure. But, as you also say too, the glaiciers have delaying effect for that part of the annual snow (& melt) that fell on top of them; It delays its (corresponding) run off until later in the melt season. But only the part that fell on top of a very glacier. And not even close to as drastically as you described.
And glaciers are a very poor (poorly managable) method to redistribute flow through the season. (Which is the more relevant issue). More importantly: regulating glacier size through builidng wind turbine parks elsewhere, planting trees in Africa, mandating Cap'n'Trade or off-sets, driving a Prius or recycling your household garbage etc is a a far far poorer method still.I'd say that it is nonsense.
But it is good that you too realize that glacier function (here) is a mainly to be a cold snow storage surface, and that glacier mass loss not in any way contributes to the fresh water supply of half a billion people.
Probably you then also agree that the notion of '70% of the Ganges summer flow etc, being melting glaciers' is wrong and grossly misleading at best (a bold faced lie, I'd say).
But it is not me you have to educate about this. Rather your fellow travellers here and around the world, who believe that half a billion people depend on **melting** glaciers for their freshwater threatened by them shrinking, and who counter: 'No, the 70% is peer reviewed and referenced science ... you must publish a rebuttal first' and similar hare brained nonsense.
Seriously luminous, you are losing it!
For every new post, you get entangled even worse in your net of waffling, violations of physics and other contradictions. You now write (after a quote of mine):
>This is so wrong in so many ways
whereafter you repeat and detail the exact same thing I just explained. And you explicitly write (which is correct) that:
>frictional force is independent of velocity
only to further down once more claim the exact opposite:
>What happens when you push your box .. with a greater force [Fapplied] is the box accelerates until .. the Ffriction and Fapplied are again in balance and the velocity becomes constant but greater.
ie claiming that Ffriction increased because of higher velocity. Which still is nonense! (Or if you believe that (at constant v) **balance of forces** can be abandoned, you would have gone full circle and now violated Newton's first law too. See also below)
(There are a couple of more things wrong and/or bungled, such as: "once again Pnet = o" or "part of the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater momentum". But by now, violiation of elementary physics has become your hallmark .. )
No, Chris O'Neill!
I meant what I wrote, and explained how. You didn't like it being presented that way, and had a (almost) three week hissy fit over it, over the semantics (which I explained alreday then)
And you have since been telling me that aerosols aren't viewed as 'climatic feedbacks'. And you were wrong. The entire time! You can find lots of papers where other aerosols and their forcings are viewed as results of various changes allegedly caused by external factors, and thus viewed as feedbacks in the climate system. This was just the first on the list.
But since you don't even understand concept of feedbacks, since you believe that there is only one way to describe a system, its mechanisms, to define what should be regared as input (and since you don't understand the laws of Newton, or causality) ..
.. I don't expect you to understand what they say either, or what the words mean. Neither by them selves, nor wrt to the system and its properties they refer to.
By the way, are you now questioning:
>aerosols from burning of fossil fuels ??
that areorsols arise from (amongst other things) burning of fossil fuels?
I certainly hope not. Because that was the entire issue (before you derailed). And freeing energy by burning of oil/coal also releases CO2 and aerosols. And many assume that these too influence energy balances, ie that they too have consequences for the heat in the atmpshere.
You yourself argued that albedo was a feedback, and soot particles (from poor burning of eg coal) definitely are viewed as affecting albedo ...
You not *wanting* to call these consequences a feedback (from burning of fossil fuels) doesn't change one jota in the above descriptions. And neither am I forcing or expecting you to (only) accept my version of how to *describe* a system, or define system boundaries, what are system inputs etc. Neither physics nor reality need to rely on semantics (You however, appearantly want cling to them as your last straw)
If you (as it seems) can only accept the words that are written and only by sources which you approve of(*), that certainly explains why you are so completely incapable of communicating, even conveying anything with substance. It would explain why you have been childish far beyond pathetic for weeks now.
But I guess, this is you. This is who you are, and what you deliver here is the best you can muster. (Lining up with the Stus and Wows is probably your best strategy (left) .. trying to compensate lack of substance with 'outnumbering' instead)
(*)particularly climate science which attempts to redefine all sorts of practices, methods, terms, and definitions established far earlier in real science. ANd this may partly be an answer too: Those who adhere to the scientific method, those who don't redefine (turn upside down) the 'null hypotehsis', those who refrain from making unsupported claims, and prophecies about the future, who claim to know the outcome of uncharted dynamical, non-linear and partly chaotic systems .. may still be viewed as (presumably) real scientists. The bad thing though is that those are the ones you hear/read the lest from/of. (And in many cases probaly not at all)
Chris (contd.)
>someone as stupid as Jonas N
Wishful thinking just won't do it for you, regardless how many times you retry.
>You made a plain **assertion of fact**
No I didn't (and wishful thinking just won't do it for you). I wrote:
>precipitation **usually** is **considerend** to increase with higher temperatures
and added that this doesn't cause a threat (wrt freshwater):
>But more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau **of course won't conjure up any alarmism ...**
If you dispute the 'more precipitation', take it up with the AGW crowd. And you even seem to agree that more snow wouldn't pose a threat. And yes, more precitpitation includes more snow.
So why did you feel the urge to butt in here, Chris? Do you even know?
Same with your reference to Newton's third law (which of course always is fulfilled): What (and how) were you thinking that it had anything to do with resonance or feedback in systems where a displacement causes a restorative force!?
Because I see no meaning at all (apart from that childish mouthing off). If you want to teach something wrt the laws of Newton (if you feel you can contribute) there are several characters here in dire need of some guidance.
So since you have not moved forward (but eratically backwards in many directions), since you first mentioned Rahmstorf, I'll repeat:
>So have you figured out why the CO2 lag behind temperature changes actually does matter and is relevant to the question whether or not CO2 is driving the climate, and if so if it may be a concern?
(And don't blame you communication skills, I'll give you as much time/many tries as you need)
Good thing nobody said that, then. You're absolutely pathetic.
Hey Jonas, what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
GSW (Vince W and others)
I think the explaination is much simpler, and more obvious.
Everybody paying the least attention has of course heard many times both that
- CO2 is called a greenhouse gas, and also the simplified (Gore like-) description (conveniently omitting major greenhous gas H2O) that
- CO2 'traps heat' in the atmosphere
Nothing particularly noticable about that (although much of the propaganda versions directed at kids are despicable).
Therefore, I find kindergarten level questions like:
- Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or
- Do you not believe that CO2 'traps heat'
quite childish and (at best) a display of tantalizing posturing from the cheering supporters who want to feel on the 'right side of the cause' ..
And OK, selfrighteousness is a human feeling, and desire to feel on the moral and factual high ground goes a long way ..
But on a scienceblog, heavily slanted towards 'climate science' this is a bit over the top if you ask me. And the abundance of 'denialist' labelling and extremely stupid claims (about deniers) and similar posturing (in addition to repeated such 'challanges') made me write post #755.
So that there could be no misconception about what was being discussed.
But much to my surprise, this didn't abate the childish posturing, the uneducated cheering and stupid name calling. If anything, it even increased the noise level from the ones with the most shallow understanding of the matter.
And this is what I offer as a (tentative) conclusion or assessment of what has followed from my #755:
>Those who read #755, where I quite straight forwardly explained how (some extra) CO2 in the atmosphere functions and is supposed to enhance the 'greenhous effect', but didn't recognize it as being accurate and spot on ... those who truly thought that it reinforced their prejudice about 'deniers' .. they truly don't understand how the 'greenhouse effect' works, not even in its simplest description. They only lean on words and phrases like 'traps heat' and are incapable of even imagining that there are some more intricate physics behind that catch phrase. And may even feel reinforced in their belief that 'deniers' understand even less about the 'greenhouse effect' than they do.
And it seems, quite a few here fit in perfectly well on that hypothesis. That they have no clue at all about what a DALR is or why it is present in an atmosphere. Who only have heard that CO2 'traps heat' and are capable of repeating that meme .. and feel selfrighteous about that.
Quite a depressing bunch of supporters on 'the side of (purported) science' ...
Jonas,
All your elementary physics is based on the simplest set of conditions possible, i.e., when frictional force and the force it opposes are in balance. I'm trying to point you in the direction of the somewhat more advanced physics describing the conditions where these forces are in flux, but you are stubbornly resistant to simple comprehension of the notion. My every effort results in you falling back on your 'elementary physics' of the simplest case and scribbling a bunch of mathturbation that simply does not apply and produces much utterly physically impossible blather. E.g., the laughable conclusion that Ffriction is, miraculously, both constant and equal to any Fapplied for any v > 0. What this would mean if it were remotely correct is that friction would stop any motion in its tracks before it even got started.
Yet you accuse me of not understanding the laws of motion.
I'd point out this is a sterling example of psychological projection, but in your earliest comments on Deltoid, you revealed you have a very confused understanding of that as well.
I'd like to point out that every time you criticize some scientific reference as being a bunch of hand-waving exercises and making things up, by not specifically detailing what you think are hand-waving exercises and making things up and what your reasons are for believing so, you are engaging in hand-waving exercises and making things up. This non-argument is always your best (last) argument.
Projection seems to be your basic modus operandi. Not surprising, considering it is one of the fundamental tactics of those who are in denial.
I've tried patiently to point out some few of your many gross errors, misunderstandings and misconstructions. In doing so, being merely human, I admit to having made some slight mistakes of my own. You, however are resolutely incorrigible and have only proven that you are incapable of admitting to imperfection, despite the obvious flaws.
Sparring with you has been good for some laughs, but has proven pointless if the object is to come to any principled resolution, and your pointless and inevitable recursions to idiocy are proving tiresome. Fortunately, I have a real life, and its pace over the next few weeks will probably prevent me from much further comment.
I have little doubt you will continue in your and your passive-aggressively projecting group-think buddies' cargo-cult denial-of-science crusade of stupid. Bon chance!
You deny that it is valid to call CO2 a greenhouse gas because of its effects.
You deny that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt.
You deny that that endangers millions of people.
You deny that polar bears are in danger because of climate change.
You deny the simple distinction between forcings and feedbacks.
You deny that you have been rude throughout the thread.
You deny that governments can do anything about global warming. (Your bringing up CFC volume still makes me chuckle).
You are a libertarian.
You cannot spell and refuse to use freely available tools to fix that. This one still has not ceased to amaze me. You pedantically nitpick every definition, but you cannot be bothered to use correct spelling. And then you get your panties in a wad because people don't take you seriously?
I'm sure I've missed a few, but this should suffice to conclude:
You're a stupid, insecure, pedantic, stubborn and pathetic denialist with delusions of grandeur. You have spent weeks here showing you are wrong about just about everything discussed.
And oh, Jonas, what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Oh dear, Jonas! You really do not get the concept of glaciers and how they may store seasonal snowfall and release it more gradually throughout the year. For starters, the melt is not confined to "only the part that fell on top of a very glacier".
You also seem determined not to grasp the concept that, as far as human water supply is concerned, glaciers are mainly significant in that they act as reservoirs, accumulating snow and ice during the wet season then releasing it more uniformly through the year.
Yes Richard S, that is precicely what **I** am getting (and you seem to understand too); That **net glacier mass loss** is not a factor in the freshwater supply. It seems you are terribly alone among the climate fear mongers with that realisation, however ...
Sorry guys for being absent. For all I can detect the trend of the thread is still intact. Jonas explains and elaborates and the Stus, Wows, Lbs, Jeffies, cheks, etc, fetus up and start touretting. Truly amazing. This "Jonas thread" has material for an entire conference on "sectarian behavior and defense mechanisms".
But finally Richard Simons hit it home. How will he be welcomed by the jesuit bunch at Deltoid? Will he be ostracized and ridiculed? And how will Richard, for starters, respond to the utter nonsense coming from Stu (or any other of his doublets) in #1456 "that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt"?
I wish you the best Richard.
*Sorry guys for being absent*
You've been missed like a bad rash.
Stu's posts have been outstanding and have demolished the nonsense spewed by Jonas all on their own. But you are so blinkered by your right wing libertarian bias that you wouldn't accept that in a million years.
The only 'guys' who have missed you are Jonas, who has already been battered into submission, and his other cheerleader, GSW. The rest of us think you are a grade A dork.
luminous
Still in la la land ...
But yes, what I describe is simple. It's called basic physics, here the three (simple) laws of Newton for instance:
1. A body will continue to maintain its velocity if all net applied forces add up to zero
2. The change of momentum wrt time is equal to the net applied (vector) force, and
3. Any two bodies will experience equal, but mutually opposing, forces when in contact
What you call 'advanced physics' and doesn't adhere to the above is neither advanced nor physics. It is nonsense! And you've delivered plenty of such violations (and I don't mean the typos or poor formulations). I mean patently wrong nonsense such as
> frictional force is independent of velocity (which is correct, but followed by) What happens when you push your box .. with a greater force [Fapplied] is the box accelerates until .. the Ffriction and Fapplied are again in balance and the velocity becomes constant but greater.
Utter nonsense! Or stuff like:
>a part of the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater momentum at the now constant but greater velocity, thereby becoming not a force, the (net) Fapplied is equal to the constant Ffriction
Sheer drivel, luminous. A part of a force now becoming momentum!? You are saying that the box' constant momentum (~its speed) is 'holding back' a part of the applied force? Utter nonsense again!
Or your infamous:
>When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down. Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters over a fixed period of time is reduced, thence slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount, and so on
Or your latest (probably attempt att misdirection):
>the laughable conclusion that Ffriction is, miraculously, both constant and equal to any Fapplied for any v > 0. What this would mean if it were remotely correct is that friction would stop any motion in its tracks before it even got started.
Pure fantasy! The difference between those two forces determines (see Newton's 2nd above) whether the box decellerates (Fnet<0), maintains constant speed (=0) or acellerates(>0).
And even when you get it right (like some parts of #1443):
>If it takes a shorter time to travel distance s (greater velocity), P[ower] is larger, and inversely, at lower velocity, P[ower] is smaller (*)
>
>It doesn't matter how long it takes to travel distance s, the work dissipated by friction(*) across s is always the same
You don't seem to understand, as you said *"This is so wrong in so many ways"* about the exact very things I described (and you partly cited), thinking you had cought me out:
>Now, for you, it may appear that going at v = 5m/s is harder work than 0.5m/s, because the power you exert P = Q·v is accordingly higher. But the force you'd apply would be the same (only your feet would be moving faster). And you'd also reach your destination (the wall) quicker accordingly, so that **the total work** you have done P·t **would be the same**, namely Q·d (d = distance), regardless of velocity.
succeded by:
>Only difference would be the extra work accelerating it to a higher speed, which you would lose when colliding with the wall. The work covering the distance is independent of velocity, the force you need to maintain that velocity is too. (Drag is not accounted for)
So even your latest (diversion) attempt
>more advanced physics describing the conditions where these forces are in flux, but you are stubbornly resistant to simple comprehension of the notion
is blatantly false. And I have no idea why you are still trying. Because Newton's laws are true, and need to be adhered to regardless of forces beeing constant or are varying. So yes, I very much accuse you of **Not understanding the laws of motion**! You didn't! And you still don't!
(Although 'accuse' is a gross understatement. The verdict has been called long ago, and after release you have proven to be a compulsory repeat offender, of almost pathological obsession)
And you can twist and scream all you like, but there are so many violations of Newton's laws (and other physics) it is truly astonishing. As is the fact that no one here comes to your rescue ...
(*)although you for some reason gave the dissipated power (due to friction) wich however is equal to the exerted power put in by the applied force Fapplied times the (constant) speed v. You even explicitly wrote that as an equation (but as P = Ffriction·v)
Jeff H
Once more, blindly guessing, desperatly and wishfully hoping ... that someone else is not completely wrong!
And thereby digging an even deeper hole for yourself. Shouting from its bottom:
>We won, we won. And you lost! Battered, humiliated and debunked by my fellow diggers, I'm absolutely sure. Look at my CV down here!
Absolutely priceless. And among a crowd which can't even get the simplest laws of physics correct!
Dear Jeff, why disappoint me? :-)
Stu's posts have been outstanding in revealing his uncritical mind and authoritarian personality, only mastered by yours Jeff. It's obvious you have a very strong urge to be better than "others". That's why you invent facts and evil agendas and ascribe them to "deniers". You need a negative contrast that makes your own greatness stand out, hence you dehumanize people that negatively can affect your elevated position and gargantuan ego, in this case as "savior of the world". That's why people with better or at least more sane understanding of what science is about, are so scary to you Jeff. In other words you are a parasite feeding on others. Instead of addressing valid scientific topics you focus on taking away the 'goodness' of your opponents (only to give it to yourself). Awful.
By the way, do you stand by Stu's horrific "that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt" and consequently ready to fry Richard Simmons?
Another burning cross on its way with no scientific fume whatsoever? ;-)
Jonas N, may I ask why such an educated human is wasting so much precious time debating on an inconsequential blog, instead of collating your proofs for international review? To Jeff H also https://www.xkcd.com/386/
You knew what I meant:
is not a feedback.
What you meant was wrong. What I meant was right.
What a hypocrite. You don't even accept that
is not a feedback. How could anyone so willfully ignorant know what climatic feedback is?
Where did I say that? Of course, I've learned not to expect answers from you.
How can a person be so deranged? Yet again you completely misunderstand the above point. I never questioned that burning fossil fuels produces aerosols.
You just never get it, do you? Climatic feedback is defined as forcing that is a consequence of changes in the atmosphere that are the result of initial forcing, NOT forcing that is co-created with the initial forcing as you so ignorantly believe.
I think the problem is you think you don't need to rely on reality.
What a hypocrite. As if you don't only accept the words that are written and only by sources which you approve*.
What mind-numbing hypocrisy.
(*) Which reminds me of yet another question that you NEVER answer: what proportion of active climate scientists are "real scientists"?
Richard Simons 1457,
Good point, and I think that the redistribution of water flow over the year by ice and snow is what most people here have had in mind all the time. It is only Jonas N and his cronies who pretend that the issue is the flow from "net glacier mass loss".
OK so your "more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau"
was just a non-sequitur hypothetical and you didn't really mean that higher temperatures would be expected to increase snowfall on the himalayas and tibetian plateau. I shouldn't be surprised. Most of what you have written has been non-sequitur hypotheticals completely irrelevant to climate science.
I like taking the opportunity to show up arrogant, dishonest ignoramuses like Jonas N.
First Richards Simmons and now Andy S. You are very welcome guys!
Hopefully Stu, chek, wow and Jeff also will understand how unscientific the statement "that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt" really is.
Consensus coming up?
Yes Andy S
I'm certain you did get that right, and of course that this insight has been there all along
And the threatened fresh water supply for half a billion people, and its repetition again and again, is just an unfortunate formulation (just like the 90% certainty was)
Or that those pictures comparing glaciers today with 100 years ago are just included for their depiction natural beauty and grandeur (just like them polar bears)
Also that those claims about 70% of Ganges' (and similar of other rivers') summer flow coming from melting glaciers, probably are just poor wording written in haste ...
And of course that little detail, that the word 'snow' (which constitutes ~all of the melting water) just happenens to get omitted every time when these claims are summarized, and only 'melting glaciers' deemed worth mentioning.
Nowhere mentioning that even the part of flow that orignates from actual glaciers hardly is anything else but this season's snow which happened to land on top of it, is probaly also only a minor lapse.
Yeah, I'm certain Andy, such obvious and selfevident facts hardly need to be pointed out to the fine, educated, well mannered and knowledgable people frequenting this blog. Right?
And the same of course goes for such banal trivialities as the laws of Newton and what they mean, I reckon.
;-)
Jonas, that was a Fair and Balanced peace maker. :-)
How many converts can you take on board? :-)
@Chris, Jonas
"OK so your "more snow on the himalayas and tibetian plateau" was just a non-sequitur hypothetical and you didn't really mean that higher temperatures would be expected to increase snowfall on the himalayas and tibetian plateau."
Chris, to be honest I don't read this a central to Jonas point about glacial melt. But for you, from the Holy IPCC,
"The consensus of AR4 models...indicates an increase in annual precipitation in most of Asia during this century; the relative increase being largest and most consistent between models in North and East Asia. The sub-continental mean winter precipitation will very likely increase in northern Asia and the Tibetan Plateau and likely increase in West, Central, South-East and East Asia."
Anything with the words 'consensus' and 'models' from the IPCC should be taken with a pinch of salt IMO, but I'm sure it's irrefutable gospel to you.
;)
Jonas,
No, it is not. Whew, good thing nobody said that! Would you like to scroll up now and see who introduced that term while backpedaling from their initial "determiation"?
I said "glacial melt", not "net glacier mass loss". Learn the difference.
@1462:
Jonas, blockquoting a phrase someone didn't utter as if they did is dishonest, asinine, rude and pathetic.
@Olaus:
Shockingly, Olaus has the same misconception of what glacial melt actually means. Why, it's almost like they're the same person!
Shh, "Olaus", your insecurity is showing again.
I missed one earlier, actually:
You're a pathological liar.
So Jonas, what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? It's very telling you can spend a thousand words being wrong about basic physics and sockpuppeteering away at an incorrect definition of glacial melt, but refuse to reply to that simple question. 1 to 3 characters too much now?
Or are you just avoiding it because anything that will not make you sound like an idiot would be a lie, and the truth would make you sound like a flaming denialist loon?
*We won, we won. And you lost! Battered, humiliated and debunked by my fellow diggers, I'm absolutely sure. Look at my CV down here!*
Well, for once at least Jonas, you are being honest. And where is your CV to show us your massively broad expertise in climate science, glaciers, physics, chemistry, ecology - heck, just about everything! You are the one trying here to claim that you know it all, not me. All I did was to say that I support the work of the climate science community and the National Academies of Science over the world whose view strangely do not concur with yours. FORGIVE ME, oh learned one for this indiscretion. I agree with Andrew Strang - why not take your infinite wisdom to a major review instead of an innocuous blog? But of course, I have asked this many times with no answer. And that is because you feel safe swimming here where you can avoid 90% of the questions levied at you but your profound ignorance would be laid bare if you were to take your ' brilliance' to the broader scientific arena where your ideas would come under a microscope. And your illusions of grandeur would be shattered forevermore.
Now, answer Stu's question: HOW MANY CLIMATE SCIENTISTS DO YOU THINK ARE REAL SCIENTISTS? Given your self-assured confidence (minus the education), this should be an easy one for you.
And Olaus, who has also contributed not a shred of science here except to cheer-lead Jonas and deride his critics. You don't read very well (or spell, like your twin). Read my post @1429. Richard made an astute comment that economists can learn a lot from taking courses in systems ecology. I discuss overshoot - where populations consume more capital than their land bases can sustainably produce but live in denial until it is too late. Easter Island provided an excellent example of the planet in microcosm. Today, humans are spending natural capital as if there is no tomorrow. And the Easter Islanders only devastated their land based through over-consuming its natural capital - today humans have combined to assault nature in a myriad of quite diverse ways. Climate change is one of the most important, because it is synergized with a range of others that I detailed earlier. You, Jonas and others are clearly exponents of the 'expansionist myth' - that natural systems are not closed but linear.
As I also explained in one of my recent posts, if you type in several key words of the Web of Science search engine, like 'Climate change and biodiversity' you get thousands of hits (each hit being a peer-reviewed article), with tens of thousands of citations. So the subject is taken very seriously by the broad scientific community. Or are all of these scientists 'parasites' as well Olaus? The point is that you, Jonas and your acolytes stand outside of the scientific mainstream, and you know it. Its only when you can retreat safely to a few blogs like this where you can let rip. But that does not change the fact - AGW is very much on the scientific agenda, and you are in the fringe; a well-organized and funded fringe, but a fringe nevertheless.
Jonas blunders in having missed the whole reason that hymalian glacier loss is a problem. The ignorance he demonstrates there is astonishing enough, but then he spends 3 days trying trying to dig himslef out of the hole he has dug himself into with the complete irrelvance of the contribution of net glacier loss to water supply.
Jonas - you are the biggest waste of space denialist I have ever come across.
Not quite. More like spending three days pretending that that was the subject in the first place, then calling in his puppet to deride people for it.
Stu (1475), "pretending" is the operative word here.
Olaus @1468:
But Stu is correct. A large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin during the dry season does come from glacial melt. That is the main significance of the presence of the glaciers. No-one is saying that net loss from the glaciers contributes significantly to the water supply. Are you really as boneheaded as you make out?
Ahhhh, the agony! :-)
Conclusion 1. Its bogus "that a large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt."
Conclusion 2. The 0,5 billion figure is bogus.
And this, my brethren, you were told from the very beginning. :-)
I forgive you though.
Olaus, sweetheart:
A large portion of the fresh water supply of the Indus/Ganges basin comes from glacial melt. It does not come from net loss of glacier mass. The main reason, again, my dimwitted friend, is that those two are not the same thing.
Exactly what part of this are you having trouble understanding?
Furthermore:
The decimal separator in English written conversation is the period, not the comma.
I am not now, never was nor ever will be your brother. You must be talking about Jonas. You two are so alike it is almost impossible to tell you apart.
Anyway, "Olaus", since Jonas seems absolutely petrified of answering the question, would you like to take a stab? What percentage of climate scientists would you consider real scientists?
Jonas,
I'm not in violation of the laws of motion according to Newton. What I'm in violation of is the laws of motion according to Jonas.
Of that I plead guilty.
Here is Jonas first law of friction:
>The force of friction Ff is constant at all velocities greater than zero.
Let us examine the consequences of Jonas' first law:
Consider a body at rest on a surface.
Now apply some constant force Fa in some fixed direction s.
According to Jonas' first law, and assuming Newton's first law also holds, the object at rest will remain at rest unless Fa > Ff.
If Newton's second law holds and Jonas' first law also holds, since the net force in the direction s is equal to Fa - Ff, which is greater than zero; the body should accelerate at a constant rate in the direction s.
But this doesn't seem to agree with what is empirically observed, which is that a body at rest, subjected to a constant force opposed by a frictional force over a surface with unvarying smoothness, accelerates at a constantly decreasing rate until it acquires a constant momentum and velocity in the direction s.
How does Jonas explain this apparent contradiction between theory and observation?
By invoking what we'll call Jonas' corollary to Newton's third law:
>The reaction force Ff is always equal and in the opposite direction to action force Fa.
Problem solved!
How does Jonas explain the obvious contradiction between the initial conditions necessary to get the body in motion and Jonas' corollary to Newton's third law?
By waving his arms and screaming loudly that the person pointing out this contradiction is the one with a pathological resistance to understanding the laws of motion.
@LB
Ah see what your getting at now LB. Can I just ask, did you make the empirical observations? If so, how did you measure the force Fa? i.e How do you know that the applied force was greater than the fictional force? for a constant velocity the F's will be equal.
If it was a matchbox on a table, and the applied force was your hand, then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also. If it moves at constant velocity you are only applying F friction.
Does that make sense?
;)
Since you ask, no. Why the hell are you bringing the velocity of the hand into this? Luminous did not bring it up. Is this prep work for a strawman?
@stu 1482
Not prep work for a strawman I assure you you. LB has a 'model' for his system, he is trying to equate it to his 'real world experience', and he feels it is wrong. The problem is not with the model, but with his observations/experiment, in particular the force he thinks he is applying to the box/matchbox.
@LB
I'm just trying to think of a simple experiment you could do at home.
Perhaps with a book and an elastic band. You could try attaching the rubber band to a book , say, and try pulling it across the table at two different, constant speeds. Other than the initial acceleration up to those speeds, the elastic band should stretch by the same amount in both cases, if we have our physics correct and F friction is constant.
;)
Dear Stu, your arguments have a distinct air of yeti-crap. Nothing in them besides fantasies and hysterical arm-waving (no friction there, my friend). You and the rest made complete arses of yourself when screaming that 0,5 (sic) billion depended on meltwater from glaciers for their freshwater â with nothing to back it up.
To your credit Stu, I believe you did it in good faith.
Anything else up your sleeve? Perhaps the science behind the 90% figure? ;-)
luminous
Although tragic, I (kinda) appreciate that you continue to display your complete ignorance ... because it drags out quite a few of the other wafflers (and severley embarasses the few who understand science) here.
And yes, you have been and are in violation of both the laws of Newton, and several other laws of physics. And yes, they are mine too (in the meaning that I adhere to them)
What you need to realize is that Newton's laws are universally true. (Unless you approach relativistic speeds, ie 10-20% and more of the speed of light, they will be true in all practical meanings of the word). They are non-negotiable!
You paraphrase me in a blockquote (*)
>The force of friction Ff is constant at all velocities greater than zero
which is true, but under the stated conditions (we seem to agree on. Now), ie with constant coefficient of friction µ. And yes, once you overcome friction, that body will accelerate (at constant rate) if the applied force Q exceeds it. Newton's equations and Coulomb friction give you that. No wiggle room there ..
>How does Jonas explain the obvious contradiction between the initial conditions necessary to get the body in motion and Jonas' corollary to Newton's third law?
No problem there either. As long as the body (box) is at rest, the forces balance perfectly (Newton's 1st, by definition, v = 0)
If applied force exceeds (maximum possible) friction F = µ·N, the box starts to slide, and gain speed adhering to Newton's 2nd.
But you seem to conflate two different forces now (when invoking Newton's 3rd):
The box is in contact with the floor, sliding over it. The friction force F excerted by the sliding will oppose the motion of the box. But the box at the same time is in sliding over the floor, and (according to Newton's 3rd) will excert an equal force [F] on the floor, pushing it in the direction of the box' motion (ie opposite to F's action on the box).
Newton's 2nd applies to the (free body of the) box: Applied force in the direction of motion/sliding (Q ⥠F) and the opposing frictional force F on the box' bottom (from its sliding). That difference will determine if it accelerates or reaches a constant speed.
You see, Newton's laws apply universally. While at rest, while starting, and when motion/sliding is established, even when constant speed is reached.
But you managed to contradict yourself once more here. You (now) said that:
> The force of friction Ff is constant at all velocities greater than zero.
which you called 'Jonas' 1st law of friction' and pleaded guilty of violating. But previously you repeatedly agreed to that notion, you even wrote explicitly (in #1443);
>As you have said several times, yet have failed to fully understand, frictional force is independent of velocity
And instead you hoped to find your much needed extra 'force consumption' (to fulfil Newton's 2nd) in the now higher momentum (also #1443):
>a part of the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater momentum at the now constant but greater velocity, thereby becoming not a force, the (net) Fapplied is equal to the **constant** Ffriction
If you really (really?) want to challange the general applicablitiy if the laws on Newton, if you claim that they don't agree with empirical observations, you shouldn't be talkning to me. You would (if you were correct) rock the world big time. And literately! But I don't think you will, and I am absolutely 100% positively certain, that you never ever nowhere have observed any violation of any of Newton's laws. So what remains?
You still don't understand the laws of motion, and your psycho babble (in #1455) is totally irrelevant. At least wrt to me. But it actually describes the MO of quite a few here, although you had your hopes pinned on the opposite ..
(*) This practice might render Stu to call you "dishonest, asinine, rude and pathetic" (#1472) but I don't take him seriously. He however, seems to take you seriously, which gives me quite extra amusement.
@GSW:
...which you haven't pointed out yet. So you're setting up for something. With your past record, it's going to be a strawman.
Thank you for confirming that.
Still haven't answered me though: what the hell does the velocity of the hand have to do with it? You brought it up. It's a simple question. Answer it.
For your sake, I hope this was a joke.
@"Olaus"
Blah...
Blah...
Sic? You misuse punctuation, and after this is pointed out to you, you not only do it again, but throw in a (sic)? What a sad, sad little troll you are.
Anyway.
Two obvious and stupid lies. What a shock.
For the first, "meltwater from glaciers" is yet another invention of yours. Probably because the first, "net loss of glacier mass" was untenable. Why you still think you can get away with idiotic crap like this is beyond me.
For the second (500 million) see #1360. Since the obvious needs to be pointed out to you, let me add that the actual number can be deduced using a sophisticated scientific tool called a "map".
Why you think anyone cares what you believe boggles the mind. You are so pathetically and aggressively wrong over and over about just about anything that I wouldn't trust you to be right about the time of day.
Asked and answered. Repeatedly. But do go on pretending, it really helps your case.
Or will this lead to the answer to my question? Will you finally share with us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists? Oh be still my beating heart!
Just a friendly pointer: these really do not help either. You're not funny, you're not trying to be funny, you're not smiling and everyone here knows it. All they do is make your comments look like a tweens 2005 MySpace blog entry.
Jonas, if I may interrupt you trying over and over again to get elementary physics right...
Any specific reason you refuse to answer what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
@stu
"Still haven't answered me though: what the hell does the velocity of the hand have to do with it? You brought it up. It's a simple question. Answer it."
Sorry stu it's a physics thing. Keeping it simple for you, if you apply a greater force than F friction, the matchbox will accelerate. Your hand needs to keep pace with the matchbox in order to apply further constant force, therefore your hand needs to accelerate as well. If your hand is left behind as it were - then your not pushing anymore and F applied = 0.
@GSW:
Yes, since that is the case, the velocity of the hand is the velocity of the box and is completely irrelevant. So again, why the hell did you bring it up? It only makes sense in your particular rubber band experiment, which you only posited afterwards. Is it safe to assume you already had that particular situation in mind, and simply communicated poorly?
@stu
stu, I think the only thing it is safe to assume is that understanding things doesn't come naturally to you.
;)
Stu, for once your are correct. You are the funny one, not me. We are laughing at your expense.
Anything of actual substance you want to add instead of this fire and brimstone show of yours?
Another thing, why can't you use a civil tone for a change? I know its hard for you, loosing face all the time, but is it really necessary to be as unfriendly as you are? We all wish you the best, you know that.
@GSW:
Ah, vapid, asinine and avoiding the question. Again: why did you bring up the hand velocity when it was obviously and completely irrelevant?
Awesome. Except I didn't say anything of the sort. Could you try to be coherent, at the very least?
Firstly, your current post consists of: one paragraph with an incoherent attempt at a jab, one paragraph whining about my lack of content, and one paragraph of tone trolling (which I will get to). And you accuse me of lack of substance?
Secondly, this is fire and brimstone to you? Cupcake, I am mildly peeved. You don't get out much, do you?
This coming from someone who said (amongst many, many other things)
What a sad little hypocrite you are.
Anyway, you've obviously run out of arguments again, and are back to tone-trolling. We've been here before, "Olaus". It happened at #590, it happened at #1029, and here we are again.
Do you really think this isn't painfully obvious?
No, it's okay, I don't "loose" my face. I quite like it attached to the rest of my head.
Moron.
Awful, isn't it? Hey, I'll tell you what. I'll stop being this unfriendly as soon as you bring some substance, Olaus, and answer the question. What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
That way we'll have something substantive to discuss, and your tender little soul will be spared further damage.
@stu
stu, some easy questions for you;
Did you do physics at school?
Why do you think the hand velocity is "obviously and completely irrelevant"?
;)
No, I didn't "do" physics at school. I merely studied it for 6 years.
Already answered. See #1489 and #1490. Nice try, but again: why did you bring it up? You said you were going somewhere with this, so could you at least try to get there?
@stu
Good! so what does F=ma mean?
Nice try, but again: why did you bring up hand velocity? You said you were going somewhere with this, so could you at least try to get there?
@stu
For Goodness Sake stu! you studied it for 6yrs didn't you? you said you did, so you must know! surely!
@stu
You appear to have buggered off stu. Studied physics for 6yrs and can't remember what F=ma means. Unbelievable, It could have been a long time ago I suppose, or some degenerative brain disorder, or maybe you're just a bit of a clown.
I'll ask again when next you appear, we can discuss why velocity is important in LB's little experiment!
;)
GSW, let me save everybody some time here.
The velocity of the hand, when pushing a box, is completely irrelevant since it is (by definition) always the same as the box, therefore a dependent variable, and therefore completely irrelevant.
But do go on, do tell why hand velocity is important and why you brought it up. I can't wait. Maybe we can also discuss the velocity of the dust on the box and the air in the box?
@stu
You're back! I am explaining it to you, but using physics. It is pretty obvious once you understand that, so.
What does F=ma mean?
I have a horrible feeling your lost already.
;)
Do you really want to do this GSW? Really?
F=ma
The acceleration a of a body is parallel and directly proportional to the net force F and inversely proportional to the mass m
Do go on. I can't wait.
@stu
Excellent! so in the example discussed what force would you have to apply (with your hand) to move the matchbox across the table at constant 0.1m/s, assuming a frictional force of F friction?
What does F=ma mean?
A more pertinent question is whether friction is a conservative force?
Can you answer that one, GSW?
|Fhand| = |Ffriction|
Oh, the anticipation...
@stu
Correct! and the same question at 0.2m/s?
Identical. Are these steps the largest size you can grok?
@stu
We're getting there, stu ;). So how could I tell when you are applying, with your hand, a force greater than F friction?
When the velocity of the box increases. Of course, that's fudging a little bit, but I wouldn't want to confuse you.
GSW,
For the record, I'm not saying that the force required to maintain constant momentum is anything other than the constant force of kinetic friction. What I'm really concerned with is what it does to calculations of work and power while momentum is increasing or decreasing.
Can you answer my question and what it means vis~a~vis power differentials?
@stu
Increasing velocity is 'acceleration', and your hand is contact with the box, so -
"and the applied force was your hand, then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also"
This is what you didn't see the relevance of earlier. Its pretty straight too.
You can visibly tell if you are applying a greater than force if the matchbox and your hand are accelerating, just being faster isn't enough, it needs to be accelerating.
If it's a constant speed, pretty much irrespective of what that speed is, you're only applying F friction.
Dumbass!
;)
That's it? Really? That's your big payoff? You might very well be the dumbest person alive.
You read #1490 and did not understand it. I explained again at #1500 and you still did not understand it.
The velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box. It is equal to the velocity of the box. We only need to know the velocity of the box to know the velocity of the hand. We can deduce the velocity of the hand by measuring the velocity of the box.
Because of this, when we model a box being pushed over a surface, it is irrelevant. So is the velocity of the air in the box. So is the velocity of the dust on the box. So is the velocity of the fingernails. It is superfluous.
Anyway, good job. It's been a while since I've seen such a spectacle.
@stu
You kept asking stu, again and again. And now you know!
lol!
GSW,
The question Stu keeps asking, over and over again, is "What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?"
You haven't answered that. We still don't know.
@stu
I've just read your post again
"The velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box. It is equal to the velocity of the box. We only need to know the velocity of the box to know the velocity of the hand. We can deduce the velocity of the hand by measuring the velocity of the box.
Because of this, when we model a box being pushed over a surface, it is irrelevant. So is the velocity of the air in the box. So is the velocity of the dust on the box. So is the velocity of the fingernails. It is superfluous."
It's gibberish. I'm gonna keep this to show to people. Best joke of the week. They will have a laugh!
Toodle pip!
GSW, you still don't get it? That is absolutely flabbergasting. One last try.
Say we have an equation like
a = b + c
Following your reasoning, it is necessary to add
x = b
y = b
z = b
The question is where your malfunction is. Do you not understand that this is what you are saying, or do you not understand how idiotic adding those additional equations is?
luminous
>I'm not saying that the force required to maintain constant momentum is anything other than the constant force of kinetic friction
Good! Finally! But you've said very many things to the contrary before. And other funny things about the laws of motion and physics ...
GSW
Re: A simple experiment to help lumionus observe the acceleration he feels is missing.
One could just tilt the table with the box (sufficiently to overcome friction, tan(α) > µ ) and note that the (constant) component of weight/gravity downwards increases the speed until it falls over the edge. And one could experiment by releasing it at different distnaces from the edge
And what you mean by the hand needing to keep up with box when accelerating it was perfectly clear.
But it's amazing on how basic a level even the simplest things need to be explained. And first get 'challenged'. And when they finally get it, they try a triumphant 'But that's what I meant the entire time'.
This has happened a number of times. But I guess it should be considered 'progress'. Everybody(?) now seems to agree that summer water flow is not from shrinking glaciers. And many seem to realize that what commonly is referred to as 'glacier melt' is nothing but seasonal snow melt. And some also have grasped that 'half a billion people threatened' should be understood as merely meaning 'half a billion people living there' ...
But hey ... even small steps in the right direction are progress .. but to cover any distance, speed matterst too
;-)
@Jonas
Agreed. None so blind as those who will not see...
http://www.usingenglish.com/reference/idioms/none+so+blind+as+those+who…
I like your experiment better - it was how we did it at school. I tried to make it as close to LB's 100kg box example as possible for the sake of keeping it simple. But as we've agreed, keeping it simple doesn't help much for "those who will not see".
You & Olaus are doing a good job by the way. Very entertaining!
;)
The Jonases said: "Everybody(?) now seems to agree that summer water flow is not from shrinking glaciers. And many seem to realize that what commonly is referred to as 'glacier melt' is nothing but seasonal snow melt.
Not so. Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and one of the things Singh and Kumar found in their ten year survey is that precipitation in is being exceeded by flow out. In short, glacier melt is being enhanced by melting glaciers.
And those half billion people's water supply is under threat if rising temperatures cause immediate wet season run off rather than dry season storage by slow melt of precipitation. Flow rates vary from up to 70,000 m3/s in monsoon season down to to 180 m3/s in the dry season. Obviously that low level will decrease further.
Btw, Tim Barnett (now at Scripps) wonders how building all your dams solves the problem of ocean acidification.
Like the other topics Jonas dabbles into superficially, his discussion of the impacts of climate warming on glacial loss in the Himalaysas is a no-brainer. There are 232 studies in the Wos that have examined the process. How many have you read, our resident D-K model? They primarily agree that (1) warming is reducing glacial extent significantly, and (2) that this will profoundly impact the hydrological cycles of the catchments there, as well as the health and viability of regional ecosystems and their biodiversity and ultimately many, many millions of people. Thus the effects go far beyond the provisioning of freshwater supplies but have huge repercussions on natural systems and the services that emerge from them. Trust the denialati to try to put their own spin on it.
Here are just a few:
Water storage change in the Himalayas from the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) and an empirical climate model
Author(s): Moiwo, JP (Moiwo, Juana Paul)1; Yang, YH (Yang, Yonghui)1; Tao, FL (Tao, Fulu)3; Lu, WX (Lu, Wenxi)2; Han, SM (Han, Shumin)1
Source: WATER RESOURCES RESEARCH Volume: 47 Article Number: W07521 DOI: 10.1029/2010WR010157 Published: JUL 13 2011
Abstract: The Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau harbor hundreds of mountain lakes along with thousands of glaciers and high-elevation snowfields. This is the source of water for the upper reaches of Asia's main river systems, providing the livelihood for millions of people in the subregion. Climate change is therefore critical for the Himalaya snow and glacier hydrology, the dependent ecosystems, and the people. Whereas temperature and precipitation are common indicators for climate change, snow and glacier dynamics are reliable precursors of a warming or cooling climate. This study uses a simple empirical climate model (ECM) and the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) satellite data to analyze water storage dynamics in the 5.072 x 10(6) km(2) Himalayas and Tibetan Plateau region. About 72 consecutive months (January 2003 through December 2008) of data are used in the study. The temperature and precipitation (snow plus rain) data are acquired from the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) Noah land surface model and are validated with ground truth data from 205 meteorological stations. Total water storage change derived from the GRACE gravity data is fitted with a simple sinusoidal least squares regression model. A favorable agreement exists between the GRACE and sinusoidal curve (R(2) = 0.81 and root-mean-square error (RMSE) = 8.73 mm), suggesting that random errors in GRACE data are small. However, the sinusoidal fit does not quantify systematic errors in GRACE data. Agreements between the GRACE- and ECM-estimated storage changes are also favorable at both monthly (R(2) = 0.93, RMSE = 5.46 mm) and seasonal (R(2) = 0.83, RMSE = 7.64 mm) cycles. The agreements (significant at p < 0.01) indicate not only GRACE's ability to detect storage signal but also that of the ECM model to characterize storage change in the snow and glacier hydrology. There is clear seasonality in the storage anomaly, with the highest in summer and lowest in winter. The corresponding storage change is delayed by a quarter of the year. The GRACE and ECM model indicate an overall negative storage trend of 0.36 +/- 0.03 mm/month or 21.91 +/- 1.95 km(3)/yr for the study area (significant at p < 0.1). Given that snow and glaciers are particularly sensitive to temperature change, the negative storage trend could be indicative of warming climate conditions in the region. Groundwater abstraction (mainly for irrigation) in the southern plains, coupled with dwindling snowfall in the northern massifs, is a critical storage loss factor in the region. Invariably, storage loss in the Himalayan-Tibetan Plateau region could have negative implications for the hydrology, dependent ecosystems, and livelihoods of millions of people.
An analysis of snow cover changes in the Himalayan region using MODIS snow products and in-situ temperature data
Author(s): Maskey, S (Maskey, Shreedhar)1; Uhlenbrook, S (Uhlenbrook, Stefan)1,2; Ojha, S (Ojha, Sunal)3,4
Source: CLIMATIC CHANGE Volume: 108 Issue: 1-2 Pages: 391-400 DOI: 10.1007/s10584-011-0181-y Published: SEP 2011
Climate change in Nepal and its impact on Himalayan glaciers
Arun B. Shrestha1 and Raju Aryal2
(1) International Centre for Integrated Mountain Development (ICIMOD), PO Box 3226, Kathmandu, Lalitpur, Nepal
(2) Natural Resources and Environmental Studies, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, BC, Canada
Abstract: Amidst growing concerns over the melting of the Himalayas' snow and glaciers, we strive to answer some of the questions related to snow cover changes in the Himalayan region covering Nepal and its vicinity using Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) snow cover products from 2000 to 2008 as well as in-situ temperature data from two high altitude stations and net radiation and wind speed data from one station. The analysis consists of trend analysis based on the Spearman's rank correlation on monthly, seasonal and annual snow cover changes over five different elevation zones above 3,000 m. There are decreasing trends in January and in winter for three of the five elevation zones (all below 6,000 m), increasing trends in March for two elevation zones above 5,000 m and increasing trends in autumn for four of the five elevation zones (all above 4,000 m). Some of these observed trends, if continue, may result in changes in the spring and autumn season river flows in the region. Dominantly negative correlations are observed between the monthly snow cover and the in-situ temperature, net radiation and wind speed from the Pyramid station at 5,035 m (near Mount Everest). Similar correlations are also observed between the snow cover and the in-situ temperature from the Langtang station at 3,920 m elevation. These correlations explain some of the observed trends and substantiate the reliability of the MODIS snow cover products.
Arun B. Shrestha
Email: abshrestha@icimod.org
Accepted: 19 October 2010 Published online: 17 November 2010
Abstract
Climate change can be particularly hard-hitting for small underdeveloped countries, relying heavily on natural resources for the economy and livelihoods. Nepal is one among these countries, being landlocked, with diverse physiographical characteristics within a relatively small territory and with rugged terrain. Poverty is widespread and the capacity of people and the country to cope with climate change impact is low. The country is dominated by the Asian monsoon system. The main occupation is agriculture, largely based on rain-fed farming practices. Tourism based on high altitude adventures is one of the major sources of income for the country. Nepal has a large hydropower potential. While only 0.75% of the theoretical hydropower potential has been tapped, Nepal can greatly benefit from this natural resource in the future. Climate change can adversely impact upon water resources and other sectors of Nepal. The source of water is mainly summer monsoon precipitation and the melting of the large reserve of snow and glaciers in the Himalayan highlands. Observations show clear evidences of significant warming. The average trend in the country is 0.06°C per year. The warming rates are progressively higher for high elevation locations. The warming climate has resulted in rapid shrinking of majority of glaciers in Nepal. This paper presents state-of-knowledge on the glacial dynamics in the country based on studies conducted in the past in Shorong, Khumbu, Langtang, Dhaulagiri and Kanchenjunga regions of Nepal. We present recent trends in river flow and an overview of studies on expected changes in the hydrological regime due to climate change. Formation, growth and likely outburst of glacial lake are phenomena directly related to climate change and deglaciation. This paper provides a synopsis of past glacial lake outburst floods impacting Nepal. Further, likely impacts of climate change on other sectors such as agriculture, biodiversity, human health and livelihoods are discussed.
The Melting Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Biodiversity, and Livelihoods
JIANCHU XU1,2,*, R. EDWARD GRUMBINE3, ARUN SHRESTHA4, MATS ERIKSSON4, XUEFEI YANG1, YUN WANG1, ANDREAS WILKES2Article first published online: 15 MAY 2009
DOI: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01237.x
©2009 Society for Conservation Biology
Issue
Conservation Biology
Volume 23, Issue 3, pages 520â530, June 2009
Additional Information(Show All)
How to CiteAuthor InformationPublication History
How to Cite
XU, J., GRUMBINE, R. E., SHRESTHA, A., ERIKSSON, M., YANG, X., WANG, Y. and WILKES, A. (2009), The Melting Himalayas: Cascading Effects of Climate Change on Water, Biodiversity, and Livelihoods. Conservation Biology, 23: 520â530. doi: 10.1111/j.1523-1739.2009.01237.x
Abstract:âThe Greater Himalayas hold the largest mass of ice outside polar regions and are the source of the 10 largest rivers in Asia. Rapid reduction in the volume of Himalayan glaciers due to climate change is occurring. The cascading effects of rising temperatures and loss of ice and snow in the region are affecting, for example, water availability (amounts, seasonality), biodiversity (endemic species, predatorâprey relations), ecosystem boundary shifts (tree-line movements, high-elevation ecosystem changes), and global feedbacks (monsoonal shifts, loss of soil carbon). Climate change will also have environmental and social impacts that will likely increase uncertainty in water supplies and agricultural production for human populations across Asia. A common understanding of climate change needs to be developed through regional and local-scale research so that mitigation and adaptation strategies can be identified and implemented. The challenges brought about by climate change in the Greater Himalayas can only be addressed through increased regional collaboration in scientific research and policy making.
But, of course, to keep the denialists happy, I should have added to the above studies (and there are many more of them) that the evidence for the negative effects of rapid glacial melt in the Himalayas and elsewhere on natural ecosystems and on regional human populations is only strong but not absolute (although it is growing). Out of interest, Jonas and Olaus, how many of the above studies have you read?
This, will of course come as a relief to Olaus, Jonas and others, who demand 100% proof that it will be a serious problem before they think that we ought to do anything about it. Until then they insist that we sit back and do nothing at all, watching the retreating glaciers until local ecosystems begin collapsing and the locals find soil coming from their taps when they turn them on. A colleague of mine who works on the restoration of freshwater ecosystems said that this is effectively what is happening in Mexico City. So much groundwater is being pumped from the underground aquifers that parts of the city are beginning to sink into the ground. At some point there will be no water left in them and then what?
Same thing is happening to the Oglalla aquifer underlying the great plains and the great aquifer underlying the China plain. They are being pumped dry. Eighty per cent of China's rivers are biologically dead. The situation with the glaciers is symptomatic of a greater malaise. Like I said earlier, I would like to know at what point the deniers on this thread think that it is prudent to be concerned over the situations I explained above. I would also like to ask them if they think there are ANY human-mediated environmental threats that they think we should be concerned about:
1. Other forms of pollution
2. Loss of biodiversity
3. Habitat loss and fragmentation
4. Overharvesting of natural capital (e.g. fisheries)
5. Changes in the epidimeological environment
chek .. you got that on right:
The glaciers are shrinking (or at least have been since many hundreds of years).
But do I understand you correctly, that **mass loss** in it self constitutes a relevant contribution to those in dire need of summer freshwater?
Because if so, you seem at odds with quite a few others here who boasted that there 'understanding' really is and always was a 'no brainer'
Re: Your other question?
Let me instead ask you what methods you propose for chasing and frezzing that (melted) ice back up in the Himalayans?
And I can ask Jeff H the same, because he thinks that politicians can accomplish such deeds if only given enough power and money ...
Exactly Jeff H!
>who demand 100% proof that it will be a serious problem before they think that we ought to do anything about it
Or not! The first part is once again your derailed fantasy. But the second one is right to the point! The part:
>we ought to **do anything about it**
Now there is the relevant question for you. What would you do about them glaciers? How would you reinstate their former grandeur they had around the LIA, pray tell!
Because you have spent 1½ month here telling people to shut up and shove off, and instead listen to you and your empty posturing and CV-rambling ...
So please tell us: How would ensure that those glaciers start growing again?
With what methods, at what cost, and which impact on the rest of the world, including the environment and everything you hold dearly?
Because if you don't have a viable method, all you have been doing is shouting out your frustration ... like a kid in the playground who droped his icecream in the dirt!
1. Climate change is not happening.
2. Climate change is not caused by people.
3. Climate change might be caused by people but it's too difficult to do anything about it.
I see you are now at #3. We seem to be making progress.
GSW, care to answer #1516, or was it all too embarrassing for you and will you just go back to cheerleading? Did you finally understand, or should we have a deep and meaningful discussion of fingernail velocity?
Jonas is back to true, intrepid lying form I see. Here we go:
Really? Name one time.
Nobody here said anything to the contrary. You made that up. Why is that, I wonder?
Ah, that's why. It is not, nor has it ever been called "glacier melt", moron. It's "glacial melt". Stop lying and making things up. Your idiotic "net loss of glacier mass" strawman was bad enough, but this is getting pathetic, even for you.
If the water supply for an area where half a billion people live is threatened, what would you call it then? What new magical term would you make up for that?
Nobody said that. Stop lying and making things up. Loss of glaciers threatens the ability of the Himalayas to act as a reservoir. This has been pointed out to you in #1381, #1382, #1383, #1457 and others. Again, your tactic seems to be to say something idiotic, ignore the rebuttals, wait a few days and pretend something else was said. Again, this does not work when people can simply scroll up.
To wit:
Again, you're pretending this was not addressed... when it was way back @1406.
You're very transparently attempting to go in circles Jonas, hoping very hard that nobody is paying attention. Or is the idea being so blatantly idiotic and childish that people will get sick of you and leave, so you can drop a few parting nuggets and hope that posterity will come in and take your word for it instead of reading the entire thread?
It really is starting to look like it is the latter. But you can prove me wrong Jonas. Wouldn't you like that? All you need to do is answer a simple, substantive question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Richard, you forgot
2a: Climate change is not catastrophic because we can just build dams.
Richard S
1. strawman
2. strawman
3. strawman
As I've said many times by now: I assume that people use the best arguments the have (left)
And everybody can see what its worth. I hope you are comfortable here around the others ...
So Jonas, why is #3 (Climate change might be caused by people but it's too difficult to do anything about it) a strawman?
Did you not JUST say, right before that, and I mean mere minutes before that:
@1523:
@1524:
Do tell, are you just lying again or do you have your own, magical definition of strawman that includes "directly addressing what I just said"?
And while you're at it, Jonas... why is it so hard for you to tell us what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? What in particular is so scary about that simple question?
@stu 1526
We've had a deep and meaningful conversation already stu, you lost!
Your [1512](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5554186 ""), a stu classic!
;)
Jonas,
You wanted science and I gave it to you. Now you are backpeddling to attack me personally. Sure my academic CV blows yours out of the water (many thanks for this admission, by the way) but why keep reminding everyone of that? I have not mentioned my professional work in a long time. I put up articles for you to comment on and you move on to a new approach: the 'humans are too insignificant to affect hydrological cycles and climate and glacial melt thus we should just keep burning those fossil fuels'.
Have you read any of the articles I posted above? Have you done any Web of Science searches for relevant literature? What about the ecological effects of climate warming as described?
Your approach seems to be, "Humans have f*&%@# up much of the biosphere and its too late to try and remedial action so let's just keep on f&*&%$# things up. Business-as-usual".
Despite what your fan club keep saying about you, what you are in effect doing is painting yourself into a corner. What it comes down to is this: humans are a potent global force.We have altered the chemical composition of the air and water, are driving species to extinction at rates unseen in 65 million years, are consuming natural capital far faster than it is being replaced, and on top of that are altering global climate patterns. Yet you are saying that its too late to stop the runaway train so lets ride it over the cliff, because the landing might not be so bad.
And we are all supposed to be debating this level of insidious logic?
Go ahead Olaus and GSW. Take Jonas. You can have him.
GSW, if between 1490, 1500 and 1512 you do still do not understand that when modeling a box being pushed, if you have the velocity of the box you do not need the velocity of the hand because they are the same thing... you're beyond hope.
If you don't understand how embarrassing that is for you, and come out and claim victory the way you just did... sorry, I don't even have words for how sad and pathetic that is.
@stu
Sorry stu, the initial description of the experiment was very clear on this, even a moron what understand it. It took a while, but you did get there in the end!
;)
Oh Jeff ..
Do you feel that I am now attacking you personally?
Oh dear, how inconsiderate and disrespectful of me!
And what could possibly have moved me to mention your CV? And on top of that, in a way that doesn't express pure and devoted admiration of your grandness!?
What can possibly have flown into me?
I am so very very sorry to have hurt your feelings. I am certain your feelings are just as noble and fine as every other aspect of your fine person and personality ..
/sarc off
Well no Jeff. I am not backpedaling. And you are still making up strawman positions and claims. Humans are definitely affecting the hydrological cycle. But the topic here is the glaciers:
Their size comes up again and again and often in combination with freshwater supply and threatened half a billion people. And of course climate change (and implying the A in AGW).
So wrt to annual water availability (it seems, at least most of us) realize that glacier size isn't an issue at all. Neither is glacial melt an issue for the summer flow. (which is hardly anything but snow from the same season)
The only aspect where glacier size might very marginally influence anything is when in the season the snow that fell just around the edges will melt and run down through the systems. But it would still be the same water.
This is what is being discussed, what is the core of the matter. The amount of seasonal snow that fell on bare ground, compared to if that ground would have been covered by a glacier. And how much earlier the (same) resulting flow would occur.
I would say that glacier size is one of the least relevant issues wrt to freshwater supply for people in those plains. And (it seems) that most here start agree on what the issue is with that (albeit muttering al sorts of 'what if:s').
I would also surmise that showing shrinking glaciers with climate change doomsday propaganda is as relevant as showing cute polar bear cubs.
But such statements (although self evident) seemingly are very threatening to some. Who fall over their heels to 'rebutt' them, scream and conjure up all kinds of other threats ...
As were you, Jeff. Your references seem to say that glaciers will continue to shrink followed by projections and cascades of *what if:s*
I can't really comment on the quality of that. Only point out they mostly make quite sweeping speculations about the future.
But my question to you Jeff is still the very same:
**If** it is the **gacier size** that **is the core issue**, what are you going to **do about it**? With what methods? At what cost? What can you hope to accomplish?
And if it isn't primarily the glacier size (as it wasn't for freshwater for ½ a billion), then you are essentially on my side of the argument (and I hope your fragile emotional life can handle that)
Really? Wow! Maybe I missed something here. Let me see.
luminous sets up the initial experiment @1480:
Nothing specified. No hand, no rubber band.
And here you come to flesh out the details, @1481:
So now you establish that we are talking about a box, and a hand, and nothing else. Unless we're talking telekinesis, I think it would not be too esoteric to say we are talking about pushing a box with your hand.
And here's the problem: you bring up hand velocity here as being relevant separate from the box velocity. At least, that's what "also" implies. But hey, that could be an honest mistake, right? So I ask @1482:
You do not address this (instead handwaving about this great way you're going to prove luminous wrong), but all of a sudden go here @1484:
So now we're doing another experiment altogether? Or are we? I mean, I still think we're talking about pushing boxes here @1487:
And here is your answer:
Huh? So we are talking about pushing a box! Awesome!
So, now that that is out of the way, what are you saying here? That unless the velocity of the hand is not exactly the same as the velocity of the box, you're not actually pushing the box. What you are saying here is that by definition, the velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box.
But I must have completely not understood that. Let's see what I reply @1490:
Hmm. It actually seems that I agree with your definition and your experiment here. We're pushing the box, and if we know the velocity of the box, we don't need to know the velocity of the hand because it is the same. If it was not the same, we would not be pushing the box and not actually be conducting the experiment. That you came up with.
Again: you have defined the velocity of the hand to be exactly equal to the velocity of the box at the same time at this point. All I want to know is why you bring it up as something separate (because by your definition, it is not):
Still giving you an out here. Going out of my way to allow you to graciously get out of this one, in fact:
But no. You soldiered on.
Again:
We already have the velocity of the box. It's kind of the entire point of the experiment. By your definition, the velocity of the hand is the same. Why do you think it's an independent variable?
@stu
"Really? Wow! Maybe I missed something here. Let me see."
Yes, you did miss something - the bleeding obvious - and now you feel a bit of mug.
I'll close with a repeat of that moment of pure stu clarity,
"The velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box. It is equal to the velocity of the box. We only need to know the velocity of the box to know the velocity of the hand. We can deduce the velocity of the hand by measuring the velocity of the box."
Priceless!
;)
Jonas:
You have been for weeks. Are you now denying that?
Gee, I don't know, your insecurity?
Are you now questioning that climate change is anthropogenic? Or can you just not help yourself from using weasel words?
Obvious and stupid lies. See #1360, #1381, #1382, #1383, #1416, #1421, #1457 and others.
Glad to see you've finally started to use "glacial melt". I'm sure that with a week or two of hard work, you might even understand what it means.
Really? Do you have anything to back that up?
That's cute. You're also the only one, but good luck with that.
Yeah! Totally! And that is totally relevant if people had been doing either of those things in this thread!
Except nobody has, so it's yet another asinine, non-sequitur strawman.
You just can't stop lying, can you? I asked you @1526:
That must be one of those things you have trouble answering. Kind of like how you're having trouble backing up your allegations that luminous contradicted himself. Kind of like you are having trouble answering what percentage of climate scientists you think are real scientists.
GSW, poor thing, you didn't read all of 1535 did you?
Andrew Strang #1464
Correcting or educating people about how to use the simplest laws of physics is hardly rocket science.
Neither is the notion that glacier **size** isn't a primary concern wrt available fresh water.
Or that half a billion people somehow are dependent on glaciers shrinking (or not shrinking)
But as to your question:
You may view it as an act of solidarity. To give of that of which I have plenty, to those unfortunates who were furnished with less ..
And not expecting so much as a 'thank you' even ...
;-)
@Jonas
"You may view it as an act of solidarity. To give of that of which I have plenty, to those unfortunates who were furnished with less .. "
You're a good man Jonas.
;)
Jonas, you're starting to save me quite a bit of time by repeating the same lies over and over. I can just cut and paste rebuttals until you actually address something now.
I do appreciate your consideration.
Yeah, sorry Jonas, but that's still a lie, no matter how many times you repeat it. See #1360, #1381, #1382, #1383, #1416, #1421, #1457 and others.
What is it with this denialist fascination with Gish-like two- or three-stepping, Jonas?
1. Glacial melt doesn't affect fresh water supply
2. Even if it did, it's not 500 million people
3. Even if it were, they can just build dams
or
1. Global warming isn't anthropogenic
2. Even if it was, it's not catastrophic
3. Even if it was, there's nothing we can do about it
(Do note that with all his lying, these gallops contradict eachother at 3., but if anyone points that out you just say "strawman" and after that ignore the entire issue for a few days)
Anyway, again:
You know, I was wondering whether I had been a bit too harsh of you with my diagnosis of delusions of grandeur...
Phew. Problem solved.
Anyway, give what? Bluster? Arrogance? Dyslexia? Surely you're not talking about paying for those dams, are you?
So Jonas, will we see any substance? What would you call the water supply of an area that is home to half a billion people being threatened? Would you care to point out where luminous contradicts himself? Have you given any thought to what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
GSW:
Of course you don't, you're an idiot. Regardless of what you mean by "central", the amount of snowfall directly determines the amount of water that is stored in glaciers (along with other factors of course).
No, the issue is that you have the delusion that anything published by the IPCC is automatically disproven.
Chris
Just sour grapes, nothing else. And untruths. And from someone saying:
>I just have a thing about intellectually dishonest misdirection
Yep, again with the "let's wait a few days and hope nobody notices me slinking back in".
Jonas, when will we see any substance? What would you call the water supply of an area that is home to half a billion people being threatened? Would you care to point out where luminous contradicts himself? Have you given any thought to what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Stu - That question should be read as 'When will **you** see any substance'?
And the answer is the obvious one.
But just for the record Stu, do I understand (part of) your ramblings correctly
That you have not seen or noted anything wrong with luminous' versions and descriptions of 'physics'?
Whine, bluster, avoid, evade.
This has absolutely nothing to do with what I have or have not noted about luminous' postings, Jonas. Stop trying to change the subject because you are afraid to back up anything you say.
Once again. It's very simple:
You accused luminous of contradicting himself. Point out an instance or admit that you were lying.
And while you're at it:
You've whined about real science and real scientists for weeks. Why won't you tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
Stu - It is a Yes/No question, and it is on to which you actually and for once have the (true) answer
Jonas, you are a pathetic troll. Stop trying to change the subject.
I'll consider answering your question once you answer mine, a simple question that I first asked @1352, a week ago, and that you have studiously avoided ever since: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
As long as you refuse to answer even that, you're trolling.
Jonas,
What Stu means by substance is encapsulated in these four rules for [How To Have A Rational Discussion](http://thoughtcatalog.com/2011/how-to-have-a-rational-discussion/)
As well as failing to comply with the basic elements of principled discourse you are in breach of all four rules. I call your attention to rules three and four in particular:
3. Provide evidence for your position or arguments.
4. Do not argue that you do not need evidence.
I'd also draw the Jonases' attention to Rule 4 subsection A, namely: "On no account import slack-jawed fluffers from Climategimps (or similar) to proclaim your ineffable brilliance, as this will invariably result in your alleged 'brilliance' becoming entirely and repeatedly effable".
Stu
You brought up the topic, regarding luminous' contradictions (or absence thereof). That's why I asked, just for the record:
>Do I understand (part of) your ramblings correctly, that you have not seen or noted anything wrong with luminous' versions and descriptions of 'physics'?
As I said, it's a simple Yes/No question. And one of (few) question where you actually have the answer. And on top of that, I am even asking you for it!
But if you don't want to answer, you don't have to ...
@Jonas,
Still going at this Jonas?
The Yes/No question shouldn't be hard to answer for someone that's studied physics for 6yrs. Can't wait to see the response!
;)
luminous
In one way you are right: I have not engaged in a rational discussion with you here. Instead I have been trying to teach you about how to apply some of the
simplest laws of physics (Newton's) to simple (one dimensional) systems you can envision (and even expertimentally try out by yourself).
My failure (if any) was to not assume (beforehand) how shallow your understanding of those things were. To give you the benifit of the doubt when whings came out (quite) a bit awkwardly. But that has been settled now. After more than three weeks, you are still incapable of understanding the simple laws of motion (which I'm certain you have looked up on Wikipedia, or such) and how to apply them in a imple situation. And this has been demonstrated beyond any doubt.
I must admit that I knew what you were about already after your #334:
>it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability w
here you obviously use words you haven't the slightest clue about, and about things which are far more comlicated and uncomprehended than the laws of Newton.
But going from there, to establishing your ignorance even about those, required to give you some more rope to get entangled in and even tying your own noose. And that has been done too now.
So I perfectly understand you (after having tried the term 'idiot' countless times in your 'argumnets') and your dire wish to talk about something very very diffentent. And to try to 'explain all your failures somehow to be caused by my persona (haven't we seen that for a very long time now?)
But as I've said from early on: Using the term 'idiot' as an argument almost inevitably blows up in your own face (unless you are really and I mean really superior in the field)
Chek, I can extend the same question to you:
>Do I understand you correctly, that you have not seen or noted anything wrong with luminous' versions and descriptions of 'physics'?
Because signuture 'Jeff Harvey' has been supporting the same idea, that you all are in on the 'righteous side' here .. and that facts don't really matter. I'm just checking if I got your positions right ...
GSW:
Christ on a crutch, you witless little cheerleader. It's amazing you even dare show your face here after you spent days saying that when you push an object, the hand pushing it can have a different velocity than the object.
Either provide compelling evidence for The Force forthwith or spare us our stupidity completely.
Jonas:
You are still a pathetic troll. Your comment #1553 won me denialist and fallacy bingo all by itself:
By the rules of civil conversation, you have now tacitly conceded that you cannot point out any of the contradictions you've been whining about, because there aren't any. So you can take your witless attempts at changing the subject such as
...and put them where the sun does not shine. This, Jonas, is not the subject. If you want to make it the subject, make a point. You've had the opportunity to do so for days and have failed. Let it go, Jonas, you have conceded the point. There is nothing wrong with what luminous said. Your only hope is to derail the conversation away from you, your trolling and your avoiding of my very, very simple question.
You are too stupid to install freely available spell checking software. By the rules of polite conversation, you have now tacitly conceded that you are an idiot, and any more whining about it is asinine trolling.
Attempt at ad hominem.
Argument from willful ignorance.
Tone trolling. Also, you are, in fact, an idiot (see above for one of the many reasons). No need to get upset about it, it's a simple fact.
Obvious projection. You've been dodging one simple question for over a week and 200 posts.
Attempt at tone trolling. Raging incoherence. Strawman.
Tone trolling. Raging insecurity. Projection. Hypocrisy.
Playing the victim. Strawman.
Strawman.
Obvious lie. Attempt at diversion.
Anyway, back to the subject at hand.
I'll consider answering your question once you answer mine, a simple question that I first asked @1352, a week ago, and that you have studiously avoided ever since: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
As long as you refuse to answer even that, you're still trolling and embarrassing yourself. You do realize that this is out here for all to see, right?
Oh no! Stu jumps up and down cursing and crying for mama (Jeff). That was a first. :-)
No wonder though, the truth hurts Stu. What are you going to do about it? Take it in or keep on blaming "others" for your own embarrassing shortcomings?
@stu
"There is nothing wrong with what luminous said."
Can I just clarify? You believe "the physics" as described by LB is correct?
Also,
"Christ on a crutch, you witless little cheerleader. It's amazing you even dare show your face here after you spent days saying that when you push an object, the hand pushing it can have a different velocity than the object."
So, not only do you seem to
have no understanding of basic 'physics'; after studying for a whole 6 yrs - LB's mistakes would be 'obvious' ;) if all you had understood was the first year.
You are rude and abusive, but we knew that already.
And, you also suffer from some form of short term memory loss.
Altogether, it's not a good combination stu - have you considered seeking some type of professional help? psychiatrist, anger management therapist or even a physics tutor?
Cheers!
;)
By the way, have you guys read professor Judith Curry's review of Donna Laframboise's new book?
It seems rather interesting.
@Olaus,
Yeah, just read it Olaus. Liked the Mark Twain quote
"peopleâs beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing.â"
Very appropriate, as we've already discussed here - the CAGW crowd, somehow along the way, lost the ability to think for themselves, just regurgitate the opinions of others as, bizarrely, absolute truths. If this thread is anything to go by, their understanding of physics is such that you could feed them any old crap - and there are many 'climate experts', and Jeff, that are happy to oblige
GSW, I have heard a rumor that Judith Curry is a climate scientist. Is it true? ;-)
Stu
But I have responded to you already in #1426.
But just to clarify: You will not answer that simple Yes/No question about your position on the topic you brought up. Instead(?) you write:
>There is nothing wrong with what luminous said
As I said, you don't have to answer. It already makes 'perfect sense'
But you somehow seem to be under the delusion that you get to decide what *the subject* here is. Well maybe you do, in that game you've declared to be winning over and over again. But don't involve me in your playing with yourself ..
Just one final pointer: Since you seem to be so very fond of the terms *troll* and *trolling* (too), why don't you look it up to see what it actually means?
;-)
Jonases and GSW - you're probably best taking your little circle jerk back to Klimatwanken or wherever it is you came from. I'm pretty sure there is no longer any interest in straightening out your tortuous mental contortions.
As for Curry, she hasn't learnt anything from the pasting she took when promoting Montford's conspiracy novel in polite society. We did however in turn learn that she is jealous to the point of being unbalanced by Mike Mann's achievements.
Here comes the peanut gallery. What a shock.
"Olaus":
"Christ on a crutch" is cursing to you? You don't get out much, do you? Also, could you please point out where I call for Jeff or admit that this was yet another obvious and stupid lie?
Tone trolling. Strawman.
Point out these shortcomings (with backup) and where I blame them on "others" or admit that this was yet another obvious and stupid lie.
Raging incoherence. Strawman. Joining Jonas in his attempt at diversion.
GSW:
Joining Jonas in his attempt at diversion.
You too, by the rules of polite conversation, by failing to point out any of the alleged contradictions in luminous' comments have now conceded that there aren't any. That subject is now closed for you.
By the rules of polite conversation, you have now tacitly admitted that you believe that when you push an object with your hand, the hand can move at a different speed than the object. By failing to provide evidence of the Force, you have tacitly admitted that you have no concept of physics. This subject is now closed for you.
Statements of fact that you don't like are not rude and abusive. Obvious and stupid lie.
Also, tone trolling. Hypocrisy.
Projection. Obvious lie.
Olaus:
Attempt at diversion. Argument from authority.
Projection, cheerleader. Strawman. Obvious lie.
Projection. Strawman. Obvious lie.
Jonas:
Obvious and stupid lie. "I don't wanna" is not an answer.
Jonas, you have already admitted that there are no such contradictions and that there is nothing wrong with what luminous said. This subject is closed for you.
Also, attempt at diversion. Asked and answered:
I'll consider answering your question once you answer mine, a simple question that I first asked @1352, a week ago, and that you have studiously avoided ever since: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
GSW, Olaus, please have a try answering as well. You carry water for Jonas in everything else, why not this?
check:
Nope, but I'm bored enough to point them out.
(Yes, it's still me -- I had to sign in for a different site and it obviously carries over).
@Olaus,
She certainly is Olaus - Professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
http://curry.eas.gatech.edu/currycv.html
Been a good thread this, IPCC, Biodiversity Armageddon, Himalayas, and a bit of physics as well, can't beat that. Jonas has communicated a few 'Home Truths' to the faithful, not that they would ever thank him for sharing this enlightenment.
We've pricked a few of their ego's along the way, and they'll be better for it when they've all calmed down. A moment of reflection for them I feel, to let it all sink in.
;)
GSW: being condescending works a lot better when you've not just made a complete fool of yourself. And for crying out loud,
Could you please, for all that is good and holy get a room and get it over with? This is hardly the place for public affection between the clinically insane.
You are either blustering to hide your embarrasment, or bring-the-thorazine-stat delusional if you think that. You have objectively proven yourself too stupid to address any of the issues. By the rules of polite conversation, you have conceded every single material point brought up over 1500+ posts and several weeks. How on Earth do you think you have the intellectual standing to even scratch anyone's ego here?
Why do you think anyone here is upset, GSW? Besides the pathetic amount of wishful thinking, is it because I have been rude to you and your sweetheart?
I bet it is. Sorry to disappoint you. I'm not upset, and I'm not rude to you because I am upset. I am rude to you because you are sad, lying, delusional, denialist morons. And you have earned every single one of those qualifications in this thread.
The only think still sinking in is the complete and utterly impressive set of brass balls you have, hanging around this thread after your Physics According to The Force episode, Obi Wan.
Anyway.
We're getting somewhere now: Judith Curry qualifies as a real scientist, guys? So is it safe to assume that you consider 0.0056% of climate scientists to be real scientists, or are there others?
Stu in 1565 to GSW:
> This is hardly the place for public affection between the clinically insane.
Actually, it kind of is. After all, it's the "Jonas Thread".
Jonas & GSW,
Have either of you tried any experiments to test friction? I've been playing with inclined planes. Using a clean double strength plate of mirror quality polished glass backed with a boxed sheet steel frame for the plane and a variety of household objects for the slider, the most coherent results I have come up with are very much in line with Einstein's dictum, "In theory, theory and practice are the same, in practice they are not."
However, the most consistent result I have found is that the slider accelerates from zero velocity to some constant velocity, usually without even a sideways nudge to overcome static friction, surprisingly enough. This would suggest, for at least that initial duration of time, the force of friction is not independent of velocity. A more precise and vigorously defined statement of principle might be this:
>For ideal smooth surfaces, frictional force is _nearly_ independent of velocity.
Touché, Andy.
Uh-oh... see what happens when denialists fund actual research by accident.
luminous
You are the one who introduced the condition "constant friction" and thereafter mangled the laws of motion and other physics. But you are of course right: there are limits to the validity of most model's descriptions, even Newton's laws of motion. But these were hardly the topic here ..
chek - I don't recall you having any points other when you agreed (but I may have missed some).
Andy S - siding with the Stu:s on this site? Less wise move, I'd say.
Stu - You are a true asset to this site. I'm sure you are appreciated. You certainly are by me :-) Particularly cute is how you time and time again declare how you've won every question (in that 'game' of yours)
Pertinent question:
Will all those **not** having been **in denial** of the laws of motion stand up, please?
How can you possible hope to be taken seriously when you have no idea what is going on?
Since you missed it the first time @1549:
How to have a rational discussion
Note that I refrained from going by those rules until after luminous brought them up, even though they should be obvious to anyone who is not dense as a post and/or a pathological liar. I was just ensuring that there wouldn't be any "you're making up new rules" baloney, and that if it were attempted it would be obvious and idiotic.
Of course, you did not disappoint, Jonas.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. All you have to do is answer one simple and pertinent question. For over a week you have refused to do so. You're in violation of rule #1:
Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved.
If you fail to do so, you are deemed to have conceded all opposing arguments up to this point. You forfeit any rights to complain about the discussion.
Answer the question or go away, Jonas. You have no other option. What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
From the guy too stupid to use preview, here's attempt is #2:
How can you possible hope to be taken seriously when you have no idea what is going on?
Since you missed it the first time @1549:
How to have a rational discussion
Note that I refrained from going by those rules until after luminous brought them up, even though they should be obvious to anyone who is not dense as a post and/or a pathological liar. I was just ensuring that there wouldn't be any "you're making up new rules" baloney, and that if it were attempted it would be obvious and idiotic.
Of course, you did not disappoint, Jonas.
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic. All you have to do is answer one simple and pertinent question. For over a week you have refused to do so. You're in violation of rule #1:
Do not introduce new arguments while another argument has yet to be resolved.
If you fail to do so, you are deemed to have conceded all opposing arguments up to this point. You forfeit any rights to complain about the discussion.
Answer the question or go away, Jonas. You have no other option. What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Jonas,
>You are the one who introduced the condition "constant friction" and thereafter mangled the laws of motion and other physics.
Yes I did, and I admitted my error in characterizing constant friction so vaguely and ambiguously that it allowed you to misinterpret my meaning in a way that suggested I was __seemingly__ mangling the laws of motion. And I apologized and attempted to clarify my meaning. Twice. Once again, you have persistently failed to take my further elucidations to heart and continue to cling to the notion that your misconstruing of my words is what I actually meant: an act of mentalism even The Great Randi would find difficult to unravel.
Am I to conclude that the statement, "But you are of course right: there are limits to the validity of most model's descriptions" is an implicit admission that the statement, "the force of friction is constant for all velocities greater than zero", which was undeniably a topic central to our little contretemps, is fundamentally in error and an __explicit__ mangling of the laws of motion? Or did you mean something else?
Pending your apology and clarification, I am ready to apologize and admit you're not quite the total idiot you have thus far made yourself out to be.
Of course, it's The Amazing Randi and not The Great Randi. My apologies.
See how it's done, Jonas?
Well fair enough, I suppose. And let's not forget that in summation many here at Deltoid have found Jonas to be appallingly dull, unimaginative, lacking in initiative, no sense of humour, tedious company and irrepressibly drab and awful. But so much for the positive side.
Following on, is it really necessary to itemise the many negative aspects of Jonas' ongoing sluice of denier howlers?
Necessary? Of course not. But it might be educational for some.
Of course, there's also quite a bit of SIWOTI syndrome.
The farinelli-whining of little Stu and chek hold Nobel peace prize standard. So empty and yet so high pitched. :-)
This was especially refreshing: Judith Curry finds it inappropriate that the IPCC is so heavily mixed up with WWF etc, ergo she is jealous of Mr Hockey Schtick. :-)
Only at Deltoid and in other shaking climate tents.
Olaus, vapid as always. Answer the question or go away. You have no other option since you have tacitly conceded every point.
What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Stu, why so angry?
I'm afraid to tell you this Stu, but your hysterical outbursts of nonsense are not improving your case, whatever that case is. Do you have one by the way?
Oluas/Olaus - nobody should ever call you the irrelevant little tosspot you are, regardless of how many sinking ships you leap aboard.
For Judith hath already found out that LaFrameup has used rubbish material that even the posing idiot Curry has previously disowned, only Curryfool was too stupid to spot it beforehand. (h/t Phil Clarke) Such is her irrational hatred of Mann and by association the IPCC, she doesn't mind and willingly flounces around about it in public because she ... well because she ... she should gave been a princess by now, by golly.
Denial means never having to remember beyond yesterday. Much like Wattamoron's undertaking to accept the BEST results, come what may. Until they came.
Asked and answered, troll. See #1562 and #1565.
It looks like you don't know what hysterical means. Hint: it is not a synonym for "things you don't like".
It looks like you don't know what nonsense means. Hint: it is not a synonym for "things you don't like".
Either point out exactly what I have said that, according to you, is nonsense and/or hysterical or admit that you are still producing nothing but lies, and stupid ones at that.
You do not get to ask questions until you answer the one your entire denialist knitting club has been avoiding for over a week. This collective avoidance is stupid, arrogant and rude. It is behavior that would be unacceptable for a toddler.
It is not a difficult question. Even you are capable of answering it. Not doing so is trolling.
What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
luminous,
Sorry, but you still are in error
Yes, you have admitted vagueness and typos. And I have acknowledged them, and told you that those not at all are the objections I have to your 'descriptions'. And I have pointed out the many violations of fundamental, and simple laws of physics, you've commited (they are all visible above and easily found: They are addressed at 'luminous' and signed by 'Jonas N')
And I have been both very explicit detailing the preconditions/premisses for the description we are discussing, and I have pointed out where you got your physics wrong (not only the laws of motion), often repeatedly.
Even in those instances where the root of your error was not quite obvious to me (because of a combination of your 'vagueness' and misunderstandings) I have tried to
a) explain what is wrong, and
b) how it should be instead, but also
c) where I think your misconception lies.
where the c)-point of course was speculative, and I upon revisiting (I think) I better understood you complete misconception. These are all available above, and nothing I have said has been i error. I even stated the preconditions in my 1st post on the topic (#1181):
>constant (coefficient of) friction µ
and you **confirmed** that in #1234:
>I chose kinetic friction rather than aerodynamic drag as an example because the mechanics are simpler
so your
>an implicit admission that the statement, "the force of friction is constant for all velocities greater than zero", which was undeniably a topic central to our little contretemps, is fundamentally in error
is still as false as it was the first time you tried to oppose it. And if you maintain that this is your 'primary defence' you are still in as much violation of the laws of motion as you have ever been.
Sorry, but I can only laugh at your attempts to now **demand** my 'appologies' for mildening your insults (from *'idiot'* to *'not quite the total idiot your made yourself out to be'*)
The whole things still sits there. Firmly planted right there, and repeatedly, in the middle of your face. Since it first blew up there .. And your removining it, wiping it off will take quite a lot more. And it will take your realization of everything that went worng above .. which doesn't seem anywhere close ...
chek,
Yes, I guess your have a point, that:
>many here at Deltoid have found
found adhering to even the simpler laws of physics is indeed
>appallingly dull, unimaginative, lacking in initiative, no sense of humour.. and irrepressibly drab and awful
And quite a few have even explicitly stated that they stand behind such **denial**. While the rest I presume merely are incapable of distinguishing such from other pure gibberish.
No wonder that so many here can only 'navigate' by blindly guessing, wishfully hoping, fantasizing about how things are in reality. And claiming that this has anything to do with 'science'. Let me rub this in your face:
Not one single individual on your side of the argument has managed, not even attempted, to guide guide luminous back out from la la land. And quite a few have actively cheered him on in there.
What a farce ...
Jonas, the subject of luminous' alleged errors is closed for you. You were asked to point out contradictions and failed to do so. Stop whining about it.
You have better things to do, such as answering one simple question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? Until you answer, you are not even attempting to have a real conversation. Stop trolling and answer.
Stu
By your own admission: You claim to have studied physics for six years, and yet fail to comprehend and correctly apply the laws of motion.
And I think that this is a fairly accurate description of you and your capabilities.
Regardless of whether your claim indeed were true, or not ...
Point out where and why, or admit that you are telling yet more stupid lies.
Oh, wait. You're not subscribing to GSW's "when pushing a box, knowing the velocity of the box is insufficient, you also need to know the velocity of the hand" howler, are you? Jonas, are you too a proponent of the physics of The Force?
I know you think you're being very slick with this kind of tripe, but you're not. It's very, very transparent and juvenile. 'I think you're stupid, but I don't say it'. 'You're lying about this irrelevant thing, but it doesn't matter'. You're weaseling vapidly, because it is all you have left.
And you continue trolling. Answer the question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists? Would answering that simple, simple question be too embarrassing for you?
#1495
>I didn't "do" physics at school. I merely studied it for 6 years
#1554
>There is nothing wrong with what luminous said
@stu
I don't want to exacerbate your personal embarrassment any further but,
"when pushing a box, knowing the velocity of the box is insufficient, you also need to know the velocity of the hand"
This is in quotes, but it is no quote of mine, THESE ARE YOUR WORDS.
The requirement to independently know both, even though they are the same, has been the folly you have pursued all along.
Your words during your moment of "bleeding obvious" revelation still amuse me, so I will repeat them here.
"The velocity of the hand is the same as the velocity of the box. It is equal to the velocity of the box. We only need to know the velocity of the box to know the velocity of the hand. We can deduce the velocity of the hand by measuring the velocity of the box."
Still Priceless!
Also, as Jonas has pointed out, your
"There is nothing wrong with what luminous said" still needs to be reconciled with your 6yrs of physics.
Take care stu!
;)
[Jonas](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5604154)
Hand waving circular gibberish.
Do you stand by the statement that the force of friction is (always) constant for all velocities greater than zero or not?
luminous
Yes! Under the stated preconditions:
With constant friction µ and (viscous) drag excluded, the force of friction is and remains constant and independent of velocity v > 0. By definition!
If you don't understand that (your own premisses), you don't understand anything about physics. And even if you get some parts right, you still have violated others with a vengeance, and continued to do so even afther they were pointed out to you! So that this conclusion still holds:
>You don't understand anything about physics
Which explains much about your efforts here! But you are not alone, if that is any consolation to you ..
Jonas,
Where your error lies is not so much in your application of the laws of motion, but in applying them to a simplified introductory course description of friction as if that description was itself a law of physics and not a general rule of thumb constrained to particular conditions under particular assumptions that does not apply when those particular conditions and assumptions are not met.
You are as stubbornly incapable of understanding that as you are of understanding the actual nature of my argument and instead inventing a straw man by selectively misconstruing the language of elements of that argument.
You are a hopelessly willful idiot. Discussion with you is no more rational than talking to a rock.
As the saying goes:
>Never argue with an idiot. They will only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
For attempting that I admit that I am almost as great a fool and apologize to all and sundry.
This seems to contradict what you wrote when you first mentioned friction (@176):
I have not been following this closely, but I am confused. In this discussion about friction, are you not talking about it in the context of a pendulum, in which case it is not appropriate to exclude fluid friction?
luminous
No, you are completely wrong here!
I know the laws of motion, of Newton, and other physics. And haven't violated them one single time!
I am totally aware of that the simple descriptions and models have limited (range of) validity. But that is not what we've been discussing! Instead what has been discussed is what those (simple) descpritions and laws of motion (etc) describe and imply for equally simple empirical situations. And you've bungled essentially everything that is 'holy' in physics while doing so! **Everything!** And its clearly legible for anyone above!
You have violated Newtons laws, the laws of motion in your attempts. And you have violated a bunch of similarly simple principles of physics while trying to get out of the same mess. Violiating dimensionality, trying to describe (get rid of) a higher 'momentum' by dividing it to partly a 'force' and remaining (net) momentum. To be counteracted by that (as you admitted) constant frictional force.
And similar other non-physical 'explanaitions'. And you still seem to feel that 'idot' is a usful term trying to get out of that mess.
Well, it's applicable. But that doesn't mean **useful to you**!
And I am serious:
You have been not only totally out of your leage .. you have remained there with a vengeance and while doing so, draging out a few others, equally disconnected from what is required when understanding a physically admissable reality. Showing the total disconnect between physical reality and religion so often observed among the climatic cultists ..
Richard S
Not one thing I have said wrt to this topic has been wrong or violated any principles of physics (or Newton). What I state in #176 is that you need to maintain this imbalance, that externally applied driving force to maintain that preciously observed acceleration, also for the seconds to come. And that drag, ie resistance to increased velocity couneracts shis. On top of frictional loss.
I was talking what that *imbalance* needs to overcome. Not what resistance depends on ...
Fluid friction is nowhere disregarded! On the contrary, it is what I've been saying all along. That is what has been missing, and what I've described (as missing)
>Violiating dimensionality, trying to describe (get rid of) a higher 'momentum' by dividing it to partly a 'force' and remaining (net) momentum. To be counteracted by that (as you admitted) constant frictional force.
Are you saying that a force applied to an object greater than any opposing forces doesn't increase the momentum of that object as the vector sum of all forces, which is clearly what I was saying and not the gibberish speaking straw man you have invented?
Also, I am saying the frictional force is constant and independent of velocity only when the applied force and the frictional forces are in balance, and not constant nor independent of velocity when they are unbalanced, as can be empirically demonstrated by the very experiment you proposed. This is the part of my argument you are unable to mentally assimilate due to your hopelessly willful idiocy.
>I am totally aware of that the simple descriptions and models have limited (range of) validity. But that is not what we've been discussing! Instead what has been discussed is what those (simple) descpritions and laws of motion (etc) describe and imply for equally simple empirical situations.
Jonas: You misunderstand my point. I should have highlighted "the increasing negative feedbacks due to drag, friction and engine efficiency."
luminous
No, that's not what I'm saying! A larger velocity implies a larger momentum. Of course. Your (latest) violation of dimensionality instead was #1443:
>**a part of** the larger Fapplied is now consumed by the now constant but greater **momentum** at the now constant but greater velocity, thereby becoming **not** a **force**, the (net) Fapplied is equal to the constant Ffriction
Further:
A frictional force under the (by you) stated condtions of constant/kinetic friction is independent of velocity > 0. By definition: F = µ·N !
And once more you are coming up with new nonsense, violating your own statements and I don't know what else:
>I am saying the frictional force is constant and independent of velocity only when the applied force and the frictional forces are in balance, and not constant nor independent of velocity when they are unbalanced
???
First you say that friction is independent of velocity only if forces are in balance, ie if velocity (momentum) remains constant!? This statement contains no information. You say: 'Doesn't change with velocity, **if** velocity doesn't change'!?
Thereafter you claim that it indeed does depend on velocity if forces are unbalanced, ie if the body accelerates/decelerates, meaning **if** velocity changes!? And that this 'variation' is determined by its accelreation (force unbalance)!?
This makes no sense at all. It looks like you are claiming that for one velocity v, the frictional force is constant (F = µ·N), but may be something else if and when this velocity is reached by accelerating (or decelerating) towards it!? Are you claiming that the momentary physical process of friction/sliding is history dependent (depending on what (different) velocity it had one instant earlier)? Or are you just once more trying to 'invent' a velocity-dependet friction for your own (choice of) constant friction?
Don't answer that! :-)
I know! You are still trying to save that face, now completely unrecognizable from all those terms like 'idiot', 'Newton's laws', 'dimensionality', 'gravity', 'robust statistical methods', 'uncertainty bounds' etc etc repeatedly blowing up in it ... And you make up new 'physics' as you go, only worsening things!
Sorry kid, there is no way out from your mess. So please let me rub this in your face once more (it can hardly get worse by now):
You are an absolute nitwit when it comes to understanding, applying and interpreting even the simplest physics. Almost three weeks later, you still are defending the same nonsense you started with .. In spite of having the correct answer spelled out for you repeatedly!
A total incompetent is what you are! (*)
And still, you step up to me and try your silly nonsense. For everybody to see. And call me the idiot!?
It's truly priceless!
:-)
But I appreciate what you've done. And it has dragged out quite a few more nitwits, siding with you. (And no one else has come to your rescue). It is all very telling ..
(*) And I would (for lack of more information) assume that you are equally skilled at understanding any other question or topic of similar complexity or higher. Meaning: Not at all!
Richard S
I see. What I meant was negative feedbacks generally will increase with speed, and I named a few of those. Engine efficiency for once, hardly increases beyond optimal rpm.
How friction influences the engine, or energy consumption depends on several factors. For instance, with constant friction (as 'discussed' with luminous) ie F = µ·N, the coefficient of friction µ is independent of speed. In an engine with moving and rotating parts however, contact forces (N) may very well increase with rpm. But usually moving parts are lubricated, so there will be viscous losses as well.
But I still don't see your point? Are you actually making one? Or are you just hoping to assist a fellow traveler in distress?
Jonas old man.
Can you be honest, for even a single post?
elspi
I found [this gem, #1201](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5432180) among your 'admissions':
>Jonas
>You don't understand momentum or friction or Newtons second law.
>Is there ANYTHING in physics you understand??????????
>
>Spare us the 70 lines of gibberish and stick to the actual (misunderstood) physics, and maybe we can unburden you of some of your flaming ignorance.
You are of course included among those whom I referred to as incompetent nitwits incapable of getting anything correct, not even the simplest physics.
@elspi 1600
Jonas has been honest. Is there anything in the discussion of the physics you take issue with? or are you just mouthing off about nothing?
;)
"But I still don't see your point?"
It just seemed to me that there was a contradiction.
"Or are you just hoping to assist a fellow traveler in distress?"
I do not know if lb is in distress. That pushing hands were brought into a discussion of sliding boxes suggests to me that someone is in distress.
Richard S
>I do not know if lb is in distress
I am sorry to hear that ...
>You say: 'Doesn't change with velocity, if velocity doesn't change'!?
Try this:
μmg = ma only when v is constant, independent of the value of v, or nearly so.
For hypothetically ideal smooth (and rigid) surfaces, so only coulomb friction, hypothetically and ideally completely dissipated as heat (molecular vibration) like you said, is considered.
Under real world conditions approaching these hypothetically ideal conditions, coulomb friction is a decent rule of thumb for estimating friction, when v is constant, independent of the value of v, through some empirically constrained range of v, because real world conditions are never quite the same as hypothetically ideal conditions.
I'm sure that you will agree that a robust scientific explanation of a given phenomenon is only valid if all known forces are taken into consideration, providing that explanation can significantly constrain the knowable influence of any unknown forces, and not by cherry-picking one single force?
Under real world conditions, if μmg is > or < ma, v is not constant and the μ of all real world frictional forces varies dependent on the difference between μmg and ma, and the μ of all real world frictional forces is higher at higher constant velocities, even though that increase may be nearly imperceptible over some relatively narrow range of v.
This is because in the real world, unlike the hypothetically ideal imaginary world you inhabit, there are self-adjusting (feedback) forces that (usually gradual but often non-linear) come into play, a product of non-ideal surface roughness, plasticity and resilience of real world materials, eventually overwhelming the hypothetically nearly invariant coulomb force.
Hint: What happens to the pitch and volume of engine noise as rpm goes up or down? Is it independent of rpm at any constant rpm?
Regardless of who's right or wrong, you are still an idiot for allowing yourself to be dragged along the path of this hugely off topic red herring. What this conclusively demonstrates is you are not primarily interested in arriving at an objective understanding of the science of climate through rational and reasonable principled argument, which would require some degree of self doubt, i.e., genuine skepticism. Rather, you are immensely interested in proving to yourself and your gathered sycophants your ego-centered and delusional intellectual superiority over those genuine skeptics who would challenge the depth of your understanding. An intellectual depth that has proven to be quite shallow and an ego that is apparently without limit.
That isn't the scientific method, by anyone's definition, although it does make you an interesting subject for the problematic nature of psychological denial.
Let me guess; you don't believe psychology is real science, either?
Please, let us at least agree to disagree and close the door on this pointless and seemingly endless dispute and return to the general subjects covered here at Deltoid; the well demonstrated robustness of climate science constrained by the two-tailed limits of statistical certainty and the irrationally presumptive one-tailed bias of unconstrained uncertainty inherent in the politics of climate science denial, and its enabling effect on the quite naturally occurring psychology of avoidance of unpleasant facts, especially in those lacking a well developed self-awareness.
GSW said:
Oh for fuck'ssake you simpering, scrivening little fluffermonkey. Honesty - like pregnancy - is a binary state. You either are or you aren't, and we've [already seen the Jonases aren't.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5324804)
We've already seen during the glaciers chapter of this thread that - like you - Jonas is merely a third-rate denier meme repeater.
Jeff Harvey was 100% right. Like a poor man's McinTyres, the Jonases - once they've changed their pants at the excitement of the analogy - will never aspire to anything more than a level of pedantry such as the world has never before seen. Whilst producing nothing.
Enjoy your protégé's voyage into irrelevance. And for God's sake wipe your chin. It's unseemly.
lumnious
(I'm surprised you're still at it. But by all means, keep at it!)
But firstly:
>let us at least agree to disagree
No! There is no disagreement between us. You are wrong, and I am telling you how and where. And how it is done correctly. Over and over again.
Secondly:
>Under real world conditions approaching these hypothetically ideal conditions, coulomb friction is a decent rule of thumb for estimating friction, when v is constant, independent of the value of v, through some empirically constrained range of v
Irrelevant. And not under discussion. And even if included, you would still have violated several of the laws of physics and motion (see #1177 for starters). But you specifically excluded this, you stated (#1234 and 1305):
>I chose kinetic friction rather than aerodynamic drag as an example because the mechanics are simpler
>what I really meant was a constant coefficient of kinetic friction
And you have confirmed many times that it is indeed constant frictional force you've both said and meant (#1233, 1247) but in #1257, 1273 & 1305 you really bungle it. I just reread major parts of it and it is just flabbergasting, all the nonsense you try ... presumably to save some face.
Thirdly:
>because real world conditions are never quite the same as hypothetically ideal conditions
As already stated, there are limitations to models and laws used. That's why one specifies what one is considering. Why one specifically states, as here for instance, that drag is excluded (unless v is so large that it becomes a factor), eg for describing a sliding puck/book/box slowing down as vâ0, and never ever would claim nonsense like the following wrt to friction:
>When object in motion encounters constant friction, it slows down. Because it is slower, the amount of friction it encounters over a fixed period of time is reduced, thence slowing the object a little less, further reducing the net amount of friction over time, reducing the velocity by an even smaller amount, and so on
And I could of course teach you a lot about friction to, and what simplifications are implicit in the very common use of Coulomb friction, what refinements are made if one looks for a more advanced description, what problems arise when numerically modelling constant friction, and more advanced descriptions.
But luminous, and that is really the point here: That would be a complete waste of time with somebody who totallay, severely, repeatedly and boneheadedly mangles even the simplest descriptions of physics and the laws of motion .
You claim that µ increases with v for all real world friction and materials Which again is utter nonsense! You describe your 'intuitive' wish for larger velocity 'must mean larger friction too' (and conversely 'friction is reduced as speed is reduced'). But that's your intution and imagination playing tricks on you.
That's all nonsens. Firstly it is not what we have been discussing. Secondly, this is **never** what is understood under 'constant friction', thirdly, refined descriptions of friction rarely ever (~never) behave as you describe. If you want to refine descriptions beyond Coulumb friction, the first thing you'd include would be something entirely different (which you don't know about) and discussing such finer details would be way way over your head.
No, first you must get your understanding and applying of freshman class physics correct, and correct every time, and for the reason that you really understand them. And three weeks into the argument, you are worse off than where you began.
Wrt 'The science of climate' ... Seriously!? After what you've accomplished here regarding laws of motion for simple 1D systmens with three constants (m, g and µ, maybe α)? And you are saying about my "intellectual depth that has proven to be quite shallow" !?
No luminous. Let me rub this in you face once more. Because you really really seem very far from understanding your predicament:
You are incapable of, incompetent at, applying even simpler scientific principles (laws of motion, Newton, dimensionality, other physics) to simple examples or set-ups and interpreting them correctly. Completely and vigorously so! Even when guided step by step in the right direction, towards the correct answer, you compusively refuse to make progress. Not even when you copy-paste correct equations can you interpret what they say.
It is truly amazing.
And I would surmise that whatever else topic you take on, of equal or higher complexity, you would be as lost and inept to comprehend.
Because you are a copy-paste, wiki-googling keybord-waffler, cheering a team and a game you don't comprehend. And that's what I expected from most people haning here. And from you once you started to throw some 'sciency' sounding terms around you.
And of course that psycho babble you (and so many more) seem to cling to so depserately.
Look luminous:
There is no 'self doubt pr -awareness' included or necessary in the simple laws of Newton, or Coloumb friction. It only requires the capacity to read, use and apply them correctly. And if you can't even do that, there is really not much you can do ...
Which (quite correctly) was my initial (but then tentative) assessment.
But as I said, I appreciate your display of lack of even the simplest scientific principles, because quite a few more joined in with you, and nobody here even remotely tried to rescue you ...
Lighten up Luminous, I'm sure there is something else you are good at.
And I'm also quite sure, at the end of the day, you fell rather pleased with the new insights Jonas helped you gain. Nothing is like getting an eye-opener. Knowledge is empowering.
The next step for you will be to ponder on your "because real world conditions are never quite the same as hypothetically ideal conditions" and apply it on the climate science , which, naturally, has a lot more to offer in terms of real word conditions vs hypothetically ideal conditions.
Catch my drift? ;-)
GSW:
Obvious and stupid lie. See #1535. You're the one that brought it up. Pretending that you didn't works better if people cannot follow along.
Anyway, it is by now very obvious that Olaus, Jonas and GSW are not here to have a conversation. Until they answer what percentage of climate scientists they consider real scientists, I think we're done here.
Alanis,
Lighten up, you say? Should I punctuate my critiques with smiley faces? Would that sooth your poor little egos?
Here is something that should make you feel better.
Jonas is absolutely right about coulomb friction, and I admit to making some really poor arguments about coulomb friction.
It is up to you to decide whether I truly believe in those arguments or made them intentionally in order to inflame Jonas' obsession of bringing about my utter and ignominious humiliation and, consequently, his gloriously triumphant victory. He can have that for all it is worth. (Imagine a smiley face here, O ironically deficient one.)
What credit I do give Jonas is that in this singular instance, immaterial to the central topic as it was, he did actually attempt to make a formal argument, full of incoherent raving and rhetorical excess as it was, rather than his normal practise of making hand-waving unsubstantiated assertions. If he could do that with respect to climate science we could have a substantive discussion, but no sign of that on the horizon. (Imagine a smiley face here, O ironically deficient one.)
Where he is wrong is in insisting on narrowly arguing about coulomb friction when he knows and admits it is not a sufficient model to realistically explain dry friction, much less feedbacks from dry friction. To paraphrase Einstein, make your model as simple as possible, but be sure not to make it too simple. Jonas is over-simplifying, not to better understand the physics of a process, but only to win an argument. That is the kind of juvenile behavior in which only an idiot would engage. (Imagine a smiley face here, O ironically deficient one.)
When I asked Jonas what he understood as the basic underlying physics of GCMs, all he could come up with is Navier-Stokes. Again, a grotesque over-simplification. What's more, he projected this poor understanding on me as apparently believing that the Earth's climate could be adequately characterized only considering turbulent flow mechanics.
Catch my drift? (Imagine a smiley face here, O ironically deficient one.)
How we know Jonas is a liar.
Borehole reconstructions.
We can use the 1-dim heat equation applied to borehole temps in places where the geology is relatively simple and where the rocks are not permeated by water. By numerically inverting the heat equation, we find the average temps over the borehole for the last 2k years. The heat equation is the oldest most studied pde.
There is no questioning it.
This proves the hokey stick to any honest person with any sort of mathematical understanding.
Jonas claims to be such a person, therefore he is a liar.
We know how many billions of tons of CO2 we have added to the short-term carbon cycle.
We know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we know how much that extra CO2 should warm the earth.
We can detect the carbon from fossil fuel by its isotope composition, so we can verify our calculation of the total CO2 from fossil fuels.
We can see the extra CO2 in the ocean acidification.
We see that the warming proven by the boreholes is caused by CO2 from the cooling of the stratospheric (one of the many correct predictions from Hansen's original climate model).
We know that no other forcing of any significance is warming the earth, because the other forcings are either minuscule or GOING THE WRONG WAY. (If it were up to the sun or the Milosevic cycles, then we would be cooling).
We can see the increasing temp in the temp record and in the natural world.
From the loss of polar ice volume to the retreat of glaciers to the spread of the pine beetles to the spread of tropical diseases.
The is no way for any honest man to see this and say anything but
"Oh yeah, it really is obvious that our burning of fossil fuels is warming the earth in a catastrophic way".
So yes. We can be certain that Jonas and the sock/meat puppet theater crowd are liars.
How will Jonas lie next?
cherry pick?
red herring?
ad homin?
Gish gallop?
false accusations of ad homin?
all of the above?
No way to tell, but what we do know from experience is that he won't be honest.
Because, in all of his hundreds of thousands of words he has written here, the phrase "Oh yeah, it really is obvious that our burning of fossil fuels is warming the earth in a catastrophic wayâ has not, even by random chance, ever appeared.
luminous
You are sill in desperate face-saving mode (hoping that people won't notice, and conceeding errors where they where the least) stubbornly maintaing that there is anyting to save. There is (hardly) anything! Not even when you copied the right equations did you manage to interpret them correctly consistently.
You abviously did not know about friction when you started, and when I told you, you desperately tried all kinds of nonsensical things, thereby bungling the laws of motion and much more.
You fault was **definitely** not that you 'misrepresented Coulomb friction'. Initially you didn't know anything about 'friction', making up utter nonsense claims. Violating most principles of physics (you used). You are still wrong. And now you seem to be hoping to 'invent' some new unheard of friction descriptions which you hope will save your blow-up plastered face!
But it won't! What you say is still nonsense, and still inconsistent with many of your other f*ck-ups. Luminous, trust me (since you seem to have no other way of assessing physical laws and models correctly):
You are way way out of your leage here. Not being aware of Coulomb friction is the **least** of them. What you now write only makeing things still worse for you:
>Where he is wrong is in insisting on narrowly arguing about coulomb friction when he knows and admits it is not a sufficient model to realistically explain dry friction, much less feedbacks from dry friction
Utter BS. Untrue on several instances. And it still wouldn't save your face if that were the case.
>To paraphrase Einstein, make your model as simple as possible, but be sure not to make it too simple. Jonas is over-simplifying, not to better understand the physics of a process
Complete, utter and ignorant BS. And untrue again!
>That is the kind of juvenile behavior in which only an idiot would engage
This is actually tro for one of us. I think you know whom. But will make your worst to deny!
>When I asked Jonas what he understood as the basic underlying physics of GCMs, all he could come up with is Navier-Stokes. Again, a grotesque over-simplification
Again utter BS and untrue misrepresentation. It's all visible there avbove. And I can copy all those instances where you have tried exactly what you now hope to accuse me of. And I will ... if I have to.
You problem is still that you don't know diddley squat about this topic, freely fanatsizing about all kinds of (nonsense) physics, whil claiming the fault is mine.
Another one is that you have called me 'idiot' at least 20 times while being utterly incompetent in understanding even the simplest physics of a 1D-system with a few constants based on 300+ years old laws of motion.
It sure does look uggly when you expose yourself like that! And keppet doing it for three weeks, even when helpfully guided in the right direction! Trutst me: What remains of your stance here is not a pretty sight!
And wrt to other topics, you have done exactly the same: Throwing out sciency terms, hoping that somebody would be impressed, but while doing so, revealing that you know very little (nothing?) about the issue, displaying exactly that ignorant handwaiving you so eagerly want to pin on me.
Your 'understanding' of GMCs (where you hoped to outwit me) displayed exactly that: Lack of understanding of what it is about ... again claiming that the issue was solidly based in physics, in conservation of momentum, energy, mass etc.
Revealing once again, that you are out of step with the entire discussion.
Look luminous, I have been more than patient with your ramblings. And I can honestly say, that I gave you the benifit of the doubt at least for several instances of your habitual namecalling, even when you totally bungled even the simplest physics. Which you have so many times, I have lost count. Fortunately, the can easily be read above (bye everybody who knows the least bit of freshman physics and mecjhancis)
But this (eg with your latest post) is getting so utterly surreal that I have to draw one further conclusion.
What you now wrote is so utterly disconnected of what has been unwinding above in your many ramblings and attempts that I can see only to (mutually exclusive) interpretations:
1. You do actually believe in what you have written, inte the major gist of it (including your minor concessions of vague language, typos, and not knowing of Coulomb friction), or
2. You do not believe in all those representations of the physics and mechanics involved which you have offered, as 'explanations'.
I can see no other alternatives. Either you believe (and believed) in what you wrote, or you (now) are aware of the many total f*ck-ups.
If 1) is the case, it is worse than 'we' ever thought, meaning that you are so fare beyond rescue, the attemt would be futile. If 2) is the case (and I dearly hope so) you are now being dishonest about what has transpired, and hoping to wiggle yourself out of this mess, with as few scathes as you can hope to get away with!
I would reflect very negatively on your 'intelligence' and education, but 2) would reflect even worse on your honesty and integrity.
Either way, I would never expect you to come up with any valid point of view wrt to science, regardless of if it were a simple block sliding under conditions of dry friction over a surface, maybe attached to a spring, or wrt to climate, understanding what equations can be taken as 'accepted' and where the simplifications lie and what limits they pose, and all other stuff that's going on in the atmosphere.
Personally, I would think that it is a combination of both: Both utter incompetence, failure to understand the simplest physical principles, and on top of that dishonest representations (we so often hear from the AGW-cheering crowd) when they cannot get away with their appeals to 'authority' and manouvered themselves into a corner when actually arguing any of the cases on the merits of what real science there actually is (which very few seem to be aware of).
But since I am skilled and trained in honestly weighing the actual support for a hypothesis, I cannot say how much of what we've seen should be ascribed to incompetence, and how much is knowlingly distortion of what has been claimed and the facts (now) available as written 'statements' of luminous (and many others') position on the matter.
I simply cannot make that judgement call. In the world I know, live in and act in professionally, people usually are neither totally incompetent (as wittnessed above) or knowlingly dishonest about things for many weeks where they cannot flee ..
elspi
Indeed I do know both about physics, mathematics and statistics. I don't think you do quite as much. You claimed before that:
>Jonas You don't understand momentum or friction or Newtons second law. Is there ANYTHING in physics you understand??????????
Well, I have seen many very very (abyssmally) stupid claims being made here. By people who really should know better, and (I'm afraid) sometimes even have educations, and (God forbid) academic positions and who are calling themselves 'scientists'
But I haven't seen you anywhere engaging in any physics I have discussed. I (porbably) know the AGW-position and what is being claimed in support for that hypothesis much better than you (I definitely know it better than any of those who have tried taking me to task here .. )
So are you actually making a statement? A challange where you are prepared to stand you ground, or is this just one more copy-paste bluster of:
This is what we want to believe settles all the questions ... which you hardly understand nor could defend when challanged on any of the many many details where it is not sufficient?
You don't need to answer. I expect exactly nothing at all from you based on what I have seen hitherto.
I surmise that your understanding is on the same level as the many pid-ments by Stu ..
Uh - did the Jonases just monologue us?
I'm not sure because whenever somebody does that grand declaration of superiority speech, it kinda just gets drowned out by the gnat-frequency whining noise of an insecure little troll. The kind of insecure troll who still hasn't overturned a single nano-iota of the IPCC's case.
Jeff Harvey was 100% right. Like a poor man's McinTyres, the Jonases - once they've changed their pants at the excitement of the analogy - will never aspire to anything more than a level of pedantry such as the world has never before seen. Whilst producing nothing except the epic scale diversion just witnessed here.
chek
Your point is exactly ... what? In what topic?
Whining? Gnats? Insecure little ones?
Don't forget you are at Deltoid, where incompetent blathering is the preferred method dù jour ... You are one of them.
Discussion of 'the IPCC's case' with kids who totally bungle even the simplest 1d equations of 300+ years old physics.
No, what I think has transpired here is what totally shallow understanding of even the simplest physics is among the many in the cheering crowd. And you are one of them ...
Go ahead, make some substantive argument. And stand your ground. Just be adivsed that only throwing out 'Navier Stokes' gravity, laws of motion, physics, statistical significance, tails of distributions etc .. if you don't really know precisely what you want to say .. will just once more make you look like a fool.
To the extent that this not has already happened ...
(Just go back and look how you tried to start with .. there are plenty of real gems among your many tries ... )
Jonas, you're a moron with nothing to say except [natural](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5319423) [variation.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5558284)
That's how we know you're a moron. Furthermore a moron who'll never publish anything that would alert the world either to your own self-perceived brilliance or your half-witted IPCC 'scam'.
All
>Jeff Harvey was 100% right
Really? I would surmise that whenever Jeff Harvey opens his loud uninformed non-scientific mouth wrt to climate ..
.. the best strategy to take (in the complete absence of any own knowledge of the subject) would be to take the opposite stance and maintain that it is closer to the correct state of things.
It certainly has been true here. And [regarding glaciers](http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=research-casts-doubt-d…) this has been very obvious.
Now, this is not a coincidence. Even an amateur like myself could easily spot the nonsense presented about threatened freshwater supply for half a billion .. . You just needed to know some basic (but real) science.
The more telling things is how many of (unreal) 'scientists' had jumped on the 'freshwater threat bandwagon' along with the alarmist who definitely are complettely uniterested in knowledge or truth ..
Sadly (but not unexpectedly) enough, quite a few here were happy to tag along ...
Hey, doesn't it suck to have been had? I mean really? I certainly grind my teeth whenever I realize that somebody has conned me ..
Errr, this is still going on? I hope someone's getting a real buzz from it. Some people must have a lot of time to waste.
Except that glaciers, along with the whole cryosphere, are shrinking Jonas. 'nuff said.
chek
I already knew that this was your 'best argument'. It sounds as substantive as Jeff Harvey's and all the others who use guessing and wishful thinking as their main method of navigating ...
And with the expected results. But still you try over and over agian ... hoping 'next time, next time it finally will make the case I feel so vehement about' ... with the same expected result.
Yes chek
glaiciers are shrinking, and have been for several hundreds of years.
But that was not the core of the issue (in case you are still unaware!?)
Nuff said! Definitely! You should never have started!
'True sceptic' .. luminous also claimed to be one. After his performance ... Priceless! :-)
As I already said, you have nothing to say. So spare us your internal dialogue.
>As I already said, you have nothing to say. So spare us your internal dialogue.
Well, that is why you have taken substantiate issue with so much, isn't it, chek!?
Funny that you would bring up 'internal dialogue' after all you [plural] have managed .. :-)
I asked before: Would those of you **not** being in **denial** (or violation) of the laws of motion please stand up?
:-)
You think I should call you 'denialists' now? Or would 'anti science' suffice?
Jonas,
The SA article seems to be talking about total flows, whereas the review article which was cited previously talked about dry season flows. Nevertheless, flows in the Brahmaputra and Indus basins could be substantially impacted by glacial loss (around 25%, based on this rather unclear article) which seems rather large. Of course the review paper mentions that monsoonal flows affect the overall picture for southern Asia and "complicate the picture".
"So are you actually making a statement? A challange where you are prepared to stand you ground, or is this just one more copy-paste bluster of:"
Google exits dipshit.
Find where I cut-and-pasted or admit you are a liar.
You see people who understand don't need to cut and past.
PS
The borehole reconstructions do indeed prove you a liar.
"So are you actually making a statement?"
Try taking on the borehole reconstructions liar.
Still feeding the trolling trinity?
Rattus N
Previously, quite a few here have brought up glaicer size and shrinkage (mass loss) as an important factor. When I pointed out the futility of such alarmism, the usual cackle in the henhouse erupted ... as so often.
elspi
Your main point seems to call me a 'lier' many many times.
In between, you make numerous other nonsensical claims about me.
You too seem to belong to the 'making up your own truths'-category.
It's not the smartest way to get well informed
"glaiciers (sic)are shrinking, and have been for several hundreds of years"
And so we learn that the Jonases are self-referential and self-reverential inactivists who don't understand that the rate of change in modern times is the crucial factor.
No wonder Jeff Harvey is hated with a vengeance by them. They have no argument against his expertise in and knowledge of his field that withstands scruitiny.
Chek, telling us how much you adore Jeff isn't an argument, neither is hanging by the nails in Jeff's unscientific skirt. You are really obsessed by the man, I'll give you that.
check
That's BS (as so often). Jeff Harvey has no substance what so ever wrt any AGW relevant climate discussions.
As someone noted: He wants to elevate his ignorance to a virtue ..
But I note that you now claim that it is glacier's modern time rate of (mass) change, that is critical.
For what, I would respond. And why the rate? Without expecting any real answers ..
Ohlouis/Alouse, knock me down with a sock if your entire sojourn here hasn't been an anti-Harvey crusade. I suggest you look in the mirror and examine your obsession with the man. Perhaps it's merely the jealousy that any knob-headed nobody of a repeater has for someone/anyone who is successful in their chosen career. Or perhaps it's something of which you dare not speak ;) <(first and last time I'll use a smiley)
And the Jonases really should have twigged by now that temporal limits to biological adaptation capability are the cliff-edge that accelerating AGW is hurtling towards. Maybe you should make nice and ask Jeff - he's a scientific expert in the field.
I suppose John Galt never worried about such trifles, but then that's understandable seeing as he's only the invention of another dysfunctional, paranoid idiot.
chek
I think you are reading Jeff H as poorly as he is reading everything else.
There is no way Jeff (or anybody else) can read any **antropogenic** component in the climate change hitherto observed. And speculations about future climate change (and a possible antropogenic signature therein) are just that.
What **accelerating** AGW are you talking about by the way? Is that merely another symptom of the 'its worse than we ever imagined' syndrome?
Are you really unaware of that climate, especially local climate (which is the relevant here) has changed at similar rates many many times before? So that the present 'rate of change' is nothing at al unheard of? Even if there (this time) happens to be a possible antropogenic component?
I know you all live for and thrive on alarmism and catastrophuc projections, even sheer fantasies.
But wrt to the glaciers, I really don't see any beef at all. And especially not regarding that supposedly threatened supply of freshwater for half a billion .. we hear so oft about.
And why are you (too) so obsessed by fantasizing that anybodu would be jealous of Jeff H!?
I mean really? Are you impressed with anything he has managed here? Does he give the impression of somebody balanced and harmonic, capable of arguing his stance?
Sorry, but I have seen no character traits with Jeff which I even remotely can respect. 'Jealous' is really inappropriate here. (And Jeff had similar fantasies about how he wanted others to 'feel' about him. Almost a little creepy I'd say)
Ever noticed [the step-change in the rate of warming](http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1850/to:2010/trend/pl…) since satellite data became available?
Which is also mirrored in other datasets. I expect not, as denial if anything is all about denying reality. And projection, of course. Foster had [a good post on it here.](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2010/08/13/changes/)
The issue is global not local climate, and needs to be within the past 7K years to be relevant to human civilisation. Try again when you've got something substantive and referenced to back up that arm waving. It might work on your Jonases club, but your standard-issue denier assertions won't work elsewhere.
He knew what you were all about from day one.
Jonas,
What is the basic physics underlying GCMs?
What is a rigorous definition of feedbacks in physics?
Jonas,
>There is no way Jeff (or anybody else) can read any antropogenic component in the climate change hitherto observed.
[Really?](http://www.pnas.org/content/106/35/14778.full)
Apologies all.
Hopefully not O/T. Interesting piece in SA today.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=research-casts-doubt-d…
Uncomfortable reading for all you died in the wool 'Doomsayers'.
You're behind the curve as usual GSW. Looked at and slapped down #1616-1618.
And btw, a magazine article ain't a paper. Although I know anything in print seems so to you.
GSW,
If >95% of annual Ganges River Basin run-off is from wet seasonal monsoons, then any loss of the newly estimated <5% annual run-off from glacial melt still has a profound effect on dry season water availability.
No doomsday, but still pretty catastrophic for rice farmers.
It boggles the mind that you still think you can get away with this, troll. See #1360, #1381, #1382, #1383, #1416, #1421, #1457 and others.
So, sweetheart, still to scared to tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists, I gather?
luminous,
if you would tell me that you are much better at understanding the physics of general GCMs than of simple 1D models and their descriptions of the involved phenomena ..
.. I would just laugh at you.
I have heard your descriptions of them, and what you claimed they are capable of doing. And I just laughed at you (but didn't need to do it openly). Now that I know what you're made of, I can unabashed laugh at such attempts ..
Let me remind you of your #334:
>it is carefully explained and graphically shown, using the combined data, complete with carefully calculated uncertainty bounds using a number of robust statistical methods, directly from the referenced sources, how it is very unlikely that any of the warming since the mid 20th Century is due to non-anthropogenic causes. A conclusion that is statistically significant even accounting for the most implausible unknown and scientifically unexplainable serial correlation of natural variability
And that is said about GCM's performance by someone having no clue at all about how simple dry friction functions, is modeled, what it means for the laws of motion, nor how friction description would be refined if one chose to include more details ...
.. and has boneheadedly refused to improve his learning, instead digging deeper and deeper into bizarre la-la nonsense physics. And with vigor.
I don't know why he feels that this is his best strategy, but this is what happened.
And what he has said about GCMs indicates exactly the same level of (non-) understandning.
Jonas,
That is the wrong message first, it is 335. And that message refers to WG1 Ch 9, it is not a description of GCMs. But then you never were good at getting your facts straight.
Rattus,
So you think 'attribution' and how 'confident' such may be, does not involve GCMs and how well they perform!?
Really? Maybe you should read your last sentance out loud.
:-)
See also #1428
I see your goalposts are still on roller skates, Jonas.
Hey, by the way, what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Stu, these arenât goalposts, they are your own strawmen running, the ones you didnât even manage to know down.
I understand that things must look very confusing from your end ..
The Jonases have decided it's time to buff up their D-K diplomas and take them out for a spin for the world to admire.
First stop: Deltoid, next up - [Taminos.](http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/judith-curry-opens-mouth-inserts…) (Probably appearing for one night only).
Rattus N
I see that you too are calling for having other's comments deleted. How very mature, but (unforrtunately) what I expect from many hanging around pro-AGW-sites, and from the blog owners as well. But as I've said many times:
I expect people to bring up the best arguments they have (left)
Chek
I see you hope for something similar, and the same applies to you.
I note that I failed to point out your latest logical fallacy (in #1638) where you claim that the issue is *'global climate change'* whereas you before (in #1636) claimed that *"temporal limits to biological adaptation capability are the cliff-edge that accelerating AGW is hurtling towards"* which always is exactly as local as the biotope in question. And that locally, climate always has varied much more and faster. And that there is absolutely no way that one can identify and separate an antropogenic component in any such local changes, even if there is one.
But I don't think you have missed much insight by me mentioning this first now. You seem like one more eager to talk about 'Jonases' and DK-diploma, and as always, I presume you are doing the best you can ...
With the expected results ...
That must be why you have your very own thread to embarrass yourself in here. Help! Help! Jonas is being oppressed!
Citation needed of such a sustained change of >2.8C per century.
Citation needed of relevance of local climate.
Until you manage to stay consistent for a day or two on even what stage of denialism you're in, you keep revealing yourself as the pathetic handwaving clown you are.
Answer needed to very simple question, Jonas: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
No logical fallacy there Jonas you desperate halfwit, as the 'global' is an amalgam of the collective 'local'.
Now, back to getting your statistically insignificant arse kicked at Tamino's, there's a good lad.
chek,
You still fail. Locally, it is almost impossible to see any differences in neither level, nor rate of change, and attribute it to that part that some say is a globally observed and anthropgenic effect. And mind you, it was the rate of change that was your argument.
And no, Tamino is not kicking any ass, he is deleting comments pointing out the flaws in his.
And how do you know? Because I tell you! Judging from your performance here, you have no method of assessing whether a claim, a statement, a counterargument, a rebuttal or a criticism has any merit or not. You are just rooting for the home team, without understanding neither the playing field, nor the game or its rules, or being able to distinguish between the players, the goalposts or the umpire ..
Well, if so, that explains quite a lot ..
Stu
So now you reveal that you don't even know what 'an average' is, or in this case 'a global average' and what information is gained or lost when calculating such ...
And, of course, it all makes sense. What was the phrase?
"you keep revealing yourself as the pathetic handwaving clown you are"
Quite true! And I also liked the "There is nothing wrong with what luminous said" or how fast the hand must move if it pushes the box ..
Really a deep and profound understanding ... of pushing boxes over the floor or table ...
No Jonas you idiot, you fail.
Bigtime failed.
A bigtime failure-type fail.
The clue is in your, and I quote, "Well, if so,".
"If so" being a conditional, you failed fail monkey.
You're a waste of time Jonas.
Go back and tell the climatemorons how you absolutely put the Deltoids and Taminos in their place - but really you wuz censored.
Their faith is such that they'll want to believe. But you and I and everybody reading this will know what really happened.
Guys, Jonas' ramblings are too disjoint, and I can't be bothered reading back through such garbage to find out, but has what is his claim that is so worth arguing?
I can't see anything informative, challenging in the stuff I've bothered to read of his. Has he said anything important or worth while? Does it really warrant your time reading him anymore? We've generally got the point.
What would happen if the post shifting rambler was left talking to himself like Sunspot?
Remember the old story of how pigs likes rolling in shit, and how you can't win by playing their shit rolling game.
Jonas,
Tamino does not suffer fools gladly. And with your first post there, you showed yourself to be a fool.
Isotope signatures, cretin.
Rattus N
Nope, I pointed at some holes and inconsistencies in Tamino's argument. And with his 'rebuttals' he opened those holes even more .. And he couldn't allow those to be seen publicly, of course.
But you are right, he doesn't take criticism gladly ... can only 'debate' with the delete button at hand,
Just like many here, when your 'arguments' don't hold water, or when you just don't, you resort to whatever you have left. Which is mostly name calling, wishful thinking and desperately hoping that somebody else got it right. And demand that others be banned ...
It is quite pathetic.
Chek, No I dodn't fail. And your 'argument' turned out to be an own goal. And thinking back, I don't remember you having had any more succinct points either. Rather it sounded like so many other here:
>You are a stupid idiot, because I really wish you to be one, need you to be one, so that I can maintain my belief system ..
Jeff H, desperately tried that with monomaniac repetition for weeks. Or look at all the other's who tried. But it seems you maintain (ie still hope) that they all were right every time they contradicted me!? Well, here is some news for you:
Blindly guessing about things you don't know or understand will give you the wrong answer almost all the time. And even if you chance to guess it right occasionally, it will be for the wrong reason.
Jakerman, I don't remember if you ever tried arguing a point seriously. (You informed us that you hoped John Mashey had a valid point, that's all)
Regarding the low level of the comments, particularly wrt
>how pigs likes rolling in shit, and how you can't win by playing their shit rolling game
it is very true here. And more than just one (Bernard J for instance) have been obsessed with feces. So your
>Has he said anything important or worth while?
is quite ironic after all them totally empty comments being hurled at me by so many.
ianman - CO2 isotopes are something distinctly different than detecting an anthropogenic signatures in locally changing climate. *'Cretin'* is a roughly equally valid point ...
Glad I struck a nerve Jonas. Keep rolling.
Yes Jonas, we all know you think that if you push a box, your hand can have a different velocity than the box. That alone invalidates the dozens of physics screeds you wrote. Sweetheart, the subject of physics is closed for you.
I am curious what you think about something else though. What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
That is, if you're not too afraid to answer.
By the way:
None provided. Hence, Jonas has conceded that
Is yet another unfounded assertion that he came up with to derail the conversation. The subject is now closed.
Just a reminder for Jonas, since it seems very hard for him to keep track of this one simple question long enough to answer it: Jonas, what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Stu
I'm certain, what you present here is the absolute best you can muster ..
.. and it is ... ehrm .. indeed ... impressive!
:-)
I'm sure your fellow travellers here are proud to have you amongst them.
jakerman
Re: 'struck a nerve'
Have you missed how very emotional so many here have become!? I have an inkling of 'Why?', have you?
My, my, my, no hiatus on the deltoid name calling trend. Finally something that obey the laws of the CAGW-cult!! ;-)
As usual its very entertaining to see the doomsayers squirm under their own incompetence relying solely on delete buttons to score a point. But what the heck, at least the climate tents are shaking, full as ever of fire and brimstone. And that's often a good thing â in sects and cults.
Well there is some evidence of the discernment of my recent judgement of Jonas and Co's contribution. Nothing worth addressing and not even worthy of cracking a joke at the ironic hypocrisy displayed by Olaus.
Leave them to wallow lads, its what they are good at.
>Leave them to wallow lads, its what they are good at.
Don't forget that this is Deltoid, and wallowing is the preferred method practiced by the overwhelming majority. For good reasons too. The few who occasionally engaged in a debate revealed quite astounding gaping black holes in what they should have learnt in their freshmen science classes.
And the same guys were hoping to instruct me on matters of statistics!?
But the most funny part is how seriously they take themselves while cheering and shouting .. how certain (or desperately) they hope that their beliefs actually coincide with what happens in the physical world.
Looking everywhere for words and phrases that may support them ..
Jonas, thanks for another demonstration of your strategy. But I'm not that slow, I already got it.
I'll merely point out wrt Tamino that the pattern holds true.
Once Jonas starts talking to actual, real, professional, paid-for-a-living scientists, he exposes himself as a fool and a cretin not worth wasting time talking to.
The Jonases' club rationalisation for that pattern is that they're all terrified of the Jonases' superior intellect.
Too hilarious.
Yes, it's distinctly different from your strawman, you dishonest sack of shit sociopath.
As a young child, you once admitted to making a mistake and were severely punished for it, and you vowed never ever to admit to a mistake ever again. Tragically, that turned you into a pox on humanity.
CO2 isotopes are proof, however, that humans are the source of the CO2 increase.
Now, Jonarse, prove that this increase can't explain the change in climate.
Olaus:
Why are you whining about this here? Every moronic word of yours has been allowed.
Jonas:
Congratulations. I'm glad you are certain.
...says the adherent of the Physics of The Force.
Again, only in your dreams. We're merely annoyed, Jonas... as we are with all gnats with learning disabilities.
Anyway, still no content. Still no substance. One bland assertion a few comments back that you cannot back up. The captain of the failboat sails on, steadfast and delusional.
Why are you so afraid to answer my question, Jonas? You might as well answer, since you've completely run out of arguments.
What percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Stu # 1673, you are of course correct. You haven't scored once in this thread, honors to Tim. That's why it's so hilarious to read.;-)
Olaf, could you and jonarse get a room, ferchrissakes. This manloving exercise you and jonarse have going on here is churning my stomach. Not in public. Smooch on your own turf. Eeeew.
Wow's latest Krakatoa of politeness and self-control is rather stoic don't you think Stu? ;-)
Jakerman
Again you mix things up. I would surmise that the âstrategyâ of other commenters is displayed through their comments. And there are plenty many of them, and a very frequent and common âstrategyâ is the name calling and appeals to various perceived authorities (often in areas they donât master)
Itâs all there: The best arguments people can muster. Look at ianam #1671 for instance
Chek for instance, knows very little about statistics. And hopes that Taminoâs âanalysisâ somehow makes the point he wants to believe in. Well Tamino couldnât argue his case, and now cannot allow others to see mine. And chek has no way of finding out, merely guessing. And as so many here he is repeating his guesses for himself, hoping that they come true that way.
Chek â You seem to think that only climate alarmists have any knowledge or skills. And additionally, that they have to hide them behind delete buttons. Sorry chap, but Taminos âstatisticsâ albeit not wrong, do not prove what he so dearly wants to show. And his answers even made it worse. Of course he canât make that visible to his followers. Because among them, there might be some who actually understands the topic â¦
Stu â As I said, many here are probably very proud to have you in their company. And your âargumentsâ are just as good as those of many others. Impressive!
Wow â Sorry to not having addressed your briljant and intelligent analyses for a while, but I am sure, people here are as proud of your company as of Stuâs â¦
jonarse, given your incorrect statements about people's reasoning before, why should we take your word for it this time?
TL;DR. NWOR.
Meanwhile in a universe slightly closer to home, the Jonases go up against a real scientist with customary devious, waffling, pseudo-scientific babble.
Scientist cuts the Jonases off at the knees.
Jonases ejected unceremoniously.
Victory declared in Jonasworld, celebrations all round.
Still no substance. Still no argument. Nothing but pathetic whining.
Guys, I thought you had such great points to make? Jonas, if you have such a great case about Tamino's statistics, care to share? All I'm seeing over there is a long, whining argument from incredulity, so the actual argument must have been censored! No delay, you must preserve it here for posterity!
Going by your understanding of physics, it should be precious. Use The Force, Jonas. Maybe it works for statistics as well.
Either that, or you can tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists.
Oh I get what you want me to see Jonas, that your comments show me the strategy of everyone but you. It just happens I I'm not fall for that kind of wishful thinking.
It's the reason why I suggest others don't waste time wallowing with you on such terms.
Chek
It seems you are telling me that you cannot see anything questionable with Taminos assessment of facts, or his reply to me ...
Well, that figures .. I didn't expect you too. You are still just hoping (blindly) that there is some beef to Taminos blathering and that I am wrong whenever he contradicts me.
But it ain't so! In his replies to my first (quite mild pointers) he made things worse (for him self). And can't allow that too to be pointed out (that's the flattering interpretation)
It's a little bit like luminous, who pretended to know so much about all kinds of 'sciency' sounding terms. And subsequently would have needed a 'delete button' desperately.
But even more amusing I find that not one single one of all you, hoping that luminous would 'win' the argument, cheering for him, objected to the piling up nonsense he delivered trying to save face ..
And honestly (and sadly) I think that many among you still don't understand how badly he bungled his physics.
Stu definitely is among them who have absolutely no clue whatsoever. And displays it again and again. And chek, the same goes for your understanding of statistics.
jakerman - I still see no beef. But I agree, all of those who just have been mouthing off, cheering or shouting, have been wasting everybopy's time. But you can't blame me for that.
Something for all you pseudoscience alarmists to read.
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/1/scientific-heresy.html
Okay, Jonas, either you are confused or the dumbest man alive next to GSW. Let me ask you outright: when pushing an object with your hand, can your hand have a different velocity than the pushed object? GSW thinks so, and so far you've been defending him. That's why the subject of physics is closed to you.
Seems like you know it, too -- not a single argument lately. No substance whatsoever. More whining. More grandiose pronouncements. Why, my delusional, dyslexic little troll, can't you answer one simple question: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
To save everybody some time, from that link:
"Yet it has been utterly debunked by the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. I urge you to read Andrew Montfordâs careful and highly readable book The Hockey Stick Illusion."
For lurkers, if you don't know why that is so funny: just search Scienceblogs for McIntyre, McKitrick and Montford.
Stu - So have you found all (or only one of the many) violations of simple physics luminous made while trying to wiggle away from his nonsense?
Please tell me which!? Or do you still stick by your earlier:
> There is nothing wrong with what luminous said
Remember you studied it for 6 years? Or at least remember that this is what you claimed.
Either way, what you deliver here is so abyssmally stupid, that I consider you one of the best assets of this site. In fierce competition from characters like âWowâ and a few more, of course. And Iâm certain that many others here are very proud to have you among them.
You are absolutely priceless. Please donât stop repeating your utter gibberish. Even if I sometimes fail to acknowledge it. For instance, please donât forget to tell people here that when you are pushing a box with your hand, you are actually pushing it. With your hand! Realizing that seems to be a major triumph in your (no doubt very exciting) life. You have been lamenting about it for more than two weeks now! See #1485
Or is GSWs explanation #1384 too difficult too for your âsix years of studied physicsâ to comprehend?
Really!? Do you not even understand what is said by âaccelerating a box across the table using your hand'!?
Was that really so hard for your (no doubt exceptional, and well (or at least lengthily) educated little mind to grasp!?
Six years of physics!?
Absolutely priceless!
:-)
Tim, I believe you are still being irritated by the spam wave.
Message #1685 bears all the classic hallmarks!
Sorry, that should have read #1686.
#1685 is obviously not specially processed in any way.
> So have you found all (or only one of the many) violations of simple physics luminous made while trying to wiggle away from his nonsense?
No.
Have you?
No.
I note that all you can do is ask if anyone else found them. This kind of indicates that you've looked and not found them either.
Oh and #1384 was Stu, not GitSaysWhat.
Seems along with all your other blindness, you can't recognise numbers either...
Sorry Jonas, but I'll have to correct you. Stu did a typo with the physics thang. What he really meant to say was that he had "studied six years with a psychic".
I also believe that even deltoids now understands (since its so obvious) that "Stu" is short for "Stultitia" or/and "Stultus". ;-)
Stu #1685
Your'e so funny. And it gets even funnier when you read the rest:
"Yet it has been utterly debunked by the work of Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick. I urge you to read Andrew Montfordâs careful and highly readable book The Hockey Stick Illusion*. Here is not the place to go into detail, but briefly the problem is both mathematical and empirical. The graph relies heavily on some flawed data â strip-bark tree rings from bristlecone pines -- and on a particular method of principal component analysis, called short centering, that heavily weights any hockey-stick shaped sample at the expense of any other sample. When I say heavily â I mean 390 times.
This had a big impact on me. This was the moment somebody told me they had made the crop circle the night before.
For, apart from the hockey stick, there is no evidence that climate is changing dangerously or faster than in the past, when it changed naturally.
It was warmer in the Middle ages* and medieval climate change in Greenland was much faster.
Stalagmites*, tree lines and ice cores all confirm that it was significantly warmer 7000 years ago. Evidence from Greenland suggests that the Arctic ocean was probably ice free for part of the late summer at that time.
Sea level* is rising at the unthreatening rate about a foot per century and decelerating.
Greenland is losing ice at the rate of about 150 gigatonnes a year, which is 0.6% per century.
There has been no significant warming in Antarctica*, with the exception of the peninsula.
Methane* has largely stopped increasing.
Tropical storm* intensity and frequency have gone down, not up, in the last 20 years.
Your probability* of dying as a result of a drought, a flood or a storm is 98% lower globally than it was in the 1920s.
Malaria* has retreated not expanded as the world has warmed.
And so on. Iâve looked and looked but I cannot find one piece of data â as opposed to a model â that shows either unprecedented change or change is that is anywhere close to causing real harm."
Yes Wow, it should have been GSW #1484
And if you think that there are more bungled up principles and violations of physics in luminous long-windend attempts, than I have discovered, you are free to point them out.
And if so, I have no problem with acknowledging them too.
Alternativgely, you have not understood the ones I have pointed out (which would be my default assumption)
P Lewis, you sound as if you are unaware of what Stu et al have produced here ...
It's quite funny to read what the foilehats are writing here. It's the worst kind of religious jibberish. You obviously don't see how the CAGW-church is falling apart. Great humor indeed. =)
Jonas,
The difference between us is I have the courage to admit when I am wrong.
Your comment at Open Mind is [not even wrong](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong), as is your argument that the regression of real world measurements of climate data against GCMs is a circular argument because GCMs are just regressions of historical data.
Tamino is correct, GCMs aren't, you're wrong and you will never admit it.
You're a coward and an idiot.
Well in #1484
> then to apply a greater force than F friction, your hand would have to move quicker (accelerate) across the table also
This isn't what was asked.
It was asked what the velocity difference between the hand and the matchbox would be.
Looks like "english" isn't in your skillset either...
>You obviously don't see how the CAGW-church is falling apart. Great humor indeed. =)
Seeing how the 'CAGW-church' is nothing but a projected fantasy concocted by those in climate denial, you are quite right.
And of course, a member of the sect ddenies being a member of a sect. One must be a total idiot not to see the resemblance between religious fanatism and CAGW fanatism. Halelujah!
By the way, please, define "climate denial".
pentaxZ the magical thinker sees a stick in his path and because of the resemblance concludes it must be a snake.
The stages of climate denial:
The world is not warming.
The world is warming, but it isn't caused by human activities.
The world is warming due to human activities, but there is nothing to worry about.
The world is warming due to human activities and the future effects may be worrisome, but there is nothing that can be done about it.
The world is warming due to human activities and the current effects are worrisome and there might have been attainable actions to mitigate against the worst of these effects, but now its too late and it's all the fault of climate scientists, not those in denial of the science.
And so another GWPF noise stooge who gets his version of climate science from economists, miners, sport consultants, TV presenters and accountants arrives with his freshly dug up pile of zombie arguments and projections.
It's like 2005 all over again.
I don't suppose there's any connection with knocking uncomplimentary posts about other more newsworthy GWPF stooges off the recent posts list?
The Jonases are a busted flush who have said nothing in a 1700 posts thread, and likely never will.
RIP Jonases.
Korkskallar håller låda. Haha.
luminous beauty #1700
Duh, what does your list have to do with "climate denial"? By definition, "climate denial" means that you deny there is a climate. I thought English was your first language.
chek
Oh, so you know me? If not, how do you, a fucked up foil hat, know where I get my information?
Jonas,
That wasn't the subject, troll. And that particular subject is closed for you. You were asked what the contradictions in luminous' comments were. You could not point out a single one. In any civil and rational discussion, the subject is then closed. That you are still whining about it now proves that you're not interested in such a discussion.
But do keep on handwaving, it's very impressive.
I haven't reviewed every single letter of your back and forth with luminous, because I did not have to. Again, you were asked to point out any problems with his arguments, and you were unable to. So you admitted that there wasn't anything wrong, and I'm simply agreeing with you.
Oh goodie. I feel another "Jonas makes a fool out of himself because he cannot read" episode coming.
Sweetheart, I thought you didn't need to call people stupid? Sad to see that delusional high horse go...
Sometimes? Sometimes?!
Yes, by all means take my exasperation at GSW's insistence that the velocity of the hand can be different than the velocity of the box and show the world you didn't understand a single word of it.
Oh yes, let's pretend that this wasn't addressed. Let's really hope that people cannot scroll up. Let's wait a few days and ignore substantive parts of the conversation and claim victory.
See #1490, see #1500, see #1519, see #1538.
I do. You do not seem to understand what is being said by 'if you're pushing the box, the velocity of the hand is the same as the box by definition -- so bringing it up as a separate variable is idiotic'.
You've been repeatedly asked to name one. You haven't. Stop lying. And you calling anyone long-winded is the most blatant display of lack of self-awareness I have seen in my entire life. You are sick in the head, Jonas.
PentaxZ:
Please, go read this rebuttal before you say anything else.
Or maybe you can try with Jonas to overcome the pathological fear of answering a simple question, like, oh, what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?
pentaxZ,
The rules of syntax in natural languages may be too hard for you to understand, so allow me to elucidate.
The phrase climate denial is an abbreviated form of the phrase climate science denial.
Calling climate science a religious belief is a psychological projection of the denier's unshakable ideological belief system that causes him/her to reject climate science.
Got it?
I don't waste my best arguments on a sack of troll shit like you.
A sack of cherry picking troll shit. If you really think that #1671 is the best argument that I can muster then you are dumber than dirt ... but of course you don't; rather, you are a pathological liar, a pox on humanity as I said.
Why selective perceiver Matt Ridley holds the view he does on AGW.
Ianam has som aces up his sleeve, he says. Very convincing. :-)
What's Ianam's next move? Telling us that his dad is very strong? :-)
Olaus, I hope for your sake that you're 12 years old.
[pentaxZ said:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5715089) Your'e so funny. And it gets even funnier when you read the rest:
You're not kidding, sunbeam.
Well shucks, poor ol' gullible you.
And so you verified this information how?
Oh, that's right, you didn't.
Because you wanted to believe.
But luckily for the world, [others did check.](http://deepclimate.org/2010/02/08/steve-mcintyre-and-ross-mckitrick-par…)
McIntyre & McKitrick are charlatans whose uniquely inventive approach to data and maths doesn't withstand scrutiny, and Montford's adoring novel places him as the Bishop Von Daniken or Dan Brown of conspiracy tales. M&M have also cooked previously lauded statistician Wegman's goose in the ongoing investigation into his 2005 Report to the US Congress when he imported their worthless calculations wholesale into the said report and was found out. Watch this space.
[Wrong.](http://www.stanford.edu/~meehan/donnelly/3000ind.html)
The hockey stick is a powerful symbol, which is why so much denier energy is spent in futilely attempting to destroy it and/or Mike Mann.
But it's not the only window into paleoclimate
[Misleading.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm)
Temperatures have risen well-beyond those achieved during the Medieval Warm Period across most of the globe. As ever deniers cherry pick local conditions when the issue is global.
[Wrong.](http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2002/2001PA000724.shtml)
As ever deniers cherry pick local conditions when the issue is global. While temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere were warmer than average during the summers, the tropics and areas of the Southern Hemisphere were colder than average which comprised an average global temperature still overall lower than present day temperatures.
[Wrong.](http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1004/full/climate.2010.29.html)
In fact, observed sea level rise is already above IPCC projections and strongly hints at acceleration while at the same time it appears the mass balance of continental ice envisioned by the IPCC is overly optimistic
[Wrong.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Greenland-ice-loss-continues-to-acceler…)
The average mass loss from Greenland over 2002 to 2011 is 225 billion tonnes per year.
This rate of mass loss has been increasing over the last decade.
[Wrong.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/antarctica-gaining-ice.htm)
Antarctica is losing land ice as a whole, and these losses are accelerating quickly.
[Wrong.](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/327/5963/322.abstract)
"Methane emissions from the Arctic increased by 31% from 2003-07. The increase represents about 1m extra tonnes of methane each year".
[Wrong.](http://www.skepticalscience.com/hurricanes-global-warming.htm)
"The Pew Centre, shows a 40% increase in North Atlantic tropical storms over the historic maximum of the mid-1950, which at the time was considered extreme"
You of course will have some evidence to cite that can distinguish between increasing srorm events and improved forecasting, warning communications and transport since then?
You of course have some evidence to cite that can differentiate between increasing disease vectors and improved WHO eradication programs?
Because believe it or not, a lot of deniers just make shit up.
It's invariably the case that deniers just don't look very hard, a failing which may well be a leading factor in their early extinction.
[PentaxZ then blustered:](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/09/jonas_thread.php#comment-5715751)
What, you think you invented it?
That the same dross that rolls out of the think tanks and into your malinformed brain just gets there by accident?
That the same old selective idiocy hasn't passed across these threads a thousand times before?
Then you really would be even more stupid than first impressions suggest.
Not my first impression; #1683 has several hallmarks of extreme stupidity.
Stu, I'm sure you want me to be twelve years old. If I was, you might have had a chance pulling off your religious stunts. But I'm not, obviously. ;-)
Stu #1704
"what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists?"
Well, non of the "scientists" with the IPCC would I call real scientists. Especially when the IPCC is infiltrated with a shitload of Greenpiss and WWF people. The bias is huge and therefore by definition not real science.
luminous beauty #1705
It's not about syntaxes. It's about alarmists trying to make realists look bad, nothing else. By using "denial" you are trying to project a negative, religious view on climate realists. But it only get back to you self and bites you in the ass.
I myself are not a climate denier, I definitely think there is a climate. CAGW, on the other hand, is completely bogus.
ianam #1706
And of course you mean that alarmists don't cherry pick. Yeah rihgt. How naive and stupid can one get?
chek #1710
Sorry to break it to you, but empirical data clearly shows you're utterly wrong. It doesn't make any difference that you are word pooping. Empirical data is empirical data. The only way around it is to cherry pick. In other words, exactly what the IPCC (and religious fanatics) does.
You alarmists are owned by the empirism, but of course, when within a sect you don't see that.
A nice little film for all you alarmists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?src_vid=8BQpciw8suk&feature=iv&annotation_…
http://www.youtube.com/watchsrc_vid=8BQpciw8suk&feature=iv&annotation_i…
A working link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbR0EPWgkEI
> but empirical data clearly shows you're utterly wrong
What empirical data? Even BEST shows he's correct. Heck, come to think of it, Anthony Watts' work in surfacestations shows chek's right.
Unless you want to claim that Anthony Watts is a stooge of the IPCC...
> Well, non of the "scientists" with the IPCC would I call real scientists.
Hmm. Why does jonarse have a sockpuppet on his own damn thread???
Projection, thy name is pentaxZ.
So have you not read my link @1704, or did you not understand it? Accusing anyone of cherry-picking while pimping a book full of it makes you look a bit silly.
Wow, dear little thing. You know that namecalling equals "I propably got it all wrong, but if I shout loud enough, people will think I'm right"?
Now, what does the empirical data show? Well, a 0,7ºC increase in temperature in 150 years. And that, of course, is very alarming indeed (duh). And the last 10-15 years the temperature rise has paused, although the CO2 levels has continued to rise. If CO2 was such a potent greenhouse gas as you claim, that simply never would happen.
So, I wonder, who is really a denialist?
By the way, amazing. Another spelling-challenged Swede with conspiracy theories about "Greenpiss" and the WWF. What are the odds?
Stu
Well, I don't read "Real"Climate, this stronghold for foile hats, for obvious reasons. And if you claim that the foil hats at RC are without any bias, you are gonna look, not just little, but hilarious funny.
> You know that namecalling equals "I propably got it all wrong, but if I shout loud enough, people will think I'm right"?
Really?
> Well, I don't read "Real"Climate, this stronghold for foile hats...
> Posted by: pentaxZ | November 3, 2011 9:25 AM
or
> You alarmists ...
> Posted by: pentaxZ | November 3, 2011 4:36 AM
or
> ...how do you, a fucked up foil hat...
> Posted by: pentaxZ | November 2, 2011 3:15 PM
Hmmm.
@ # 1714 Pentaxz said: "Sorry to break it to you, but empirical data clearly shows you're utterly wrong. Empirical data is empirical data".
Exactly so, with the qualifier that you have no data. Just a lot of meaningless, anonymous claims you got from economists, miners, sport consultants, TV presenters and accountants. We know this because your whole tired shebang is just standard issue denier tripe, yet again.
Wow, a spelling-challenged Swede, a hypocrite on name-calling, a conspiracy theorist, using the wrong decimal separator. What are the odds?
Wow
Dear little, with sugar on top. When Jonas started to discuss here, how long did it take for you foil hats to begin namecalling him? You obviously set the standard here and you started with it, so what's the problem with me calling you names? It's the ones without arguments who starts it. Now it's simply a question of an eye for an eye, dumb ass.
Stu
Well, I'll tell you the odds when you answer me in perfect Swedish, stupid.
No pretending to be nice isn't going to make your idiotic ravings any more correct and, by your own lights, you have already admitted that your posts are vacuous because you've already been name calling.
Too late, bro.
PentaxZ:
1. CO2 is largely transparent to incoming radiation from the sun.
2. CO2 absorbs a significant portion of the radiation that would otherwise leave Earth.
3. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.
4. Earth's temperature can therefore be expected to increase, unless there is a suitably large negative feedback mechanism.
5. No such feedback mechanism is known.
6. The increased CO2 comes from human activity.
7. Multiple lines of evidence (temperature records, shrinking glaciers and polar ice, sea level rise, ranges of various organisms spreading polewards, borehole data, etc) all point to increasing global temperatures.
Exactly which points do you take issue with and what is your evidence?
Statistics is not your strong point, is it? Given the known variability of global temperatures and assuming a constant increase in temperature based on the previous few decades, what is the probability of observing the last decade's temperatures? The calculation is quite easy to do in a basic manner, yet no denialist seems to have actually done it.
Wow, wow, I'll just copy and paste and you have your answer:
"No pretending to be nice isn't going to make your idiotic ravings any more correct and, by your own lights, you have already admitted that your posts are vacuous because you've already been name calling."
It goes for you for the last, what, 1729 posts or so?
You really know how to smack your self in the face. Great humor. =)
Richard Simons
1. Yes. And?
2. Yes. And?
3. Yes. And ?
4. No, it can't. If you look really up-close at the graphs, you will see that co2 is following the temperature, not the other way around. But that's a fact alarmists so conveniently chooses to not talk about.
5. Of course it's not, because there propably isn't one.
6. A tiny ppm, but the vast majority is non-anthropogenic.
7. No, it doesn't. Perhaps if you were to cherry pick. But not in the real world.
The sun is the king of climate. Nothing else, especially man made has no significant inpact on the climate at all. And I am pretty shure time will prove me right. The climate has always changed. And it will continuing doing so long after we are gone. It's as simple as that.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_a…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_a…
Well, I don't whats with this site and pasting links. But just copy it an paste and it will work.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/
noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim3.gif
> Wow, wow, I'll just copy and paste
Sorry, YOU are the one who insists that name calling means you have nothing.
YOU are namecalling, therefore YOU know you have nothing.
I realise that being consistent is hard for deniers, but you can give it a go, eh?
Småväxt man är högfärdig.
> 4. No, it can't.
Explain why the earth's temperature cannot be expected to increase absent a suitably large negative feedback.
> If you look really up-close at the graphs, you will see that co2 is following the temperature
No, you'd have to also imagine it does that. This is not the case in the real world using the graph. Only in the imagination of a denier can you see what you proclaim.
> 6. A tiny ppm, but the vast majority is non-anthropogenic
Really? So a rise from 280ppm to 400ppm where that 120ppm rise is our activity is a tiny minority?
Ahhh, yes, denial. Not just a river in Egypt.
> 7. No, it doesn't
Yes it does.
> The sun is the king of climate
Since the sun is at a quiet ebb, why aren't we cooler than in any time in the last 100 years??? Or is it the cooler the sun, the warmer the earth in your imagined world?
luminous
> The difference between us is I have the courage to admit when I am wrong
I donât agree. Not at all. I donât even understand what it is you are referring to.
You have âadmittedâ some typos and poor phrasing/formulation. But these have never been the concern. But instead, of all the severe and serious errors you have made (and many have been really bad), I canât see that you have retracted one single one of them. If you indeed did realize (at least some of) them, you have not acknowledged that here.
Instead, you have argued that Coulomb friction is not applicable, in an attempt to ârescueâ some of your earliest descriptions and âargumentsâ. But there too you started making completely unwarranted claims, inconsistent with your previous statements.
But at least, it was only your understanding of friction that was wrong there, the new physical descriptions of it, with which you wanted to replace everything that is known and accepted as a good 1.st approximation, didnât violate physics, only invent new âempirical observationsâ (had they been correct).
Regarding Tamino: I made some very minor pointers, not really challenging any of the calculations (I donât think they are wron), only pointing to his skewed interpretations, and inconsistence wrt to âstatistically significantâ or not. And I did this because I hoped that he would dig in deeper if he felt questioned. And he did, wrote some quite stupid statements. And cannot allow that this is pointed out anymore.
Your comment about my comment there is nonsense (I have not mentioned GCMs there, and those are not any part of my objection). And I never said that GCMs are only regressions. Why make such stupid statements? You are again waiving your arms in your own mist â¦
Itâs like the many immature kids here, shouting, hollering, name calling .. making things up etc ⦠thatâs what theyâre good at. And not much more. When challenged, or just informed about what they are missing, it all crumbles to some quivering smoking pile of frustrated unreleased emotions, nothing more . One of them has, I think, called me âan idiotâ at least 20 times (probably much more) and then tells me:
> The difference between us is I have the courage to admit when I am wrong
From person who cannot apply simple calculus correctly to 1D differential equations he has (correctly) copied from Wikipedia or such ..
Your #1700 is just childish, empty and uniformed talking points, posturing. But probably more your level â¦
pentaxZ,
The difference between you and Wow is that Wow makes no pretense about name calling being any kind of determining factor for the strength of an argument.
The fact that you make such claims for others' arguments, while justifying your own breaches, makes you a hypocritical mimophant and reinforces the conclusion that you are projecting your own cognitive dissonance; i.e., your inability to reason clearly about facts your mind rejects as untenable within your tightly held ideological belief system.
As does your grand hand-waving gesture of empirical facts not supporting climate theory. You are just making things up to preserve those pseudo-rational beliefs in which your ego has been highly invested.
You are too pathetic to derive much schadenfreude from your stupidity, so no smiley face for you.
Trouwens, waarom ik deze achterlijke kuttekop een antwoord geef dat hij niet verdient heeft, geen idee...
> I donât even understand what it is you are referring to.
No change there.
> But instead, of all the severe and serious errors you have made (and many have been really bad)
But what are they? Most if not all of your complaints that someone has the physics really wrong have been because you want to insist your incorrect version is the correct one, which means that the correct version has to be wrong.
> it was only your understanding of friction that was wrong there
Irony. Not just for iron.
WARNING: for new(er) people, before engaging Jonas @1738, please be aware that he has his own definitions of "model", "science" and "statistics" that change over time.
Stu
Lege vaten maken de meeste geluid.
Stu
So you (who claim to âhave studied physics for six yearsâ) not only say you
1.Have seen nothing wrong with luminousâ many attempts, but also
2.Have not seen one single one of the many errors and contradictions I have pointed out !?
And on top of that, you think you have a devastating point with your pushing of a box!?
Seriously? Six years, and you cannot even read, far less comprehend, not even the simplest things?
And no I never did call you stupid, I donât think I need to, I donât think itâs necessary at all, not the least little bit â¦
:-)
Wow #1737
1. Well, where is the supposed large negative feedback? It's typical for you alarmists to move the goal posts whenever it fits you. If the climate doesn't behave as your models predict, you just invent a feedback. Positive or negative, what ever fits the situation.
2. Firstly, I doubt your numbers are correct. And secondly, for comparison, how much of the atmosphere contains water vapor? But of course, the co2 must at least be a couple of trillions more potent as a "green house gas" than ordinary water vapor.
3. What has the suns temperature to do with anything? If you really don't know how the sun is controling earths temperature it's no point discussing it. Ignorance is a bliss, isn't it?
luminous #1739
Oh, I think I will survive without a smiley.
"Wow makes no pretense about name calling being any kind of determining factor for the strength of an argument."
Really? I mean really? Jeez, you people really are in the blue. Woo-woo humor.
> Well, where is the supposed large negative feedback?
That is what we're asking you, idiot.
You say it can't be warming. Where, then is the sufficiently large negative feedback to counter the effects you agreed existed in the list Richard Simmons gave at points 1, 2 and 3.
> What has the suns temperature to do with anything?
So you propose that the sun's temperature has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth.
Oh deary me.
> Have not seen one single one of the many errors and contradictions I have pointed out !?
What one would you like to propose as a single one of those errors or contradictions you pointed out be?
Wow,
I have several times asked people here in general, if there is any one among them who actually knows sufficiently much of freshman level physics to see how many laws and principles luminous has violated (or just observed some of them)
No one has stepped forward. And I can (kinda) understand the reluctance to voice those objections and the desire to avoid such extreme embarrassment.
I still think (hope) there must be some among the regulars who has at least passed undergraduate science degree including freshman physics, and who still remembers some of it. (The alternative would be 'It's worse than we ever thought and imagined possiblöe' in the climate scare crowd)
But it is also funny that quite a few actively joined in, cheering on luminous, dearly (desperately?) hoping that he would be in the right.
Stu (with six alleged years of stuidied physics) has already revelaed and confirmed that he has learnt absolutely nothing. And I never expected you to understand more than him. But thanks for confirming explicitly that you too failed already at the simplest level.
As I have told so many of you before: Guessing will land you in the wrong spot most every time, and even when you for once guessed right, you would still be right for the wrong reasons ..
> I have several times asked people here in general...
Was this one of the "many errors and contradictions I have pointed out !?" ?
Note: I didn't ask for a whine like a pouty three year old from you. I asked:
> What one would you like to propose as a single one of those errors or contradictions you pointed out be?
Now if you're unable to do so, then please say so.
Wow (and Stu .. and luminous too)
This is really funny. All of you say that you don't see what's wrong with many things of luminous claims (one even makes those claims by himself, as his best effort to .. well I don't know why, and for what)
But not only can't you see how terribly wrong he got it quite often, you also confess that you cannot even see what is wrong **after** I point out, repeatedly, explicitly, with words, with equations, with simple empirical experiments .. where things go so wrong.
That is quite a feat, dear gentlemen, especially among a crowd that incessantly laments about how they are the ones on the side of 'the science'
OK, was THAT one of the examples of "one of the many errors and contradictions I have pointed out !?" that you've got?
No?
> you cannot even see what is wrong after I point out, repeatedly, explicitly
Except you don't seem to be able to point out what is wrong any more.
Why is that?
Wow
I know things are difficult for you. But (just) in case you didn't know:
Comments above, under which it says: "Posted by: Jonas N" are posted by me. And such posts which start with (or contain early on) a 'luminous' are addressed at .. yes you guessed it ... at 'luminous'!
If this is still too difficult for you (and I know it is), you may want to search [Ctrl F] for 'violated' to find where I first pointed out ... yes, congratulations, you guessed right again: ... that luminous **violated** simple physics.
Darn, that comment #1754 was by me too, of course.
I did know that. Apparently Jon too. Maybe a few others as well.
So, you still can't point out one example of something you've pointed out is wrong.
Why?
Did you not know what you said?
Can you not find one?
Or is the problem that if we find one example put down plain that we can show you incorrect and that you require to remain unspecific in the traditions of every good Gish Gallop?
Wow #1747
Who's an idiot? If you don't get it; I'm not the least worried about one or two degrees rise in temperature. Or ten degrees for that matter. And, I don't for a minute think that rising CO2 levels will cause AGW or CAGW. The facts simply doesn't support that view. The potency of CO2 as a greenhouse gas is so minor that it's in fact neglible. I don't need any feedbacks at all. You do, othervise your precious models won't fit in to the real world. I know my english isn't perfect, but that really isn't to hard to understand, I hope.
> Who's an idiot?
You.
I had thought this would have been obvious after you asserted that the Sun's temperature has no bearing on the earth's temperature.
> The facts simply doesn't support that view.
So increasing temperatures don't support the idea that temperatures are increasing???
> Who's an idiot?
You.
> And, I don't for a minute think
We noticed.
>But not only can't you see how terribly wrong he got it quite often, you also confess that you cannot even see what is wrong after I point out, repeatedly, explicitly, with words, with equations, with simple empirical experiments .. where things go so wrong.
I'm the only one who has conducted any simple empirical experiments, the results of which show that simple coulomb friction is an inadequate model to fully explain dry friction for quite ordinary conditions. A point you conceded.
Any more guff from you and I'll sic my lawyers, Squeal, Chatter and Grab, to file an injunction against you for falsely impersonating a scientist.
Luminous, you are wrong about the friction. And the violation of physics were not your use of a previously unheard of novel friction model, furthermore a model wich contradicted your initial (wrongful) claim about **constant friction**, they were much worse ..
And if you truly believe that you are "the only one who has conducted any simple empirical experiments" you are in dire need of help
Wow #1758
Of course the suns temperature effect earths temperature. But the suns temperature is quite stable, the variations are too small to effect earths climate. So, it's not the suns temperature that causes the shifts in the climate. I thought you, beeing so darn smart, would understand that. But, of course, as the alarmist you are, you thought you made a fool out of me. Sorry to dissapoint you, but you missed the goal completely.
Who's the idiot, stupid?
Jonas,
I am the only one involved in this discussion who has reported the results of his/her experiments.
One would be mistaken to infer I make any such claim for such about the greater world. But Jonas doesn't make mistakes!
>Luminous, you are wrong about the friction. And the violation of physics were not your use of a previously unheard of novel friction model...
[Check](http://virtual.cvut.cz/cemlibmodules/SPaDzwepX43Jzg8w.html) and [Mate.](http://virtual.cvut.cz/cemlibmodules/xaDfwXzP17DTlLFy.html)
A question, in what way does present days variation in temperature differ from past times?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/12/noaa_gisp2_icecore_a…
I just have to copypaste this.
"All of you out there across the globe who have fought so hard to
tackle the hideous enemy of our planet, namely carbon emissions, you know
â¦â¦. that bogus god you worship of âClimate Changeâ or âGlobal Warmingâ ?
â¦â¦. well, I feel it is necessary to inform you of some bad news.
It really does pain me to have to bring you this disappointing information.
Are you sitting down?
Okay, hereâs the bombshell. The current volcanic eruption going on in
Indonesia (Gunung Merapi) since its first spewing of volcanic ash has,
in just 1 week, NEGATED EVERY SINGLE EFFORT you have made in the past
five years to control CO2 emissions on our planet â all of you.
The volcano in Iceland recently took just 4 days to achieve similar
results.
Of course you know about this evil carbon dioxide that we are trying
to suppress â itâs that vital chemical compound that every plant requires
to live and grow and to synthesise into oxygen for us humans and all
animal life.
I know, I knowâ¦. (group hug)â¦itâs very disheartening to
realise that all of the carbon emission savings you have accomplished
while suffering the inconvenience and expense of: driving Prius hybrids,
buying fabric grocery bags, sitting up till midnight to finish your kidâs
âThe Green Revolutionâ science project, throwing out all of your non-green
cleaning supplies, using only two squares of toilet paper, putting a
brick in your toilet tank reservoir, selling your SUV and speedboat,
vacationing at home instead of Bali, nearly getting hit every day on your
bicycle, replacing all of your $1 light bulbs with $10 light bulbs â¦well,
all of those things you have done have all gone down the tubes in just a few
days.
The volcanic ash emitted into the Earthâs atmosphere in just four days
-
yes â FOUR DAYS ONLY, by that volcano in Iceland, totally erased
every single effort you have made to reduce the evil beast, carbon. And
there are around 200 active volcanoes on the planet spewing out this crud at any one time â EVERY DAY.
Oh, I donât really want to rain on your parade too much, but I should
mention that when the volcano Mt. Pinatubo erupted in the Philippines
in 1991, it spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than
the entire human race had emitted in its entire existence on earth. Yes
folks, Mt. Pinatubo was active for over one year â think about it.
Of course I shouldnât spoil this touchy-feely tree-hugging moment and
mention the effect of solar and cosmic activity and the well-
recognised 800-year global heating and cooling cycle, which keeps happening, despite our completely insignificant efforts to affect climate change..
Iâm so sorry. And I do wish I had a silver lining to this
volcanic ash cloud but the fact of the matter is that the bush fire
season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years.
And it happens every year.
Just remember that your government just tried to impose a whopping
carbon tax on you on the basis of the bogus âhuman-causedâ climate change scenario.
Hey, isnât it interesting how they donât mention âGlobal
Warmingâ any more, but just âClimate Changeâ â you know why? Itâs
because the planet has COOLED by 0.7 degrees in the past century and these global warming snake-oil artists got caught with their pants down.
And just keep in mind that now that you will have an Emissions
Trading Scheme â that whopping new tax imposed on you, that will achieve
absolutely nothing, except make you poorer. It wonât stop any volcanoes from erupting, thatâs for sure!"
I actually think he's wrong about the temperature the last century. It has gone up 0.7 degrees. But you get the point, I hope.
What shall we do with all volcanos? Should we tax them for putting ridiculous amounts of "greenhouse" gases in the atmpsphere?
Owngoal luminous, several actually ...
But I knew you were a wikipedia/google warrior ..
And your violations of the laws of Newton and general physics still were not related to your (late) use of trying to redefine what friction model you said you were using, they came long before ..
Those links confirm what I have said from early on! On many levels. And the physics they describe concur with what I described (and contradict yours)
You would realize that if you'd mastered the laws of motion ..
You have been (almost) check mate since you first screwed up, and definitely once you decided to try saving face by going further and further in the wrong direction, hoping to find some magical cure making it all go away!
I suspect that pentaxZ is a double-troll: somebody pretending to be a denialist troll in order to make denialists look even worse. (That must be difficult.)
Andy S
Your'e so funny.
But in fact, if Gunung Merapi in one week was putting out in the atmosphere the eqvivalent of five years worth of "green house" gases, whats gonna happend now? And what will we call the warming? Because it's clearly not antrophpogenic. CNGW? Haha...
pentaxZ, @1732:
pentaxZ, @1762:
pentaxZ, @1765:
Seriously?
Just in case somebody would take pentaxZ's copy-and-paste seriously (it is the kind of stuff you may find double-posted at David Icke's forums): here is the US Geological Survey on volcanoes.
Stu #1769
Seriously what?
You do know that the sun radiates other rays than just the wisible ones? And that the dark spots are magnetic storms? Are you totally under or what is it? Are the two cells up there not co-working?
Jonas:
Kinda, yes. GSW argued that when pushing a box, the velocity of the box and the velocity of the hand are independent variables. You've been defending that viewpoint. As long as you do, it is pretty safe for us to discard anything you write that is anywhere remotely related to physics.
But do carry on and tell us more about the Physics of The Force.
This is where pentaxZ gets to explain the influence of sunspots on the Earth's climate.
Jonas,
Does not the assertion that the force of friction is constant for all velocities greater than zero ring any bells?
You were wrong, Jonas, in spite of all your sly side-stepping away from the subject and pretending you can hide your shortfalls behind wildly waving hands.
Andy S#1770
Yadayada. The fact, the undesputed fact, is that we humans don't know much about the climate. We can make more or less educated guesses, but we don't know for sure. And the ones who knows least are the IPCC. Because they don't act upon empirical, independent science. They have a political agenda. And that is bad, really bad.
Keep up the good work, pentaxZ!
Stu #1773
And no, Stu, he isn't.
I wonder, how come you are så sertain about your view on the climate when you don't have the facts on the latest science? Isn't that sitting on a high horse? You aren't cherry picking, are you?
By the way,
So is it safe to assume you wouldn't consider climate scientists that agree with the IPCC's conclusions real scientists either?
Okay, refusal to back up blatant assertions. pentaxZ, you're running out of steam here... and your initial Gish gallop was so promising, too!
Andy S #1767
Interesting conspiracy theory ..
Mind if I ask you whether the opposite is conceivable here?
I mean, if you'd think that somebody of the commenters here poses as a climate threat supporter, but isn't really, and just posts gish gallop in order to make the climatically anxious look bad and ill informed?
Whom would be the first you'd suspect here? And then the second etc?
Because I agree, if the saner part of the crowd here could denounce, or just distance itself from some of the more vociferous .. as being imposters (or just possible ones), I'd say that it would improve this site's appearance considerably.
I can't carry all that burden alone, you know ...
Stu #1778
No, that's not what I mean, and you know it. The thing is,outside the IPCC there is no konsensus on the AGW. There are pros and cons, like it should be. But (hopefully) their view on the issue is purely scientific and not biased by the present dogma. A huge difference in confedence.
What the hell, Jonas? Do you actually know what a Gish gallop is? Did it just look good to you? Could you please stop using terms you're insufficiently familiar with? These include "science", "math", "friction", "evidence", "argument", "model" and a few others.
Oh, and even our new bestest snowflake PentaxZ could take a stab at answering our long-lingering, burning question, so why can't you Jonas? With your towering intellect, why can you not simply tell us what percentage of climate scientists you consider real scientists? You have the number in your head... all you need to do is share it with us so we can all bask in the glory of your superior judgement.
*head explodes*
So you would say that 97 percent of scientific experts agreeing that climate change is "very likely" caused mainly by human activity is not a "konsensus"?
Stu #1779
No, dear, I'm not refusing anything. I'm urging you to keep your self up to date on the latest science. But, that might be too much for you, I know. Weird allthough, since you seems to live in some of the benelux countries and not on a far, far away prison colony. ;-)
Sorry Stu, but you are sadly misinformed. There is no 97% konsensus outside the IPCC. That's a factoid, nothing else.
I just linked you a PNAS survey that came up with that 97% figure. What exactly are you having a problem with here? Or are you saying that PNAS is in on the conspiracy too?
pentaxZ,
On your silly volcanic CO2 emissions claim, reality seems to disagree with you.
Wow, a spelling-challenged Swede, a hypocrite on name-calling, a conspiracy theorist, using the wrong decimal separator, having serious delusions of grandeur, with a mythical real or latest science only he is privy to, and with a penchant for using smileys for no reason whatsoever. What are the odds?
Rattus Norvegicus
It was no claim from my part, just a copypaste. My point is that CO2 is emitted from many natural sources. The antrophogenic part is neglectible.
Stu
What are you whining about about? As said, empty bins rattles the most.
http://sppiblog.org/news/the-97-consensus-is-only-75-self-selected-clim…
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/conse…
By the way, Stu. I'm a Slowenian Swede, if we shall be picky.
luminous
>Jonas,
>Does not the assertion that the force of friction is constant for all velocities greater than zero ring any bells?
Yes, it does ring a bell. It is what is understood as **constant friction**, it the appropriate description of what we have been talking about, it is what I described and clarified in the first post after you got it wrong. It is what is understood as dry or kinetic friction. And these are both the terms you (correctly) introduced when you wanted to clarify what you meant and described.
And not only that: What your [(second) link](http://virtual.cvut.cz/cemlibmodules/xaDfwXzP17DTlLFy.html) describes is explicitly something else than 'dry friction'. It introduces the term 'liquid friction' as the mechanism modifying 'dry friction' so that speed becomes a factor.
And not only that: It explicitly describes sliding under conditions of **lubrication**, which of course is very relevant in engineering. And very distinctly different from dry friction. And I had addressed that already in #1602. And also called it viscous losses there.
And not only that: Your link specifically calls this 'viscosity η', which describes the additional phenomenon which has those required properties.
And not only that: Already in my first comment on the matter #1484 (and repeated in #1205), I explained that what you needed (and described) was viscosity and not dry or constant friction.
And not only that: I specifically pointed out that (linear) viscosity has that property, that opposing force is proportional to speed. As it correctly states under Figure 4.5 in your link.
And not only that: I had already, days earlier in #1093, told you that such (viscous) damping is another phenomenon giving you negative feedbacks too.
And not only that: I already addressed in #1610 that modelling of friction, relevant to our 'discussions' would introduce different modifications to Coulomb friction before your (much needed) liquid or 'viscous' friction would come to the rescue (if you (#1236, 1249)/I had not explicitly excluded that long ago):
>And I could of course teach you a lot about friction too, and what simplifications are implicit in the very common use of Coulomb friction, what refinements are made if one looks for a more advanced description, what problems arise when numerically modelling constant friction, and more advanced descriptions
So no. Not at all. I was not wrong. But you were. Once more! As you have been every time you've tried contradicting me. Trying ever new approaches and links to get out of the mess you are already in. But instead making it even worse. As I have already told you in #1615:
You are utterly incompetent wrt to physics, the laws of motion, describing physics, understanding statistics, simple calculus, and (from what I can tell) every other topic you've ever attempted to take a stance on. Completely and utterly out of your league. Not even when you are given the correct answers, explanations to your descriptions can you recognize them, but instead continue to try to fight them with utter unphysical nonsense. Making your position worse for every attempt.
And please note: Not one single comment of yours is my responsibility. You can't even claim that I have provoked you make them. Forced you into your state of denial of elementary physics.
You went there all by your self, even when I tried to guide you out of your mess.
And still, you are one of the few here even daring to argue the facts and referring to the laws of physics. It is indeed a surreal experience reading what people come up with on this site ..
Stu
Do I interpret your comments correctly to mean that you
1. Have not found anything wrong with all the many things that luminous has posted wrt to the laws of motion, friction and Newtonian mechanics? And
2. You have not found any comment by my where I contradicted luminous' many postings on the matter, detailing that and where he was wrong, and why?
Is that a correct assessment of your position?
(It seems to coincide with Wow's position, and your understanding of physics seems to coincide with his too .. )
What are the odds?
Fairly high, I'd say the model we're seeing here is of a devious, middle-aged crank grooming a coop-ful of adoring teens-to-twenties chickens and feeding them a heady mix of conspiracy to explain their low achieving horizons, and who come clucking to the rescue on cue or femand as required. 'It's not your fault kids - it's da woyld'.
Probably on the same Scandinavian outreach mailing list of Monckton's as Anders Breivik, and too stupid themselves to realise that not only is Monckton an idiot, but a demonstrably stupid, vain, [incompetent,](http://altenergyaction.org/Monckton.html) idiot [liar.](http://climatecrocks.com/2011/08/10/more-monckton-lies-deranged-nationa…)
As I've said very many times: I think that you (and many more) use the best arguments you have (left)
Several months ago, you stated that you believed that John Mashey had a valid point (and I believed that this was a sincere statement of yours)
Since then, you have not really made any other points than that there must be something very wrong with every person who doesn't agree with you.
I know for a fact that this position is so wrong, it's not even worth starting to argue with it.
Bringing up Anders Brejvik to win an argument about climate, whether it is politics or science ... just doesn't seem like a very bright idea, regardless from which perspective you approach the topic.
PentaxZ:
his copypaste @1765:
*sigh*
If only someone actually did the math on this...
Which emits more carbon dioxide (CO2): Earthâs volcanoes or human activities? Research findings indicate unequivocally that the answer to this frequently asked question is human activities. However, most people, including some Earth scientists working in fields outside volcanology, are surprised by this answer. The climate change debate has revived and reinforced the belief, widespread among climate skeptics, that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities [Gerlach, 2010; Plimer, 2009]. In fact, present-day volcanoes emit relatively modest amounts of CO2, about as much annually as states like Florida, Michigan, and Ohio.
But Pinatubo! Right! PI-NA-TU-BO!
On average, humanityâs ceaseless emissions release an amount of CO2 comparable to the 0.01 gigaton of the 1980 Mount St. Helens paroxysm every 2.5 hours and the 0.05 gigaton of the 1991 Mount Pinatubo paroxysm every 12.5 hours. Every 2.7 days, they emit an amount comparable to the 0.26 gigaton preferred estimate for annual global volcanic CO2 emissions.
Oh, wait.
So quick! Do the Swedish two-step!
"I just copied and pasted it, and my point was something else" is a pathetic dodge after you got called on being horribly wrong.
When I give you a link, it helps to actually read the thing before you attempt to refute it:
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97â98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
So no, it's another study, and you are again horribly wrong.
By the way, referencing Monckton's pet project is a bad idea if you hope to be taken seriously. Friendly tip. I read the "rebuttal" to this PNAS study, and it's one long "Greenpeace! Conspiracy! Money!" whine that concludes that you cannot trust scientists because... they are scientists. I think. It's not very coherent. Funny though.
Jonas:
I see that you've actually attempted to point out where your beef with luminous's comments were. Good man; only took you a week or two since you were first asked plainly to do so.
However, at this point I don't really feel like going back through both your and luminous's comments from scratch to figure out who went off the rails and where... as long as you adhere to the Physics of The Force, I feel confident that the entire thing has passed you by on failure to read for comprehension alone.
Besides, why should I put in effort when you cannot be bothered to answer one simple question? Just one? You know the one, Jonas: what percentage of climate scientists do you consider real scientists?
Jonas:
As it is YOU who is arguing with established science, the onus is on YOU to provide evidence. Nothing you have brought up has withstood even cursory scrutiny. You're out of arguments, spending your time whining about friction, avoiding questions, playing the victim and being pathologically passive-aggressive.
Unless you actually have something new and relevant to add to the discussion, you might as well answer my question.
Yonas,
The part you didn't read:
>Careful experiments reveal, that there are no discontinuities in the measured friction-force characteristics in reality. Besides that it was found, that near zero velocity, friction is a continuous function of displacement.
You could start Jonas by deconstructing that pile of shat-out tripe that is Monckton here and now for the benefit of your chickens. Any of his claims that tampaxZ referenced will do.
Don't worry it won't be anything new here and should be a walkover for a man of science like wot you keep telling us you are.
Stu
>I see that you've actually attempted to point out where your beef with luminous's comments were. Good man; only took you a week or two since you were first asked plainly to do so
Those comments have been available for several weeks. For everybody to see, to read, and possibly to object to. If one were so inclined ..
Not only have they been visible all the time, they have been the core matter of the 'discussion' with luminous.
I never expected you to neither read nor comprehend any of that. And you don't need to go through any of the comments for the last weeks. It's much simpler than that:
Whatever I've said has been correct, to every detail, and the preconditions have been stated formally and correctly, and whenever luminous decided to contradict me, he has been wrong, and many times badly so. And (I believe) you have no method to decide that on your own, other than faith. And thus, your best strategy would be to bet your faith onto my statements .. and you would have been right every time, if only by pure chance (ie blindly guessing)
"just doesn't seem like a very bright idea, regardless from which perspective you approach the topic.
Who knows how many of your Icke-following, Monkton-spouting, konspiracy-lovin' young chickens might recognise similarities in their respective profiles?
Only the more intelligent ones I grant you, but hey ho.
Greater good and all that.
As long as you're still defending GSW's lunacy, you'll forgive me if I don't even bother looking into claims from a proven liar, Jonas.
luminous
Whatever you now come up with doesn't save you from all of your earlier f*ckups. Not even close ...
You need to realize that I know far more than you, also about this topic ... and that denying this will get you in the same trouble as every previous attempt.
It's your call again. Do you wanna bet against me once more? After all your previous failures? (I know that you don't know, that you are only guessing .. )
Sweetheart, your delusions of grandeur are showing again.
Stop avoiding the previous question Jonas.
Or are you another one so deficient that Monckton makes perfect sense to you?
Quid pro quo before demanding of others.
A short summary such as, oh I don't know ... "Monckton is batshit insane and only the stupidest of cretins would believe a single word of his" or similar will suffice. Like any 'man of science' would feel compelled to do.
Tu quoque is a self-defeating fallacy. And in this case you couple it with projection and putting words in my mouth. No, moron, I do not mean that, I mean what I wrote, that Jonas is a sack of cherry picking troll shit ... which your comment implicitly confirms.
I must admit that I do not have the talent to emulate your naivety, stupidity, or intellectual dishonesty.
According to you, it indicates "I propably got it all wrong, but if I shout loud enough, people will think I'm right".