Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 04:41:20 AM

Quote from: TECSHARE on October 16, 2018, 03:35:20 AM

Yet you deny one of the primary tenets of science, that it is never done and new, more accurate information is constantly being added. Doubt is at the core of Science itself. The cartoon simply illustrated your willingness to "have faith" that the people who tell you these things are correct, rather than actually reviewing the information, pro and con carefully yourself to come to a conclusion based on actual empirical data. People thought a lot of stupid things in the 1890's, the fact that the concept has existed for a long time in no way serves to validate the premise.

OK, you want to take the actual empirical data route?

How about this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pyIdwDbtcGs

Or is NASA lying and making up satellite data?

The evidence is out there. For fucks sake I live right on the water and I can tell where this shit is headed. I've visited glaciers. As long as you're looking at the actual planet earth it's evident.

Carbon dioxide traps in heat.

The percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has grown by about 60% during the extremely short timescale of human civilization.

Here is the data for the last few years.

It's been hottest year after hottest year after hottest year. You can doubt all the data of the thousands of meteorological stations across the earth but you can't doubt visible net ice loss.

That shit can be seen from space.

Yes, lets. Again you need to learn the difference between localized or micro climate change and global aka macro climate change. As with the climate itself, ice cover is cyclical. While you are at it look into causality so you can learn the fact that correlation is not the same as causation. Even if your premise of ice loss was a fact this is still not evidence humans are the cause. However even on that premise the results are not clear. Showing me rising C02 levels, even if accurate, does not prove this is the causation of temperatures rising. For all we know it could be the RESULT not the cause, but if you believe hard enough it magically becomes "science", and anyone who is skeptical is equivalent to holocaust deniers. Not religious like behavior at all.

Looks pretty seasonal to me with no clear trend otherwise.

BTW, doubt is the foundation of scientific theory. What you are practicing is basically a "scientific" religion. You get your toadies/socks to merit your posts all you like, it will not give you any more facts to argue with.

Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 04:41:20 AM

You will always attack my arguments, trying to find holes in them but you can never attack the science, not successfully at least.

Yes, if climate change was not a problem, if we had a solution for it I'd say burn baby burn, let's go drill for some oil, count me in. But we're shooting ourselves in the dick if we continue down this path.

Edit: On the NASA study on Antarctic Ice mass.

You pointing out the Antarctic Mass gains study is predictable. The very scientist behind it knew that idiots would spin this the wrong way.

The study is about long term snowfall over 16,000 years and how we interpret data.

Even according to the study you posted here, the rate of increase in ice mass is falling and Antarctica is projected to go well into net loss in 20 to 30 years.

And Zwally's conclusion was as follows:

The good news is that Antarctica is not currently contributing to sea level rise, but is taking 0.23 millimeters per year away, Zwally said. But this is also bad news. If the 0.27 millimeters per year of sea level rise attributed to Antarctica in the IPCC report is not really coming from Antarctica, there must be some other contribution to sea level rise that is not accounted for.

That's what attacking your arguments is. Also you have no science. You have beliefs, theories, and simulations. You don't seem to get basic premises of scientific theory like correlation not equaling causation, or the difference between micro and macro systems. There is a huge gap in your explanation of causality between human activity not only being the CAUSE of rising C02 levels, but the in ability to explain any definite causal links between macro climate change and human C02 output. By a huge gap, I mean you have nothing BTW.

Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 04:41:20 AM

You brought the Antarctic study up, predictably enough, now are you willing to take the analysis of the scientists to it's logical conclusion?

If the Antarctic is actually gaining mass (which is still up in the air until we get better data from ICE sat 2), that means that when it starts contributing to sea level rise (rather than taking away from it) we're going to be in a much worse scenario.

If in total there was no net ice loss, the sea level would be stable.

The same scientists that you trust to interpret the most tentative of data to challenge the total mass gains/losses of Antarctica take the much more solid, easy to measure data of sea level rise for granted.

If you really based your opinion on the data you would do the same.

Of course the scientific consensus is different than that study and the net ice loss of the Antarctic is about 120 gigatonnes a year. But that's only According to NASA.

I'm sure the nuance is killing you.

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/ice-sheets/

Again, learn the difference between correlation and causation. You deem yourself the grand arbiter of what is true and scientific, but you seem to have problems with basic scientific concepts, concepts grade schoolers comprehend.

Quote from: KonstantinosM on October 16, 2018, 04:41:20 AM

I've been interpreting the data for the last 5 years. There's a lot of things we don't yet understand. There's a lot of unpredictability left in the system. But there's also things that are self evident. A self evident fingerprint of anthropogenic climate change.

Increase the CO2, Increase the global temperature. Humans burn fossil fuel, 2ppm more CO2 is in the atmosphere the next year.

Well you have been interpreting data. Good for you. I am sure you are an expert on climate science now. Yes, C02 can increase global temperature, yet there is no empirical data demonstrating this is the ACTUAL total cause. Yes, humans are probably increasing C02 output. Again, you provide no evidence humans are the primary driver of C02 levels rising in the atmosphere, let alone evidence to back your claim this C02 is primarily what is causing climate change.

This is science. You don't just get to skip steps and make assumptions because you believe it fits.