Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2013 - 03:23pm PT
|
Right. It's not a criteria, except for level one which "explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming".
Primary cause. They drop "primary" from levels two and three. Yet you infer 50% was what they meant.
Do you understand that the difference in criteria is how clear their opinion/conclusion are stated?
If you write a paper and write "humans may have caused SOME of the warming since 1950" in the abstract you are clear enough to be put into level 7.
If you write "humans have caused the warming since 1950" you would be put into level 2.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 22, 2013 - 03:44pm PT
|
Wow dave729, you really proved something there:
1. ... back in ancient Greece, you could be a doctor and STILL have no idea how important the heart is.
That's the best they have for showing how wrong scientists are??
No, it gets better:
2. Second-century astronomer Ptolemy's (blatantly wrong) Earth-centered model of the solar system didn't just stay in vogue for 20 or 30 years; it stuck around for a millennium and then some.
Yes, now we're talking how "scientists" thought they proved the Earth was the center of the Universe.
Wow, that's some strong medicine there that shows just how wrong our current climate scientists can be!
3. Laugh or cry (take your pick), but up until the late 19th century, doctors didn't really see the need to wash their hands before picking up a scalpel.
Need I go on?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
|
Ray - Level one is the only level with humans causing most of global warming.
The level one papers account for less than 2% of the papers offering an opinion.
Yet you infer all of levels 1, 2 & 3 support the 50% minimum.
Sorry sketch, I have tried to explain my view to you many times but it is obvious that you are never going to understand or make any argument against what I have said.
I have for example never said that level 2 and 3 definitely support the 50% cut off. I have said that the criteria implicitly include the 50% cut of but that we can't be certain what the authors actually think, i.e. the papers in level 2 and 3 can be put at the wrong level. That is not the same as putting the cut of level at 0% or include "may" and "same" in the abstract.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2013 - 04:07pm PT
|
So, in 29 years, a total of 1500 people max MAY have died globally due to the increase in temps. 1500! (Twice that number of humans died in one day from the 9/11 Attack alone.)
This is a joke, right?
No, it is just a proof that you are an idiot that can't read. The 1500 dead people where for Sweden and globally is usually not the same as Sweden...
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Oct 22, 2013 - 11:59pm PT
|
Yes,lets hear your theory,of some sea ice area,or,most sea ice area.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 01:07am PT
|
Equilibrium in a radiatively imbalanced world can be accomplished through a number of negative feedback mechanisms one of which is melting of sea ice and continental and mountain glaciers. The fact that global sea ice and continental glaciation, on at least the largest accumulation of all on Antarctica is stable or growing, points to the possibility that we are nearing balance ,or at least other negative feedbacks are taking bigger roles.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 01:31am PT
|
There has never been global warming in this short recent era, or mechanisms global in extent that address imbalance (other than expansive atmosphere with more surface area for conductive loss). So ice gain or loss in one hemisphere, as long as it is not both, is of regional cause-usually from positive or negative oceanic cycles. When both hemispheres begin to go the same way you have to wonder if it's the start of a new trend. We are now gaining in both.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 01:40am PT
|
The crux of our differences. You infer something that is not addressed. You conveniently set a fairly high standard, supported by nothing.
Actually, it is addressed... in level one's criteria. It's absence for level 2 and 3 criteria should tell you it's not part of their parameters.
Cant you answer my posts instead of just saying that I am wrong?
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 04:01am PT
|
Owsley "Bear" Stanley died in a car crash in Australia on March 13. Few who knew him would have been surprised if he had chosen to live forever. He managed better than most other people to bend reality to suit his wishes and beliefs.
And he had some weird beliefs. One night in 1983, he came to Phil Lesh's house with a sheaf of maps and delivered a lecture of a couple of hours' duration, explaining how a thermal cataclysm would begin with a storm over Baffin Bay in Canada and suck all the heat out of the atmosphere, rendering most of the planet uninhabitable by humans. He showed us a climate map showing mean temperatures at the peak of the last Ice Age, and pointed to a spot in Australia where there was both habitable climate and land underfoot – and where he already owned property. He had a sheaf of visa applications to distribute to his audience so we could begin the emigration process immediately. Lesh demurred, stating that if this climate-change catastrophe were to take place, he'd climb up onto the ridge behind his then-home and watch it go down. "When your number's oop, it's oop," said someone else, quoting George Harrison.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 07:23am PT
|
You have ignored a lot of what I have written. For example if you really think that putting in words like "may" and "SAME" don't change the meanings of sentences.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 07:25am PT
|
It means the total sea-ice area is in line with it's long term average. It is not below it's long term average.
I see that you are doing a ron. You just look at the last data points and ignore the natural variability and trends.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 08:03am PT
|
And just to simplify this discussion, I'll concede that "may" should not have been used in my definition.
But "SOME" should still be there?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 08:05am PT
|
What's your basis for that claim?
I have already tried to explain that a couple of times.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 08:25am PT
|
Why was it a lie, Sketch?
|
|
Dr.Sprock
Boulder climber
I'm James Brown, Bi-atch!
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 08:59am PT
|
if everybody would quit breathing for 5 minutes we could solve this problem immediately,
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 11:40am PT
|
Global sea ice anomaly makes good talking points although it's not necessarily a key physical parameter. Summer ice minimum in the northern hemisphere, for example, has much greater affect on albedo. But anyway here's the trend in global sea ice anomaly, for the full period of close satellite observation.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Oct 23, 2013 - 11:50am PT
|
Obviously, one good year doesn't mean a trend reversal. But let's not ignore the fact that 2013 is shaping up to be an excellent year for sea ice.
Arctic sea ice loss was held in check. The minimum was almost 50% greater than last year's record low. It was also greater than minimums from six of the last seven years. In the Antarctic, sea ice reached the highest extent recorded in the satellite record.
Like the good years of 2008 and 2009 after the record low 2007 and most people know what happened after that.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!