Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
pyro
Big Wall climber
Calabasas
|
|
Global warming experiment!
37degrees at night lasted 2days.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
how quickly would you expect the snow man to melt, pyro?
do you have any idea?
what was the average melt time 10 years ago?
20 years ago?
etc...
do you know the average duration of the Tioga Pass winter closure had been going down an average of one day per year since the mid 1930s?
why would that be?
|
|
AP
Trad climber
Calgary
|
|
I have watched the Cdn Rockies change dramatically since I started climbing in 1977.
I think the deniers have to get outside and open their eyes.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
In spite of the super El Nino of 2014-2015, the years long release of heat from the huge traveling north pacific warm blob, and the atmospheric CO2 level near to the half point of the feared doubling, the 2016 global temp anomaly (UAH RSS) only exceeded the previous record year of 1998 by .02 of a degree. Can any of you big brained catastrophists please explain why we are not at least .5 degree higher than 1998. The IPCC mid range prediction is 3.0 per century or.3 per decade. So at 1.8 decades why isn't it .54 higher given the slowing of outgoing LWR ascribed to CO2 along with the predicted positive feedbacks?
And forget the phony manipulated graphs.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
IPCC never said it should be .3 per decade now.
Strawman much Sumner?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
You flunked Mono.
Next.
|
|
monolith
climber
state of being
|
|
Support your wild ass claims, Sumner.
You are lying about the IPCC claiming we should be .3 per decade NOW.
BTW, the surface record shows the difference of the peaks to be more like .35c, not .2c
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Can any of you big brained catastrophists please explain why we are not at least .5 degree higher than 1998. The IPCC mid range prediction is 3.0 per century or.3 per decade. So at 1.8 decades why isn't it .54 higher given the slowing of outgoing LWR ascribed to CO2 along with the predicted positive feedbacks?
the accuracy required to predict the climate trends is certainly much higher than your simple minded model with one parameter... this has been known for a long time... in addition, even a 20 year span is a very short time to see the changes against natural variability. As the natural variability is better understood, the predictive powers of the models increases...
the model runs from 4 years ago predict the range of temperature anomalies the various climate data products are tracking in time as shown by the graph:
you can accuse me of producing manipulated plots, but the data I used to make the plots is available to everyone, so you can actually prove your claim by demonstrating it in your own analysis...
...oh, except that you cannot.
So in the end, you are left with an opinion chosen from people you trust, and it is a blind trust as you have no way of verifying what it is they are telling you.
|
|
Srbphoto
climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
I never got what Curry's issues were,
Ed,
From what I read, it isn't as much the science as the behavior of the scientists that she has a problem with.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Oh Dr Wrong.
You mean "the anthropogenic signal is rather feeble compared to the range of natural variation". Right, right.
You also seem to be saying that one cannot ordain the modeled climate on a mere 20 years of weather. So, what is it with offering of graphs of mere decades of direct observations (manipulated and tortured data at that) along with for proof of trends of climate meant to manifest itself in centennial scales? You can't have both ways friend. People are onto that tired old song and dance. People are onto decreases of temp anomalies in historic reconstructions.
|
|
McHale's Navy
Trad climber
From Panorama City, CA
|
|
Can any of you big brained catastrophists please explain why we are not at least .5 degree higher than 1998.
Abnormal melting of polar ice is moderating warming for sure. This will make things more even-keel for quite awhile. The warmer things get, the faster it melts. Once the polar air/water conditioners are gone though, we are gone. It will be exciting for awhile before that though. Drill baby drill!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
The only problem with your thesis, McHale, is that Antarctica has been growing ice mass, Greenland ice mass much above levels of the MWP, and Arctic sea ice mass loss well within the range of historic variability. That leaves mountain glaciation, a tiny percentage of global totals, which are still within the range of historic variability. This is proven by carbon dating of ancient remains as the receding mountain glaciers reveal. What has been proven wrong are the numerous dire predictions and the monotonous rise of temps as result of increasing atmospheric CO2 levels, regardless of the phony graphs built on fudged data presented here by the climate catastrophists.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
You also seem to be saying that one cannot ordain the modeled climate on a mere 20 years of weather. So, what is it with offering of graphs of mere decades of direct observations (manipulated and tortured data at that) along with for proof of trends of climate meant to manifest itself in centennial scales? You can't have both ways friend. People are onto that tired old song and dance. People are onto decreases of temp anomalies in historic reconstructions.
what?
here you have the predictions, rick, with the data trending right along with them... all with various scenarios of CO2 emission...
the models cannot predict volcano activity, so that adds a variability... but not so much apparently... and if I were to plot the latest model runs they probably track better...
The range of the various models are due to the CO2 emission scenarios, clearly there are many scenarios that give us much greater warming than others...
no torture going on here, except your broken-record complainy voice that hasn't changed its tune in years... the temps are still going up, and that is just what we expect.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Totally false Ed. Since the models were just as lousy hindcasting as predicting, the data has been fudged to give some semblance of agreement. Gone in your graph is the pronounced warming of 1910-50 ( which nearly matches the supposed anthropogenic warming of 1975-2000), the pronounced cooling of 1950-75. Didn't you learn anything from The Chief? He showed you true graphs, before adjustments, many times. Games about up. The oceans have released huge amounts of heat, the CO2 levels and magical positive feedbacks failed in their predicted impedance, the sun is going into a prolonged minimum where the unacknowledged, or unknown, negative feedbacks will hold sway, and if that is not enough the new regime appears to be decidedly unfriendly to CAGW science.
You guys had better prey for another super El Nino. Failing this, the signs are all flat to downwards for GTA.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
oh rick, those crayon graphs that The Chief used to put up here?
you're kidding... but then, you couldn't tell the difference, could you... except that you agreed with whatever schtick The Chief was playing here...
and really, you haven't changed at all...
the Sun is "cooling" this entire time and yet the temps go up!
and you have some sort of convoluted reasoning you have to summons to keep your sorry story going, fortunately not based on any science.
but, once again, you cannot actually back up any of your accusations about graph manipulation, can you... you have no idea.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
On the rightly concerning issue of overpopulation in Ca (and in general), this article:
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/politics-columns-blogs/dan-walters/article123894519.html
Slowing immigration and lower birthrates continued to reduce growth in the new century’s first decade and in this one as well – from 2 percent a year in the 1980s to about one-third that rate today.
Foreign immigration has dropped sharply, and we now lose more people to other states than we gain, with Texas the No. 1 destination for ex-Californians.
Most interestingly, the state’s birthrate has declined to 12.42 babies per 1,000 population, down more than a percentage point from 2010 and the lowest in California history.
Meanwhile, the aging of the baby boom generation – the oldest boomers are now 70 – means an increase in the state’s death rate to 6.71 per 1,000.
Births minus deaths, dubbed “natural increase,” still account for more than two-thirds of California’s population growth, but as the gap narrows, it slows growth.
California’s current growth rate, about 0.7 percent a year, is scarcely a third of the nation’s fastest-growing state, Utah, which posted a 2.03 percent gain between 2015 and 2016. It’s also less than half of the rate in rival Texas.
In my mind, this is a very good trend. It would be great to see the state move into the "declining population" category, which I think will happen.
I worry, though, about the concept I'd previously posted about, where public health officials specifically posted about doing things to boost the birthrate through various incentives. That is idiocy.
I've talked about how this can have a dramatic effect in reduction of generational poverty in the big cities (and it is), but I've seen no one write about how this can impact the "rust belt" po' white trash phenominon, but I have to think it could.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
Another interesting trend: Cremation:
http://www.npr.org/2017/01/07/508668016/more-families-choosing-cremation-for-departed-loved-ones
I have always thought that burial is an insane practice. It PERMANENTLY removes land from useful purpose, even preservation, to create an artificial turf-grass area that is basically used for nothing. PERMANENTLY. Look at what we do when we discover native-american burial sites: Preservation!
Damn it, they are dead---they don't care. Spread the ashes in a nice ceremony, take some pictures.
Somewhere around 240,000 Californians die each year. That's a lot of turf-grass generated. Roughly the size of Arlington National Cemetery every two years......
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
I've talked about how this can have a dramatic effect in reduction of generational poverty in the big cities (and it is), but I've seen no one write about how this can impact the "rust belt" po' white trash phenominon, but I have to think it could
So, Ken, for the welfare queens in big cities it's "reduction of generational poverty", while those in the heartland are "po' white trash". You are exhibiting the sort of urban superiority complex that irritates those of us "deplorables" who live in flyover country and makes us thankful for the Electoral College.
And this connects to a major problem I mentioned before: How to separate climate science from political correctness in the minds of large numbers of average Americans. Excessive science preaching doesn't help, nor does bringing in class divisions, race, or sexual orientations.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!