Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 14861 - 14880 of total 17219 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 20, 2014 - 11:21pm PT
the web page you are quoting from is from the 2000 paper which I cited first in my response above...

Further details regarding this study were published by T. Delworth and T. Knutson of NOAA/GFDL in the 24 March 2000 issue of Science (vol. 287, pp. 2246-2250).

you apparently can't read, which will make it even harder to answer your question.

once again, you are defining what is not evidence, apparently the word "could" makes any statement not evidence.

what is evidence?
raymond phule

climber
Oct 21, 2014 - 01:36am PT

show sept 2014 , as well as the whole year to date, no where near the hottest month or year on record. Not even close, not even among the top 5 hottest years of the recent past.

You talk with certainty about things that you don't know as usual. I guess that you are going to start to ignore also UAH after the fact that this year is in the top 3 hottest years to date also for UAH according to my analysis.

I really don't understand though that you could trust in UAH. The satellites used are NOAA satellites...
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 21, 2014 - 05:12am PT
At least Chiloe admitted he lied, however cleverly he thought he termed his response.

Was that another cartoon playing in your head?
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Oct 21, 2014 - 05:31am PT
Why cannot these moron warmists understand that there has not been any warming is the last 17 years!

CO2 is not your ally. It is your enemy.

Maybe try sending a text to the Sun. Google the link.
Convince our star to crank up its output to support your
silly hoax.




k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 21, 2014 - 06:42am PT
The word "COULD" is not in any way shape or form considered "evidence".
    The Chief

The quoted text basically says: It could be this or maybe that. The results of the present study clearly demonstrate "we really don't know."
    Sketch


Further proof that neither of you know how to read scientific papers.


Yes, "it could be this, or it could be that. But, we're pretty sure it's this, with some small variations. We need more research to pinpoint."

Remember, the question is about the early 20th-centruy warming, not today's climate.


So it's clear that you will not accept scientific papers as evidence--yet you continually use cherry-picked scientific "evidence" to bolster your beliefs.

Amid overwhelming scientific evidence, by an international community of climate scientists, that shows the current warming is caused by humans, you go with "science" that is non-peer reviewed and published on blogs. This is because it aligns with your personal beliefs, and nothing else. Your evidence has been thoroughly debunked, while you offer nothing to counter the conclusions of the overwhelming majority, and peer-reviewed community.

In other words, you are bozos.





PS. Ed, at the very bottom of the paper that Chiloe quoted, it says:
Updated: Oct. 6th, 2014 @ 1:00 pm
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 21, 2014 - 07:24am PT
you don't have anything, The Chief...

how do you "prove" that the variations are natural?

it is just an assumption of yours, based on you unexamined experience, and your model of the way the climate works that is unverified.

can you give an argument that provides a scale for the magnitude of the natural variations and the period of those variations?

can you identify the contributing factors to those variations?

can you predict the likely response of the climate to those factors?

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:15am PT
Its all in who processes the data Ray. Take NCDC , GISS, and yourself for example. They and you are on a mission to find and broadcast manmade warming. With this overriding bias truth is twisted to fit the agenda.

NCDC's came in at a whopping .04c above the previous record with a .12c margin of error . This level of accuracy was determined despite massive holes in reporting stations including much of Africa, northern Asia, the amazon region of south america , and most of the high lattitude north and south regions of the globe.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 21, 2014 - 08:24am PT
Of course Frosty. We are absolutely scrupulous in finding and presenting the truth and nothing but the truth, so help us god.

EDIT: in another unequivicol sign of cooling, and exposure of CC industry lies, the great lakes water levels are back near normal and the surface temperatures are way, way down going into winter. Good time to invest in shipyards building ice breakers?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 21, 2014 - 09:04am PT
Yeah Chief, ive always appreciated the canadians can do philosophy in finding and actually producing their resources. Even if they have to tear up half of alberta to produce those multi trillion barrel tar sands, and then pipe It halfway around the planet they are going to get it to market. This ,in spite of sqawking from legions of useless citizens like Frosty The Snowman.

EDIT: In defense I submit exhibit A , The malicious, unfounded ramblings of one Frosty The Snowman. We rest our case.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 21, 2014 - 09:21am PT

Its all in who processes the data Ray. Take NCDC , GISS, and yourself for example. They and you are on a mission to find and broadcast manmade warming. With this overriding bias truth is twisted to fit the agenda.

So you believe that an organization like NOAA don't do anything to fake the output data for their satellites? You are so naive.

I am not certain though have your misrepresentations fit into this conspiracy stuff. I used the data found on the Spencer's own webpage to show that what you wrote were incorrect.

To me it seems like you used your own bias to came up with a "truth" that fit your agenda even though it clearly were wrong.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 21, 2014 - 09:24am PT

EDIT: in another unequivicol sign of cooling, and exposure of CC industry lies, the great lakes water levels are back near normal and the surface temperatures are way, way down going into winter. Good time to invest in shipyards building ice breakers?

Do you know that it exist a world outside north America?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 21, 2014 - 09:33am PT
Chief, you are a one man army, a veritable wreckingball plowing through the army of deception and lies of CAGW. Have you considered accepting Koch Bros. funding?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 21, 2014 - 11:36am PT
One small locale on a large planet, you say Ray? Well Phule, that would be fine accept record levels of Antarctic ice, a rising amount of Arctic ice, a rising trend in NH snow cover and duration, mountain glacier advance in parts of Asia , New Zealand, Europe, cooling southern oceans, six out of the last seven winters severe in large parts of the NH, etc etc, says otherwise. Where exactly is this record missing heat going fool? There are now claims it is not settling in the deep seas. All this gives credence to the global temp indices of UAH, RSS, while not supporting NCDC, GISS, etc. You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the body earth puts the lie to data manipulation. Expect another severe winter and deep ice on navigable NH lakes.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 21, 2014 - 11:50am PT
I'd say you can't make this stuff up, but rick finds a way:

in another unequivicol sign of cooling, and exposure of CC industry lies, the great lakes water levels are back near normal


so, rick, how does the level of the Great Lakes correlate with global warming?

It looks like the levels are higher during periods of rapid increase of global mean temperature...

http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/data/dashboard/GLWLD.html

Maybe you could download the data and do an analysis... oh, you can't, never mind.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 21, 2014 - 12:01pm PT
Impressive post. So many errors and bad logic in a paragraph.

"a rising amount of Arctic ice"

Not really, the extent were slightly lower this year compared to last year.

"a rising trend in NH snow cover and duration"

This really doesn't became more true if you say it many times. The duration is definitely shorter.

"mountain glacier advance in parts of Asia , New Zealand, Europe, cooling southern oceans, six out of the last seven winters severe in large parts of the NH, etc etc, says otherwise"

To unclear to say much about. The general trend is the opposite.

"There are now claims it is not settling in the deep seas."

Yes, some research say that the ocean below 2000 m is not warming but the level between 0-2000 m is.

"All this gives credence to the global temp indices of UAH, RSS, while not supporting NCDC, GISS, etc."

Sure, this year so far is only in the top 3 hottest according to UAH. That is really chilly.

"You can fool some of the people some of the time, but the body earth puts the lie to data manipulation. Expect another severe winter and deep ice on navigable NH lakes."

Lets see whats happens this time. You prediction of the arctic sea ice failed with a large margin.

One thing I really doesn't get is how you often don't trust noaa or nasa but when the write something that fit into you world view you seem to believe them. Why?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 21, 2014 - 12:05pm PT
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 21, 2014 - 12:23pm PT
One odd thing about liking UAH and RSS is that even the UAH folks no longer trust RSS. Spencer and Christy suggest RSS applies a model-based correction that has become increasingly inaccurate in compensating for satellite problems affecting their estimates of lower-troposphere temperature -- which gives the RSS series its very noticeable cool bias.

Exactly because of that cool bias, this least accurate of the main temperature indexes has become the denialist favorite. That's all been mentioned here before, but I'll repeat in case anyone wants to forget or ignore it again. Quoting Roy Spencer, with added emphasis to the last sentence because Roy's tongue-in-cheek advice is what his least-bright followers are now doing:

Over the last ten years or so there has been a growing inconsistency between the UAH and Remote Sensing Systems versions of the global average lower tropospheric temperature anomalies. Since I sometimes get the question why there is this discrepancy, I decided it was time to address it.
....
As can be seen, in the last 10 years or so the RSS temperatures have been cooling relative to the UAH temperatures (or UAH warming relative to RSS…same thing). The discrepancy is pretty substantial…since 1998, the divergence is over 50% of the long-term temperature trends seen in both datasets.
....
Anyway, my UAH cohort and boss John Christy, who does the detailed matching between satellites, is pretty convinced that the RSS data is undergoing spurious cooling because RSS is still using the old NOAA-15 satellite which has a decaying orbit, to which they are then applying a diurnal cycle drift correction based upon a climate model, which does not quite match reality. We have not used NOAA-15 for trend information in years…we use the NASA Aqua AMSU, since that satellite carries extra fuel to maintain a precise orbit.

But, until the discrepancy is resolved to everyone’s satisfaction, those of you who REALLY REALLY need the global temperature record to show as little warming as possible might want to consider jumping ship, and switch from the UAH to RSS dataset.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 21, 2014 - 01:24pm PT
Minimum Arctic sea ice extent and area were down slightly this year compared with last, still relatively high for the 2007-2014 period but lower than any satellite observations before 2007.


Sea ice volume was above 2013, but again well below any prior to 2007. So far it's a two-year recovery.


Will Arctic sea ice recovery continue for long? I don't think many scientists believe that; while year-to-year variations show a strong weather signal, the Arctic climate trend is still warming. As evidenced by the huge integrators -- Greenland ice sheet and lesser ice caps, permafrost, glaciers, the Canadian ice shelves. Along with multi-decade observational trends like you get from either graph above.

For non-scientists who see a talking point in this two-year "recovery" ... think that works for surface temperatures too? Because it looks like they've taken off with steep warming if we cherry pick a short scale.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 22, 2014 - 12:25pm PT
Regarding Malemute's second link, there's a characteristically good discussion of this conversation at And Then There's Physics, on whether 2 degrees by 2036 is plausible. Discussion stays mainly on science, with KarSteN contributing an interesting summary about recent trends:

Neely III et al were testing whether increased Asian anthropogenic aerosol emissions have contributed to the observed increase in stratospheric background aerosol. Turns out they didn’t. The increased stratospheric background aerosol is therefore down to recent moderate volcanic eruptions such as Nabro in 2011 and other earlier ones. Definitely a small (and non-negligible) negative forcing.

Most research on anthropogenic tropospheric (Asian) aerosols suggest that (1) their increase was partly counterbalanced by decreasing emissions elsewhere, and that (2) the high Black Carbon fraction led to less surface cooling as it otherwise would have if only sulphate aerosols were involved. So no detectable anthropogenic aerosol forcing in the last decade. Some warming contribution in the 1990’s though (global brightening), after the massive aerosol cooling contribution in the 1960’s and 1970’s (global dimming).

The temperature slow-down is almost entirely due to ENSO, flavoured with a bit of solar and volcanic cooling contribution. The distinct Warm Arctic Cold Continent pattern (WACCy) in NH winter led to an additional detectable temporary cooling contribution in the last 5 years. Whether it’s down to the Arctic sea ice retreat or pure coincidence, we don’t know yet. I am with Cohen et al 2014 who argue for a strong sea ice feedback.


Later in the comments ATTP offers this view about how society will react when things get bad.

In the coming decades we will start seeing a move from “it’s not happening or is not dangerous” to “if only climate scientists had been more trustworthy”. It will always be someone else’s fault.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 22, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
So that means warming has stopped.RIGHT.

As if there were no warming at all.

Yep,the deniers say warming is OVER,JUST LIKE IN 1945.

Totally disproving AGW.

LOL.
NVL
Messages 14861 - 14880 of total 17219 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta