Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 10841 - 10860 of total 28515 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 27, 2013 - 10:07am PT







It's NOT working Scientism Boys and Girls. It truly isn't.



But then the truth IS NOT factored into this deal is it now.



Just your science.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 27, 2013 - 11:49am PT
For Chief Loudmouth, too stupid to realize he's stupid:





Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 27, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
I'm pretty good at figuring people out. What i know of you Ed, is that your belief in the catastrophe's some of the more outspoken are bullhorning about is very thin. At the same time i also know, by deduction, that your allegiance is more towards your fellow scientists, that you have spent a lifetime .......


So sez Rick Sumner. you deduce this? What a pompous ass. By your same astounding deductive powers of reasoning you also deduce that I am a communist / socialist?

deductive reasoning, like intuition, must be validated which no mater what possibility of truth maybe hidden in your knee jerk deductions is where you endlessly go off the rails. you are so smugly confident of your intuited premises that you see no reason to do the work required to validate - only the appearance, which gives you licence to cherry pick.

Here's how Rick thinks:

Ed looks like Jerry Garcia.and no doubt has never raised kids

People like that are selfish narcissists

Ed therefore is a selfish narcissist


No need to validate because I read people good just like I read that asshat Canuck is a commie. No need to validate any of those AGW deniers either because:

A) I,m too lazy old arrogant and dumb to devote 10 years to a degree program and

B). The appearance of knowledge and skill works fine for the crew I hang with.


Yeah we know you deduce all right. too bad your efforts stall out there. for your homework this week start with the deductive reasoning wiki page then proceed to the pompous ass wiki page. There will be a test so get to it.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 27, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
While our politics are in chaos almost as bad as this thread, science still goes on. A good window on new developments continues to be the leading interdisciplinary journal Science. Their 2 August issue has a special section on "Natural Systems in Changing Climates," with new developments and synthesis reviews on topics that hint at the breadth and accumulating knowledge of ongoing research:

Natural Systems in Changing Climates

Once and Future Climate Change

How a Fickle Climate Made Us Human

Out of the Kenyan Mud, an Ancient Climate Record

Can Coastal Marshes Rise Above It All?

Worth a Thousand Words
[about comparing historical with modern landscape photos]

Advancing Seasons in China

Tundra in Turmoil

Tree Line Shifts

Humans Greening a Landscape

Changes in Ecologically Critical Terrestrial Climate Conditions

Marine Ecosystem Responses to Cenozoic Global Change

Climate Change and the Past, Present, and Future of Biotic Interactions

The Future of Species Under Climate Change: Resilience or Decline?

Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security

Climate Change and Infectious Diseases: From Evidence to a Predictive Framework

Ecological Consequences of Sea-Ice Decline
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 27, 2013 - 12:32pm PT
And the 9 August issue of Science has a focus article on wildfires, a topic that sometimes comes up in this thread. It's an interesting read.

Computing a Better Fire Forecast
Eli Kintisch

As climate change threatens to make extreme fires more frequent in the western United States, fire researchers are working to improve computer models that can be used to predict how fires spread and where they might break out. Although improved models are on the horizon, an array of issues is complicating the search for alternatives, from technical debates to the differing cultures of firefighters and academic scientists.
...
A warmer climate will lead to a "higher probability of extreme fire behavior, not in every fire of course, but more often than in the past," predicts forest scientist Steven Running of the University of Montana in Missoula. This new regime will not only tax tactical simulators like FARSITE, but strategic models as well.

Such tools use historic weather data on previous fires to map the probability of fire spread. But existing databases of previous fires are increasingly not representative of the changing climate regime in the western United States, says Krista Gollnick-Waid, a fire analyst with the Bureau of Land Management in Boise. That should raise doubts about results produced by one oft-used strategic modeling tool, called FSPro, she warns: "Analysts need to be aware of the potential for FSPro to underpredict fire spread [and] probability." During her work analyzing a recent fire in southwest Colorado, for example, she found that the blaze traveled farther in 1 day than "what the model said it would go in 5 days." Says Close: "If that's the new normal, we better be ready."

UC Berkeley's Moritz is already grappling with the changing climate of the West. In a 2010 paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, he used roughly a decade of wind and weather information to map the Santa Ana winds across coastal southern California, which dry out landscapes and stoke brushfires into conflagrations. The results were fairly broad but disturbing, highlighting areas that were potentially vulnerable to major fires. "I had fire departments calling me asking whether they could have even finer resolution maps to understand their local risks better," Moritz recalls. Unfortunately, those are still largely unavailable. But he says that the experience highlights the growing demand for better, and more detailed, strategic fire models.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6146/609.summaryhttp://
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 27, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
rick sez:

Long ago i determined that the odds of CAGW effects posing a threat for the future well being of my descendants is near zero.



Let me see if I have this correct... Long ago, you listened to some propaganda that told you not to worry about climate change, and you liked what you heard. That helped you make up your mind that all the scientific studies around the world, made by real climate scientists, were flawed at the root level and that you had no reason to look at them because your mind was already made up.


Pretty laughable.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 27, 2013 - 05:10pm PT
Long ago i determined that the odds of CAGW effects posing a threat for the future well being of my descendants is near zero.
Please show us the calculation you used to determine this.
You know, the math.
Well in your case I guess it would be arithmetic.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 27, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
Ed, exactly what physcical observations and measurements that your "scientists that have done that" have that fit the CAGW hypothesis advanced with ever increasing hysterics since at least the early 1980's?This is considerably more than the two year forecast i tried to pry from you earlier, its 30 years. Seems to me that thirty years is in the realm of the climate change scale.The stated purpose of all the hysterics were for nothing my friend. The severity of the current climate change has been well within the range of Earth normal for the Holocene. Certainly the change was no more severe than the little ice age, the Medieval warm or Roman warm periods (which were quite good for us earthlings and the biosphere i might add), and no where near as severe or as rapid as the cooling of the Younger Dryas or the warming coming out of it. So, as the old saying goes- put up or shut up-where are the matching physical realities to the frightening forecasts?

They don't exist Ed. As it turns out the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 than the attempted "scare science" forecast. Maybe it's time to jump ship, hell your not the captain anyway.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:20am PT
FORTMENTAL/KMAN:

You two are just doomsday sorryass pissing whining liberal shetwads that expects the US Gov't to take over where your mother left off.

Nothing more.

WHINE WHINE WHINE WHINE....


This is what I truly think about your sorryass whining AGW ideology.

FASTER FASTER FASTER.

dirtbag

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:32am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:44am PT
^^^^ And your DIRTBAG sorryass is probably on full disability due some kind of gender issue. You are still struggling with the thought of how to get you lazy ass laid without the dude power puking all over your stick laying ass. I suggest you stop eating them DING DONGS and at least twitch once or twice.^^^^^^^^^^^
dirtbag

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:07am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:18am PT
Not back in Ak. till Sept. 6. Working my ass off on two remodels here in northern NV. Rehabbing habitats for the masses of humanity, but i expect a profit for my efforts. Anyway there is nothing preventing your access to the physical proofs of all the shocking CAGW predictions. Many of the dates of doom have come and passed over this thirty year period without the natural world caring not a wit about all the make believe climate models. But what do i know? The heat is probably hiding in the nearly uniform three degree centigrade waters of the deep blue where the sun never shines.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:31am PT
That is the reality some of choose Burchey.

And that is what this entire OP is all about. Choosing the reality you want in your life/s.


Here is some more reality TRUTH about the AGW bullshet.
There are fewer than 1000 stations with records of 100 years and most of them are severely compromised by growth of urban areas. Equally important, is the decline in the number of stations they consider suitable, especially after 1990. This pattern also partly explains why the current readings are high (Figure 5). Temperature increases as the number of stations used are reduced.
http://drtimball.com/2013/climate-deception-how-the-hottest-temperature-game-is-played-to-offset-prediction-failures/
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 02:03am PT
Here's one of the Big one's EDH:

Arctic summers ice-free 'by 2013'
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7139797.stm

FAIL!
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 28, 2013 - 03:42am PT
^yes you can jus go to Vegas
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 09:59am PT
Your problem, Chief Bro-Kenbrane, is that you think reality is something you can choose.

Get your head outta that freak show Scientism Utopia Elitist Club ass, open up your mind, release yourself from that fantasia of a confined box life and you might just learn precisely how to do that.

Reality is exactly what you want it to be. To state anything different is complete lunacy.

But then science mandates that anyone that thinks or believes in this manner is a lunatic.

Sad and of course YOUR problem FRONTALOBOTAME.

Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:46am PT
During 2005 - 2007, I was funded by NASA to work as a visiting scientist on two projects studying climate change - MIRAGE (Mexico) and Intex-B (Hong Kong to NW USA). We flew NCAR's C-130 stuffed full of instruments and scientists that measured all kinds of atmospheric components - gases, particles, contaminants, you name it. These weren't really fun projects to participate in since the C-130 had lousy ventilation and no A/C - and fat old scientists stink more than normal people. But the big surprise for me was that few of those onboard were sold on the Al Gore view of global warming. In fact, I did not meet a single disciple out of the 153 scientists working MIRAGE and Intex-B.

I spent much of my spare time reading the literature related to the measurement side of climate change. These are the key points I walked away with from those years:

1) Some of the most meaningful data are those published of ocean surface temperature. The thing is, many military, research and commercial vessels have collected this data for over 150 years all around the world. Thus the data set is fairly complete. Over the last 70 years, the trend has been up and the main weather correlation has been regarding the *intensity* of tropical storms (not frequency). It appears that rising surface temps makes more mass available for evaporation - logical.

2) The global research community has far too little active weather stations to feed atmospheric computational models. Some estimate that we'd need one million times more sensors simultaneously live to begin correlating parameters such as CO2 to climate change.

3) Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface. See 2) above but also go look at the publications to see how far we have to go in understanding the global heat picture. For the moment, we have more suspicion than actual real experimental data.

In reading this thread, I see all the hate dumped on the Chief and also see how different his plots look compared to that of the GW believers. Holy sh#t, can there be bias in science? Of course. I do believe the review papers on ocean surface temperature measurements are valid and that we have seen over 1 degree (C) rise over the last century. I'm not convinced that greenhouse gases have yet been correlated to that change. However, I think they will eventually be shown to be a significant component in the big picture. But when the vast majority of the world's leading scientists are highly skeptical of Al Gore's position, that should make you step back and ask if that view has excessive bias - and I believe it does. The global heat budget estimates have too much uncertainty to predict that fossil fuel combustion is the dominant contributor to global temperature rise.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:50am PT
Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface.

^^^Complete Bullsh#t^^^

Who cares what Al Gore thinks?



Lets see, what could possibly be causing the warming?

photo not found
Missing photo ID#312885
Degaine

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:13am PT
mad69dog wrote:
Al Gore's position,

Could you please state what you think Al Gore's position on climate change to be?
Messages 10841 - 10860 of total 28515 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews