Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 10881 - 10900 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 15, 2013 - 08:11pm PT
Sketch,I have used that [snow coverage maps] information for years as a tool for BC skiing,probably since I have owned a computer.

For some reason,I swear,one could go back and study maps from the 80's.I will agree ,you can not access that now.

I am going to find out why.

But ,whilst it is still Fall,our biggest snows[see lake effect] always occurred BEFORE the solstice.
The reason being Lake Erie and Lake Ontario would stay open[ice free] for that period roughly,and the active lake effect storms/squalls[as what is happening right now here]would energize.

Once the lakes would freeze the storms could not pick up enough moisture to proceed.




edit;the undeniable truth is ,it used to snow alot more during this period in just my lifetime.I will post up.

climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Dec 15, 2013 - 08:17pm PT
Sketch even if we accept your "disproof"

Did you notice that even your disproof is showing a continuous increase in global temperature?

SO you wish to argue the rate of change. Fine.. Just for shits and giggles I'll concede you your point.

From my point of view (based completely on your post) I'll just thank god maybe there is still a chance we have more time to stop millions of people from being hurt needlessly by AGW.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 15, 2013 - 09:18pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#335357
climbski2

Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
Dec 15, 2013 - 09:22pm PT
Sketch .. cmon man.. the one you just posted. I really did read it.

Here is the most pertinent part of the article you posted.

-------

Dr. James Hansen is the Director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies. Dr. Hansen is right up there with Al Gore, Michael Mann and the Climategate CRU on the list of people helping the UN to swindle the United States and other western democracies out of trillions of dollars through his promotion of the Anthropogenic Global Warming fraud.



So, according to Hansen’s 1988 predictions, the global temperature anomaly should be about 90% of the way from Scenario “C” to Scenario “A”… ~0.97°C. In reality, the global temperature anomaly is about half of what Hansen predicted for a similar rise in greenhouse gases.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 15, 2013 - 09:35pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#335363
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:08pm PT
"On this side of the debate: every scientist in the world. On the other: Mr Potato-Head".
There is no debate here; it's just scientists and non-scientists, and since the topic is science, the non-scientists don't get a vote.
Bill Maher
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 15, 2013 - 10:18pm PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#335377
igster

Boulder climber
Stockholm, Sweden
Dec 16, 2013 - 04:42am PT
And here's a good article trying to explain the recent hiatus

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/113533/global-warming-hiatus-where-did-heat-go
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 16, 2013 - 11:54am PT
http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/12/16/21911592-climate-change-experts-fraud-was-crime-of-massive-proportion-say-feds?lite
crunch

Social climber
CO
Dec 16, 2013 - 12:26pm PT
Hey igster, that is a very well written article. Thanks.

Quote:

"And once you concede the existence of the greenhouse effect, it’s tough to dispute the role of greenhouse gas emissions in warming the planet....

So here’s what’s clear: Over the longer term, temperatures will increase."

Discussed climate change yesterday with someone from one of the local gov't labs. He commented that the whole debate is shifting away from Al-Gore-style (or WattsUpWithThat-style) sweeping grand statements to to one of pragmatic planning for the next few years.

As an example, the Western Governors Association, faced with urgent questions over recent droughts and obviously changing snowpack levels and times, are asking scientists for help with forecasting just a year or two or three ahead. Better forecasts are worth a lot of money for ranchers and farmers who can see changes happening and want some idea of where things are going.

So, some funding for climate change research is now starting to come from individual states in the Western US.

http://www.westgov.org/initiatives/climate
Reeotch

climber
4 Corners Area
Dec 16, 2013 - 01:27pm PT
Thanks for that Ed, I'm going to incorporate that into my biology classes . . .


P.S. Statistics, not calculus, should be taught in high school.
crunch

Social climber
CO
Dec 16, 2013 - 02:45pm PT
Ed H: "The limit to this agreement has to do with the "uncertainties" we assign to the measurements and propagates through these analyses to provide a measure of the "goodness" of the comparison of the data to our theory. In Chiloe's up thread case, he arrives at a set of parameters which have an uncertainty range determined by the combined uncertainties of the data he is combining, and the ability of his model to fit that data. It also provides an overall metric of how good his hypothesis does in fitting the data."



HUH??

It is longwinded. Also unclear.

How about this:

The word "uncertainty" can have a specific meaning in the context of scientific research. It means that the result (of a model or experiment) cannot be given an exact, precise value. However, the result lies within a small, known range of values.

Sorta like when weather forecasts predicts a "high" temperature of 56 degrees for tomorrow and everyone knows that this forecast high is not going to be exactly 56 degrees but close to 56 degrees, within a range from say 50-60 degrees. It won't be 32 degrees. It won't be 98 degrees. That is an informal example of a range of uncertainty.

But the word uncertainty also can mean, simply, unknown.

As in, when asked what will you wear tomorrow, and the answer is, "I'm uncertain." In this case "uncertain" gives no indication of any range of possibilities.

Ed's complaint is that, either deliberately or through misunderstanding, some writers and bloggers will see the word "uncertainty" in its scientific context "we're sure of what is happening but uncertain of the exact details" and (as sketch does, just upthread) try to present the word as being used in the sense of "we have no idea what is happening."

Does that sound clearer?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 16, 2013 - 06:43pm PT
http://www.weather.com/news/weather-forecast/california-record-driest-year-20131115

Uncertainty ?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 16, 2013 - 06:58pm PT
wilbeer, don't be a fool. The Chief stuck his finger in a lake and declared there was no drought.

Hey The Chief--come back here and tell us again how there's plenty of water in the lakes you visit!
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Dec 16, 2013 - 07:19pm PT
Water availability ranking for 225 urban areas in the United States

http://soils.ifas.ufl.edu/hydrology/cities/
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 16, 2013 - 08:58pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/12/16/if-all-you-see-982/
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 16, 2013 - 11:40pm PT
It was good that Ed and Chiloe could "collude" over a few beers the other day then formulate posts that seem to include a middle ground in the climate wars, specifically acknowledgement of what they refer to as the "pause" and theorizing over its cause. This is a good start, though the values of TSI over the satellite period may not be indicative of the true range of variation of the variable star we orbit about. The reliance on just the Enso in Chiloes graphs is simplistic since the PDO, NAO, and AMO likewise have profound effects on climate, and the value ascribed to volcanic aerosols seems suspect since we've been absent any large eruptions in two decades. So, let's see what Mr. Svalgaard has to say about long term variation of solar activity in the review paper linked below. Here is an interesting quote in the abstract-" we simply do not know with any degree of confidence how the variable star, our Sun, has varied over the past 400 years, not to say over much longer time scales before that".

http://www.leif.org/research/Long-term-Variation-Solar-Activity.pdf


If you made it through this paper you are now informed to the extent of the unknowns involving our suns variations and its effect on our climate. The value or "uncertainty" as to the long term range of variation in TSI is unknown. The .01 value advanced by the IPCC is a guesstimate based on non calibrated and discontinuous data from a series of satellites over the last thirty years, data that has a much higher range of variability that the TSI value.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 17, 2013 - 01:20am PT
Now why would would a variation of TSI that has never been measured, or been witnessed in the modern instrument age, show up in their statistical analysis Ed? Furthermore their is dispute of the "certainty" of the values entered into the analyses. I intentionally didn't mention the evil word CO2, thinking you guys might be coming out of your caves and beginning to "see the light" of the real world beyond. No cigar, it's CO2 all the way to the bottom of your abyss. Oh well, i hope you guys don't mistake the weather in the coming decade and freeze to death.

EDIT: Just for the satellite age, a period of unusually high activity, and even that is controversial. A grand minimum has never been measured by modern instruments, nor have the other associated activity levels during such a period (solar magnetism, solar wind speed and pressure, values of other spectrum of radiation). Don't throw out your winter clothes just yet.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 08:28am PT
It was good that Ed and Chiloe could "collude" over a few beers the other day then formulate posts that seem to include a middle ground in the climate wars, specifically acknowledgement of what they refer to as the "pause" and theorizing over its cause.

Hah, the few beers were real but after that Rick's lost in his fantasyland of conspiracies and pseudoscience. Ed and I are not colluding types, whatever posts we make are our own thoughts. Mine was inspired by Rick asking me about Svalgaard; I answered with an analysis that, as noted above above, I had originally done two years ago for a book.

Acknowledging the rise in surface temperature indexes has paused is not "a middle ground in the climate wars" either, except in Rick's imagination. Scientists have been writing about that for several years; I don't know a single one who denies that in the last decade or so, SAT indexes have slowed their rise -- it's right there in the data. What to make of that is a different question.

A few pages back I posted this compact summary of recent research on this topic, all of which Rick apparently forgot to read. Don't think he can or will this time either, but the post reflects some work by me because I actually did read and think about these references. So I'll post it again.

The Cato graph showed trends instead of temperatures because they want to emphasize that trends in the surface air indexes have been relatively flat in recent years. This is true as far as it goes, but leaves out a whole lot of recent research showing that:

1. The "pause" in surface temperature rise largely vanishes if we control for ENSO, volcanic and solar variations (Foster & Rahmstorf 2011) -- which as Ed has pointed out, the models never claimed to predict.

2. ENSO effects in particular suggest that more heat is being cycled into the oceans. And sure enough, ocean heat content and sea level have continued to rise (Balmaseda et al. 2013).

3. The seasonal and geographic pattern of surface temperatures is consistent with this ENSO effect (Kosaka & Xie 2013
[or see this summary in Science]).

4. The surface temperature indexes not only overlook the deep ocean, they also tend to over-represent ENSO-affected regions, and under-represent regions with less ENSO impact -- most notably the Arctic, where surface temperatures have risen most steeply. Add the Arctic back in, and surface temperatures are still rising (Cowtan & Way 2013).

Points 1-4 above are drawn from peer-reviewed papers within the past two years, all previously cited on this thread.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 17, 2013 - 08:46am PT
The reliance on just the Enso in Chiloes graphs is simplistic since the PDO, NAO, and AMO likewise have profound effects on climate,

If Rick read real science instead of pseudoscience bloggers he would know that many people have tested for PDO, NAO and AMO effects (including Foster & Rahmstorf). Even I tested for AMO effects in my simple model, and found that including the AMO index actually strengthens the estimated effect of CO2.


and the value ascribed to volcanic aerosols seems suspect since we've been absent any large eruptions in two decades.

Not just tens of thousands of scientists but satellites and volcano-observers worldwide are part of Rick's vast conspiracy.
Messages 10881 - 10900 of total 20085 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
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