Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 11021 - 11040 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
raymond phule

climber
Dec 20, 2013 - 03:37pm PT

What was said to imply the long term trend was broken?

Maybe that's because you read too much into what is actually said???

Maybe I do. What did you actually try to say when you pointed out those facts about the arctic? I am curious because I really can't understand why you, ron and other people really seem to like to point out those facts.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 20, 2013 - 03:54pm PT
Can you provide proof that anyone was calling those periods recoveries, when they occurred?

If we pretend Sketch meant that as a real question, here's a real answer. Quoting something I wrote a few years back:

Scientists cite the reduction in Arctic sea ice as a symptom of global warming (e.g., IPCC 2007; Richardson et al. 2009; Notz and Marotzke 2012). Outside the channels of scientific communication, individuals and organizations wishing to challenge the reality of global warming have sought to tell the Arctic ice story differently. For example, a widely publicized Heartland Institute report that downplays global-warming concerns (Idso and Singer 2009) does not include graphs resembling Figure 2. Instead, authors of this 2009 report cite a 1999 paper that used data just through 1998. Although the original 1999 researchers had noted a 14% decline in ice extent over 1978–1998, the Heartland Institute authors set this aside to emphasize a shorter time interval, writing that “it could be argued from their data that from 1990/91 onward [to 1998], sea ice area in the Arctic may have actually increased” (p.155, emphasis by Idso and Singer). One has to look closely at the 1991 to 1998 interval in Figure 2, and ignore later years, to see the interannual variations that inspired this statement.
raymond phule

climber
Dec 20, 2013 - 04:02pm PT

I responded to your points. Asked you questions, which you ignored.

First, I meant a response that actually consider what I said in a statistical meaning not that you could say that the data were extreme.

Second, I kind of did answered your questions to same extent when I said that the percent depends on the actual value and that I implicitly thought that there were no such other recoveries.

Now, I know that 96 is an answer to most of your questions.


How telling.
That you very often came with comments like the one above is kind of tiring. Why don't you try to interact in a discussion for once instead of trying to find opportunities to claim lies, dishonesty or how telling something are?


Guess away. You seem to do that a lot.

It was actually a rhetoric comment. No one believes that you thought that the 2012 record low meant anything except maybe data error or data fraud.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 20, 2013 - 04:07pm PT
It is also safe to assume LARRY that scientist cite the reason for the 20 plus year trending INCREASE in Antarctic Sea Ice to the same.... Global Warming.
Correct.

Poedtke, don't you get tired or embarrassed or anything, about shouting so many self-righteous claims that prove false right away? You wouldn't have to look any farther than this page(!) to read something about what scientists actually cite. And my note above refers back to this earlier one with more details.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2291268#msg2291268

As for not showing Antarctic ice in my graphs, that accusation is as false as your others. The example below was published more than two months ago.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 20, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
Nice save there Hamilton.
Fact is the 20 year trend of Sea Ice Increase in the Antarctic is a reality.

Prove you can read, Poedtke, not just vent your anger. What does the post that I linked above say about it?
raymond phule

climber
Dec 20, 2013 - 04:32pm PT

I see. It's okay for you to take jabs at me, but unacceptable when I take jabs at you.

I don't think that it is unacceptable but mostly boring when most discussions with you an most subjects results in you throwing words like, lies, dishonesty and other personal attacks instead of discussing the subject.

I am still interesting to know why you like to talk about the 2013 arctic sea ice extent and what implications you think that the 2013 data have.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Dec 20, 2013 - 06:30pm PT
I've not been following this thread for awhile as it illustrates the strange internet phenomenon of arguing by "fact" snippet.
Here is a comprehensive analysis of some recent "no the earth isn't warming" nonsense.
It's worth following some of the embedded links.

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements/2013/dec/13/barry-smitherman/scientific-consensus-remains-planet-warming/

Just so you climate change deniers don't have to waste your time reading it, this article debunks a candidate for Texas Attorney General's claim "The Earth Isn't Warming".
Why should we care? Because the candidate is presently chair of the Texas Railroad Commission....which regulates oil and gas exploration.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 20, 2013 - 06:56pm PT
Ok Ed. i interpret your answer to mean that; yes energy and gases from the lower layers of the atmosphere were partially responsible for the reinflation of the thermosphere after the collapse caused by the severe reduction of EUV during the quiet sun period at the end of Schwabe cycle 23, start of cycle 24. Furtherly, you estimate the energy from the troposphere transferring into the thermosphere reinflation to be on the order of that of a hurricane. How many thousands of atomic bomb explosions would that be equivalent to? If that amount of energy was transported out of the troposphere frequently for a period of several decades during a solar minimum you would have a significant climatic effect negative to global warming, no? Of course you could have misinterpreted my poorly phrased question and given an answer not relevant to the question.

Sandia Shethead-do they pay you boys down there to play on the internet all day? I can see Larry's justification since he seems to be a freelance climate entrepreneur dependent on maintaining the scare factor amongst ski resort operators so they continue to buy his product line of the latest and greatest snow making machines, but you, well it just seems another gross example of government waste.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 20, 2013 - 07:12pm PT
Rick ,you and these guyshttp://heartland.org/policy-documents/scientific-critique-ipccs-2013-summary-policymakersare the ONLY ones barking up that tree.
You could read EVERY talking point you have had on their website.

You are a Builder,you have told us you have made millions.
When was the last time you have hit your finger with a hammer,or lifted a sheet of plywood ,let alone installed it on a 10/12.

Get OFF your high horse.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 20, 2013 - 07:49pm PT
All the time Wilbeer, even in semi-retirement. I've never been a briefcase builder, always hands on. You should see the bruise on my left arm from a little mishap handling some sheet goods a few days back. I'm all for energy efficiency in construction; super insulating, passive solar, high efficieny heat systems, etc. The building industry has been going this way for economic reasons for decades. With the debt ratios of homebuyers rising like they have been for decades, it is a necessity to produce homes that use less energy to spare the pocketbook. Look Wilbeer, i'm on no high horse, rather i'm part time fighting these kooks on high horses who are trying to force an agenda that is cloaked in ideology hiding the deeper greed motive of big business/ big government. CAGW is without a doubt a crock of shet and the more radical elements of the agenda pushed by those advocating radical enviromentalism ,in the end, would be ruinous to all, even the carpetbaggers siphoning public funds for companies supported by big green. I have no problem with you, you are a fellow builder that seems to be engaged in building high quality/efficiency homes. A guy that likes solar power on homes, not somebody pushing an agenda. Unfortunately, like many, many others you have been conned by one of the biggest scams of all time.
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Dec 20, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
Chiloe, what's a nice guy like you doin' in a place like this?
Should't you be cleaning yer garage?
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Dec 20, 2013 - 08:52pm PT
Speaking of drinking the Kool-Aid
Climate Denier propaganda machine.
Conservative groups have spent $1bn a year on the effort to deny science and oppose action on climate change, according to the first extensive study into the anatomy of the anti-climate effort.

The anti-climate effort has been largely underwritten by conservative billionaires, often working through secretive funding networks. They have displaced corporations as the prime supporters of 91 think tanks, advocacy groups and industry associations which have worked to block action on climate change. Such financial support has hardened conservative opposition to climate policy, ultimately dooming any chances of action from Congress to cut greenhouse gas emissions that are warming the planet, the study found.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/conservative-groups-1bn-against-climate-change

Oh, but watch out. This article comes from that pinko socialist almost communist Guardian news group.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 20, 2013 - 09:13pm PT
Here's one from the industry that keeps the lights turned on and the wheels turning on your vehicle High Traverse. This little dose of reality is behind the times (from 2006 ) so the 4.4 billion dollars coming from the Feds alone has likely increased. This doesn't even count the monies extorted from private enterprise or the many billionaires funding CAGW research with the expectation of financial gain just down the road.

http://www.instituteforenergyresearch.org/climate-change/climate-change-overview/
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 20, 2013 - 09:19pm PT
Oh, but watch out. This article comes from that pinko socialist almost communist Guardian news group.

Hah, good catch on the new Brulle paper HT. I haven't read it yet but the abstract is here, from the journal Climatic Change.

Institutionalizing delay: foundation funding and the creation of U.S. climate change counter-movement organizations

Robert J. Brulle

Abstract

This paper conducts an analysis of the financial resource mobilization of the organizations that make up the climate change counter-movement (CCCM) in the United States. Utilizing IRS data, total annual income is compiled for a sample of CCCM organizations (including advocacy organizations, think tanks, and trade associations). These data are coupled with IRS data on philanthropic foundation funding of these CCCM organizations contained in the Foundation Center’s data base. This results in a data sample that contains financial information for the time period 2003 to 2010 on the annual income of 91 CCCM organizations funded by 140 different foundations. An examination of these data shows that these 91 CCCM organizations have an annual income of just over 900 million, with an annual average of 64 million in identifiable foundation support. The overwhelming majority of the philanthropic support comes from conservative foundations. Additionally, there is evidence of a trend toward concealing the sources of CCCM funding through the use of donor directed philanthropies.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Dec 20, 2013 - 09:23pm PT
rick, you're obviously a fan of conspiracy theories. So why is it you deny the documented "conspiracy" to deny global warming?
I see you live some of the year in Wasilla. Right there on the coast. You'd be interested in knowing that the Arctic sea ice pack has shrunk significantly in the past 30 years. I hope your house is up on a hill.

Chiloe
It's unfortunate that some of the most timely US news comes from the BBC and Guardian.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 20, 2013 - 09:24pm PT
Chiloe, what's a nice guy like you doin' in a place like this?

This week, mainly grading exams and papers. Dog kept me company at the office today, that place empties out.

Should't you be cleaning yer garage?

Lotsa chores on the list for tomorrow, it's finally the holidays.
raw

Mountain climber
Malibu
Dec 20, 2013 - 09:38pm PT
SO I am not one to deny the climate is warming--trends suggest it would be warming whether or not there were humans--nor will I deny that humans accelerate the warming. My question is: what are we to make of it?

A couple suggestions, from a glass-is-half-full kind of guy....
--Fewer people will die from extreme cold. (Five times more die from cold than from heat.)
--Agricultural yields will increase, due to increased CO2.
--If you want to visit the Seychelles, book your trip sooner rather than later.

"Climate change"? No news there--the climate has always been changing....
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Dec 20, 2013 - 09:52pm PT
trends suggest it would be warming whether or not there were humans
trends over at least 100 years as measured by numerous attributes (sea level, glacier retreat, arctic ice retreat, highest yearly temperatures, mean yearly temperatures........) are all increasing exponentially since the massive industrialization the started about 1900. Right along with the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Plus the scientific modeling by physicists, chemists and atmospheric scientists explain the mechanisms.

Fewer people will die from extreme cold.
well that's an odd benefit. Try telling that to the millions who will be displaced by the ocean rise, or the hundreds of thousands who live on low lying islands that are already submerging.

Agricultural yields will increase, due to increased CO2
Not true. For several reasons.
Many of our most important agricultural crops require a cold/freeze period in spring to set their blossoms.
Rainfall will significantly decrease in the bread basket of the US. Which by the way, also tracks atmospheric CO2.
Snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere is also decreasing.
Not to mention the flooding of farmlands by significant weather events and floods.

If you want to visit the Seychelles, book your trip sooner rather than later.
Cute, but the Seychelles will be around MUCH longer than the Andamans, Maldives, Micronesia, Tuamoto Archipelago.......
So you'll have to fight to get onto a flight to the Seychelles.....or at least your children will.

"Climate change"? No news there--the climate has always been changing....
And that of course, is the most illogical conclusion.
I don't want it to happen so it won't.
HighTraverse

Trad climber
Bay Area
Dec 20, 2013 - 09:55pm PT
Chief
where do you get your Kool Aid?
raw

Mountain climber
Malibu
Dec 20, 2013 - 10:28pm PT
Rainfall will significantly decrease in the bread basket of the US. Which by the way, also tracks atmospheric CO2.
Snowfall in the Northern Hemisphere is also decreasing.
Not to mention the flooding of farmlands by significant weather events and floods.

How do you know these things?
Messages 11021 - 11040 of total 20264 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews