Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11861 - 11880 of total 21605 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:57am PT
Yes, but let's discuss your "psychology" first.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 11, 2013 - 01:10am PT
On climate topics at AGU today, the Bjerknes Lecture given by Judith Lean was one of the main events. Her 2008 paper coauthored with David Rind applied multivariate statistics to estimate the effects of solar, volcanic, ENSO and anthropogenic impacts on surface air temperatures; Foster and Rahmstorf (2011) took the Lean & Rind approach further, while confirming its basic result. (the Lean & Rind, and Foster & Rahmstorf, papers both intrigued me to the extent that I did my own version of their analysis to see how it worked; the results are somewhere upthread or I could bring them back if anyone is curious.)

Lean's talk compactly updated that earlier work, running through what is known about solar, volcanic, ENSO and anthropogenic effects drawing together both statistical and modeling approaches. Along the way she quickly showed why the famous denier memes (it's the sun, stupid! etc.) don't hold water. A clear and effective review.



rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 01:31am PT
Okay, exactly as i suspected, your psychology is purloined from the electronic pages of grist.org and other similar progressive wacko websites.Case closed jackass, you are not even in the same league.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 11, 2013 - 01:36am PT
Finished the day with a fascinating (to me) session about sea ice, in which a series of presenters addressed puzzles. Such as why Arctic minimum extent in 2012 and 2013 were so different, or why Arctic ice is in clear retreat, while Antarctic sea ice appears stable or possibly increasing.

These puzzles weren't solved but some pieces were filled in. Regarding interannual variations around the downward trend in Arctic sea ice, separate presentations by Walt Meier and Marika Holland point toward the growing influence of late spring and summer weather, affecting relatively thin and mobile new ice (unlike the thick multiyear ice that formerly characterized much of that Arctic ice pack).

One reason the Arctic sea ice has responded to warming has been the influence of rivers carrying North American and Eurasian continental heat to the sea; there are no such Antarctic rivers. But why does Antarctic sea ice seem to be expanding? Ozone-related hypotheses don't seem to work, those effects should be causing ice to decrease. More plausible causes of increase are the observed wind changes, and also freshening of surface layers (due to ice sheet melting) that increases stratification so the sea surface is relatively insulated from warmer deep waters. Although both factors are real, they are perhaps not enough to explain the observed increase. Lorenzo Polvani finished off the session with a rapid-fire and (to me) impressive analysis suggesting that the small Antarctic sea ice increase we have seen during the satellite era could easily be nothing more than natural variation. Modeling shows that this is quite possible, indeed upward runs like this occur often in simulations with no external forcing. And observational support for his argument includes the fact that in decades prior to 1979 Antarctic sea ice was apparently much more extensive, so the recent increase follows an even larger decline -- no sustained trend as there has been in the Arctic.



Fascinating stuff, if you like watching science in action.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2013 - 10:35am PT
The only argument the denier crowd can muster:


... progressive wacko websites.




Forget about arguing the science, especially when all climate scientists are part of the large Boogieman conspiracy whose hidden agenda is to take all your money and rule your life.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:40am PT
My recent characterizations of the primary climate change drivers is nearly as simplistic as the endless blaming of the mythical molecule as the primary driver of the current ( rather feeble and historically insignificant compared to climate changes of even the recent past)climate change coming from the guys you identify with Ed. Though i did identify the primary drivers, and the sun's recent and current activity as driver #1, their are hundreds of mechanisms, causes and effects that enhance,amplify, or inhibit change from the primary drivers. You are well aware of the limitations of modeling, particularly the missed and misrepresented components entered in the models as well as the chaoctic nature of the combined components that defy prediction, in representing anything resembling reality in the natural world. It is beyond me why you, Ed, cannot rise above the limitations of your current ideology and practice the " real science" that propelled your ambition in youth. CAGW theory is not accurate and has been refuted by the happenings of the real world. You don't have to go down with this rat infested ship, show us some real dispassionate science.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:42am PT
I get all of my climate science from Rush Limbaugh. He rules.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Dec 11, 2013 - 11:03am PT
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 11:09am PT
Well Base, your statement doesn't apply to myself or anyone else on this thread, but if it applied to you you would be on your jackhammer finding us all more oil and gas. Keep the wheels turning Base despite what MSNBC tells you.

Now, did i hear a hee-haw from an ever present jackass.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 11:28am PT
As far as my intuition "working"; did i not accurately summarize your game and its sources early on, eh Bruce?
Jebus H Bomz

climber
Peavine Basecamp
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:25pm PT
Posting the same sh#t over and over like a yapping dog still? Niiiice.

Great explication per usual Ed. Too bad it is lost on this lot.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:42pm PT
Well let's go to the heart of the argument for CAGW Ed. Take the calculated energy budget of Earth's climate system you have posted several times. This shows a positive imbalance of .6 wm2, if i remember correctly. What is estimated margin of error Ed?
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Dec 11, 2013 - 12:54pm PT
Ed, I have great respect for you, but why do you persist?
rectorsquid

climber
Lake Tahoe
Dec 11, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
Listening to NPR yesterday or the day before, there was a discussion about some volcano and how it spewed sulfur into the air. Apparently, sulfuric acid in the upper atmosphere creates a reflective (can't remember the terms they used) situation and causes global cooling. About -0.5f change from that volcano.

Then the idea was presented that we could offset human caused climate change (not arguing that it is real or not) by using human created global cooling. Very interesting idea, if only because it suggests "tera-forming" like in sci-fi movies.

No chaotic system is unpredictable, but many chaotic systems are unpredictable to us because of our limited ability to observer and calculate. Is global weather unpredictable with current human technology? Clearly, some people think so and some do not. Only time will tell who is wrong in the matter. Let's hope that the climate change proponents are wrong because if the politicians and skeptics are wrong, we're screwed. I guess that in this case, it's better to believe in Santa in hopes of getting presents, because disbelief and being wrong will have dire consequences.

Dave
crunch

Social climber
CO
Dec 11, 2013 - 01:44pm PT
Good points rectorsquid.

Yeah, volcano eruptions add lots of dust to the atmosphere and thus less sunlight reaches the earth and the earth will stay cooler for a months. There are colorful sunsets, too.

The whole system is incredibly complex. My own guess is that, just as with weather forecasting, climate forecasting will improve but may never be totally accurate. But who knows? Biology has taken huge leaps forward: DNA analysis/sequencing was science fiction a few decades ago.

In the last 150 years there has been obvious warming, in line with humans adding CO2. Only have to look around at glaciers and ice climbs and they are almost all shrinking.

In the last ~17 years, atmospheric warming has slowed. Pretty much stopped. CO2 is still being added to the atmosphere. Possibly the oceans are now absorbing a lot of the warmth. Maybe the warming has, in fact, stopped, due to some effect that is far stronger than currently assumed. Maybe the warming will kick in again, worse than ever. More needs to be done to understand this.

I'm optimistic; we already have the technology to reduce CO2 output and even reduce atmospheric concentrations. If temps really crank up, we will start building the machines. If temps stay about where they are, we have more time to discuss, debate, try to understand what, if anything we need to do.

And all the while engines, cars, power generation and batteries improve and become more efficient.

It's all good....hopefully....

http://www.keith.seas.harvard.edu/book
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 02:03pm PT
Not if we count the whole planet.

Credit: monolith
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Dec 11, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
Thought about gloBULL warming yesterday as i was picking myself up from a fall on glass smooth ice. Thinking,, gee,, crampons while helping Rick working on a remodel might be needed here.

I think it was all of 20 degrees at that time, the high for the day.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 03:01pm PT
Hey Chief, is all of the arctic included in those graphs?

Or, Er, do you not want to count all of the arctic?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 03:20pm PT
No, Chief, they do not include the arctic.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 03:20pm PT
Here is the data set with an excellent (relatively speaking) global coverage, and even it does not include most of the arctic and antarctic.

Messages 11861 - 11880 of total 21605 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews