Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 11901 - 11920 of total 21605 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Dec 11, 2013 - 08:31pm PT
Chief....Start wearing a respirator...The Borax dust is clouding your reasoning...RJ
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 11, 2013 - 08:45pm PT
Damn near tribal



k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 11, 2013 - 09:01pm PT
+1 4 DMT
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Dec 11, 2013 - 09:11pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2013/12/11/if-all-you-see-977/
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 09:13pm PT
Credit: monolith
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 11, 2013 - 09:15pm PT
Credit: wilbeer
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Dec 11, 2013 - 09:18pm PT
chief,

what or who is the source for your above chart

I don't see any source or am I missing something?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 09:28pm PT
You don't need a source, Norton. It's a trick the deniers use. They focus in on a small segment, then claim there is no correlation to CO2.

Look at the big picture since 1880.

Credit: monolith
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:00pm PT
 <br/>


Credit: Wade Icey
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:11pm PT
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png

That's not a 'source', dumbass. That's just the url for the image.

Here is the source(your definition) for my graph.

http://claymckelvy.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/graph_sm.jpg

Does that help any?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:38pm PT
Propaganda, lol.

You can create a similar graph right here, Chief.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:2012.8/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:1997.7/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.8/to:2012.8/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:2012.8/trend

photo not found
Missing photo ID#334697

Now that I've shown you how to create a similar graph, you can now go and debunk it.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:53pm PT
Still no trend lines, Chief.

You want us to just eyeball it?

Looks like a reasonable trend to 2005. Is the 'pause' only 8 years now?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:59pm PT
Here's a reasonable trend to 2007. Is the 'pause' only 6 years long?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:2012.8/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:2007/trend

photo not found
Missing photo ID#334721
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 11:48pm PT
DMT smells bullshet emanating from the country, apparently he's not sniffing in the big city where it really reeks. Bullshet like the Earths energy imbalance estimates which i asked Ed about reek to high hell.

Below is an abstract and discussion of the uncertainties and unknowns ( what i called margin of error) in said estimates. It seems the uncertainty range is exponentially larger than the estimated imbalance. Now what does that mean about the value of the estimate?

http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/uncertainty-in-observations-of-the-earths-energy-balance/
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Dec 12, 2013 - 12:32am PT

Investors demand oil, coal and power companies assess climate change risks
Regulatory, market and societal forces are changing the global landscape. Fossil fuel companies cannot expect business as usual for much longer.
70 global investors with collective assets totalling $3tn (1.85tn) made the first ever joint request to the world's 45 largest oil, coal and power companies including Exxon, BP and Arch Coal to assess the financial risks that climate change and these other trends pose to your business plans. The investors, co-ordinated by Ceres and the Carbon Tracker Initiative, sent letters to the companies this fall requesting detailed responses by early next year.

"We would like to understand (the company's) reserve exposure to the risks associated with current and probable future policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050," the investors wrote in their letter to oil and gas companies. "We would also like to understand what options there are for (the company) to manage these risks by, for example, reducing the carbon intensity of its assets, divesting its most carbon intensive assets, diversifying its business by investing in low-carbon energy sources or returning capital to shareholders."

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/investors-fossil-fuel-climate-change
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 12, 2013 - 01:33am PT
Another filling day at the AGU smorgasbord. Personal favorite among talks I saw was the Shoemaker Lecture by Michael Carr, "Geological exploration of the planets: A personal retrospective of the first 50 years." Carr gave a rich first-hand account of planetary exploration from the Mariner probes through Voyager, Galileo and the Mars landers -- an era that filled in what had been totally blank (or wrong) maps, from the surface of Mars to the Jovian moons. He ended up by calling the Jet Propulsion Laboratory "a national treasure" (rightly, I think) and noting with excitement that New Horizons is now on its way toward Pluto.

Jim Hansen was the climate headliner, filling an auditorium for the Frontiers in Geophysics lecture on "Minimizing irreversible impacts of human-made climate change." The irreversible impacts he noted were sea level rise, species extinction, and extreme weather regimes (more droughts, severe storms etc.). I expected his presentation to be rousing but instead saw a man visibly struggling with the enormity of what he sees, and the difficulties of averting disaster. He was particularly poignant on the topic of species extinction, and particularly conflicted on nuclear power development -- which he reluctantly sees as necessary.

Among his economic ideas is a carbon fee, levied on fossil fuel producers and importers (of course passed along in energy prices). Of this fee he said "not one cent" should go to government, all of it should be divided equally among all legal residents of the country. Anyone who used less than an average amount of fossil fuels (about 60% of the population, he reckoned) would come out richer under this scheme, a further incentive to use less.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 12, 2013 - 01:55am PT
Non-headliner talks were interesting as well. A session on "Climate literacy: Impacts, evidence and best practices from research and evaluation" included a fascinating presentation showing what happens when students or (non-climate) scientists are asked to draw diagrams to illustrate what "greenhouse effect" means. There were lots of good and bad example diagrams from students struggling to express what they thought this meant, which started me wondering -- how many of those opining on this thread could sketch out such a diagram? Really, (there won't be a test), how accurately could *you* do it, by the standards of a high school science course?

Late in the day I caught part of a session on "Understanding and monitoring abrupt climate change and its impacts." Jim White, lead author of the new NAS report, gave a good intro explaining the concepts of thresholds and abrupt change. Richard Alley followed with a characteristically lively, energized and analogy-filled account of why the ice sheets will decide how fast sea level rises, and we really don't know what they will do. He noted Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica as one with particular potential to surprise us, controlling up to 3 meters of sea level. The next talk was an interesting but much drier statistical piece; after that unfortunately I had to leave to give my own talk at a side meeting before the abrupt-change program was finished.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 12, 2013 - 02:03am PT
Yes i read "the models agree better with the Stephens et al analysis than previous estimates". This brings me to the question of which of the many analyses are superior? The Wild et al analysis you posted and kindly re-posted seems to say " Table 4 illustrates there is no clear tendency towards reduced over estimations in the newer CMIP 5 models", in reference to incoming solar radiation. What gives Ed, after many billions of dollars are spent in studying and modeling, with estimations and values all over the board, there is no agreement. If the incoming radiation in the models are overestimated, as Wild et al claims, what does that say about the other values entered into the models and the results coming from the runs. Bloviating i may be, but their are also legions of climate scientists bloviating all across the spectrum. The public deserves better after tens of billions of their hard earned tax money is spent.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 12, 2013 - 07:37am PT
Thanks for that,Chiloe.Cheers Wilbeer.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 12, 2013 - 09:53am PT
My god man, with a 5% margin of error i would have been out of business years ago. With a 5% error rate my homes would have been unsaleable. If you were a mechanic and finished an engine rebuild and had 5% of the parts remaining from the original you'd be laughed out of the shop. What is 5% of of 40 billion dollars ( an amount likely to have been spent in CAGW research over the last decade alone), let's see -S200,000,000.00 dollars, and all for an uncertainty that far out weighs the value of the hyped effect. Can we please get an adult to supervise these climate disaster kids.The whole affair is pretty shameful Ed.
Messages 11901 - 11920 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