Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12241 - 12260 of total 28522 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:08pm PT
Ron,

You plot it and see how it compares with the next three years. Don't put too much emphasis on one year, unless you understand the processes involved which lead to ice extent.

I get tired of people always blaming a weather event on climate change. There is a difference between climate and weather.

The green side tosses out bad information as well. That is why you do better reading peer reviewed papers. Of course most of us don't have the math background to understand many of them, but the abstracts provide a summary of the paper and its findings.

It's fun. With health issues, PubMed has pretty much every medical journal article on Earth located on one searchable website. I've used that one a bunch. Very helpful.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:15pm PT
What a bunch of miserable lying sacks of shet. You have an opponent(The Chief) that uses your exact same tactics on you, you get your asses kicked repeatedly, then instead of admitting you losing or at least have met your match you now scheme about running to MAC for relief .Weak, weak, weak.

Ed you are wrong about the submarine surfacings at or near the north pole in 1958 and 1959. Your article clearly states that the summer 1958 excursion had nine surfacings and the level of detail in the history link clearly states one of the surfacings was at or near the pole. The other news article goes onto to confirm this in the first paragraph obliquely and then launches into what was considered far more important- ten surfacings in winter one of which was through the thin ice at the pole. The Nautilus' crossing was considered far more impressive for the time as it showed the new sub's capabilities and the Skate's surfacing through the ice was considered more impressive than a surfacing to ice free polar lead because, once again it showed the sub's capabilities. Remember this was long before the CAGW debate and scare and we were cold war propagandizing.

Base, I trust you are recovering nicely from your health issue?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:30pm PT
RICK S
What a bunch of miserable lying sacks of shet. You have an opponent(The Chief) that uses your exact same tactics on you, you get your asses kicked repeatedly, then instead of admitting you losing or at least have met your match you now scheme about running to MAC for relief .Weak, weak, weak.

Well Rick, seems they are all only doing as the "CONSENSUS" has done to many credible Climate scientist that do not agree with their science globally.

SILENCE and DISCREDIT no matter what.

Par for this MMGW agenda actually.


Proving my point all along.


"If you are not with us (The Consensus), we will do all we can to terminate you."



BASE
I get tired of people always blaming a weather event on climate change. There is a difference between climate and weather.

Thank you.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
What a bunch of miserable lying sacks of shet. You have an opponent(The Chief) that uses your exact same tactics on you,

This is completely, utterly and totally not true on both an intellectual and style level. Not only are his tactics diametrically the opposite, but if he is winning anything at all it has nothing to do with science or reason and everything to do with sheer dominance of asserted will. He demonstrates repeatedly that he can't follow even a simple concept or line of reasoning and then claims an ability to decipher complex science. He is by anyones definition a village idiot.


Now then, I'm sorry but I think you just accused me of lying. Is that true and can you point out where I have lied?

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:49pm PT
Ed, the IPCC is set to acknowledge a MWP as warm as today, buried in their upcoming report. Scientists connected to the report are also acknowledging that the models are all wrong in that the Antarctic is showing ice increase and cooling temps instead of the warming and ice loss indicated in the models. The climate sensitivity to CO2 is being dialed down and the current pause duly noted. And still their is rancor among the ranks and member nations because the political wing of the IPCC wants to go full steam ahead with the alarmist narrative. Why, since you already noted the above in various ways and various times are you not elaborating on this?

Many meteorologists are calling for a sixth in a row severe winter in the northern hemisphere, especially Europe. Why is this not being acknowledged as the start of a trend? Now the arctic sea ice has definitely bucked the downtrend of the last decade and since none of it is likely to melt in winter conditions it will have to be called thicker multi year ice next year. Barring extremities of arctic conditions we have yet to witness, the increase trend will continue-how could it be otherwise since their is 60% more ice remaining over that present at the end of the 2012 ice melt season. You guys have profound problems with your opinions and the " GCM's" they are built on. Is it rational to shoot the messenger rather than to examine the contents of the message and pursue other avenues of explanation? It seems to me that Ed, Larry, Mutt, Craig, Mentalcase, Bruce are clinging to their bibles and guns.

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:52pm PT
If you have ever walked out onto the arctic sea ice, which I have, offshore of ANWR in early summer, you will plainly see that the ice is a jumbled mess. It moves around a lot and when plates collide, it creates mountainous pressure ridges.

The navy has been measuring ice thickness in the arctic for decades. Did they release that data to the scientific community?

The volume of water tied up in Arctic Ice is insignificant compared to Greenland and Antarctica. NASA and the ESA loaded their launch schedules to their teeth with climate oriented Earth satellites.

The big deal with the loss of summer ice in the arctic will be the massive change in albedo. You don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand that. You will go snowblind very quickly when out on that ice in the summer.

When I was going up there starting about 15 years ago, the ice was attached to the shore until almost August. From the village of Kaktovik, the open water lead was typically fairly narrow, which made finding a bowhead whale much easier. Lately the lead has gotten huge, and they have to cover a lot more water to find a whale.

Unlike over at Barrow, they use motor boats in Kaktovik. It is regulated on the number of strikes. Each village has a certain allotment of strikes.

They toss the first harpoon on by hand, and a huge round red float is attached. The next strike comes from some sort of blunderbuss type of gun that fires an exploding charge into the whale's brain or vitals. Then they have to get ropes around the tail and drag her to shore, where all of the kids stand on top of the whale in a line. Bowheads are big whales.

Just ask an eskimo if they believe in global warming. It is affecting the arctic far more than lower latitudes, and they are having all sorts of problems. Even the Alaskan Republicans believe the science.

There are more ice free days, and these villages are often built right on the water's edge, such as Kaktovik. They get more shoreline erosion because of more waves from more time without the ice protecting the shoreline. Unalakleet had to build a giant sea wall, last I heard. I haven't been up there in a while, but it would be interesting.

During the Cretaceous, it was mainly an ice-free Earth. Sea level was very high, and the Rocky Mountain area was under water from what is now the Gulf, all the way to British Columbia.

Chief can dis that all he wants. Just make him explain that massive pile of cretaceous marine sediments. Here is what the N American craton looked like during the Cretaceous. A lot of the sea level drop was tectonic, but sea levels were several hundred feet higher during that period as well.

You can read about the seaway on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Late_Cretaceous_Interior_Seaway

It looked sort of like this:

Credit: BASE104
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 16, 2013 - 12:57pm PT
Ed,

That was the point I was trying to make. The ice moves around in a manner very similar to plate tectonics. They collide and make big pressure ridges. Those are too thick to surface through. There are also areas that were spreading rifts, and they will have thin ice.

This is all illustrated quite well in Ice Station Zebra, a classic. Howard Hughes watched it like a thousand times.

You could find a place to surface a sub almost anywhere under the ice cap. That is why we, and the Russians, keep boomers under the ice. We have the entire Atlantic wired for sound.

That data would be great to study if it were de classified.

Did the navy de classify any of their ice thickness data? Like I said, they have been playing around up there since the first nuclear sub.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
Ok I assume you are taking back the lying part.

now then...

It seems to me that Ed, Larry, Mutt, Craig, Mentalcase, Bruce are clinging to your bibles and guns.



You must be equating science with bibles and guns? Speaking for myself, I will follow where the science leads and if it leads with increasing certainty I would expect our policy makers to generate policy based on it. If it is low certainty then a hesitation in comitment to policy is justified. If and when your hypothesis of a reversal of GW occurs as determined by institutional science ( not blogs) then I will also expect our policy makers to follow suit. If that equated with bibles and guns show me how.

The institutional science supports AGW with a high degree of certainty. That is a fact which you
Rick cannot dispute regardless of what your blog sites claim.

You are not a scientist and cannot judge science.

The only way I would regard your opinions with any seriousness is if you can demonstrate that the institutional science is corrupt.

Can you?
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:26pm PT
Then why ignore the inconvenient truths. Temps are NOT UP but flat. Temps are down in the Arctic, and a 60% recovery in one year has been seen.
A recovery over the previous three years worth of records, in one year.

There are more record low temps than hot ones over the globe.

The fires thing then gets fabricated into the mix, with ZERO credibility.

Did you know it was nearly a record SLOW fire season in the great basin?

California, while having a few good fires was also actually slow.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:32pm PT
I see that Chiloe already posted about the de classified ice thickness data. It has been getting thinner since the fifties. That makes sense.

Chiloe, you also mentioned a relative's opinion about AGW will cause. He thought it would be severe.

I agree. From just looking at historical geology, which is its own discipline, we are approaching that dreaded Cretaceous level. We aren't there yet, of course, but there will be a tipping point at some time.

The changes are difficult to quantify. That is the entire problem with climate models. I've discussed this with some of my meteorology buddies, and Scientific American had an article on this topic:

It is difficult to say with great precision, "How Hot?" or "How fast will sea level rise."

It is obvious that things will change, but the energy budget of the planet is still not entirely understood, or rather not measured. I'm talking about oceans here. Ocean currents are responsible for most of the redistribution of thermal energy on the planet. We are still learning about the sources and causes that drive these.

I saw a great program on the science channel or Nova on how high saline water is produced at the base of the big Antarctic Ice Shelves, and this heavy cold water drives certain currents.

So the zillion dollar question isn't whether anything will happen, it is a matter of how bad and how soon. You could put Antarctica in a microwave and it would take decades to melt.

My fear is that we will violate one common law in Earth Science. Punctuated Equilibrium.

Punctuated Equilibrium is pretty easy to understand. You have a set of physical conditions, and systems within those settings settle down into a steady equilibrium state. Then something catastrophic comes along and the systems adjust to them creating a new equilibrium state.

You can see it in action by looking at the Colorado floods right now.

You can see it by looking at many river beds. Most of them are underfit for their valleys. Flow was much higher during the Pleistocene ice ages, and the meander wavelength and bench deposits are plainly visible in many places. It is easy to see if you cross the Red River from Oklahoma into Texas. There are benches from each glacial maximum. The meander wavelength is also way too high for the trickle that these rivers carry currently.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:36pm PT
Ron,

Don't focus on individual events. Change will happen slowly over a long time.

The green crowd tends to blame everything on global warming these days. That is equally dishonest.

Just watch it unfold. We may not see things really start big time change in our lifetimes. At my age, I doubt I will see it.
bobinc

Trad climber
Portland, Or
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:37pm PT
Just watch it unravel
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:38pm PT
And also how Antarctica uses CO2 in the currents to feed the plankton..


But Base, things have ALWAYS been changing right? Climate changes for sure. It has since far before mans influence in any shape or form.

How many MM of rise does the oceans see annually? Soooo like 5" in a hundred or more years IF current trends continue? And that is an "urgent" thing? Will the ocean rise THIS year with the increased freezing on both ends of the globe? Will it continue to rise? Will the temps stay flat? Or get cooler?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:39pm PT
I would just like to point out that the Chuff has been absent. The tone and discussion has been civil , at least well within acceptable levels to support a reasonable debate of ideas and observations.

This is no coincidence
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:40pm PT
Bruce I have always been opposed to the "catastrophic" interpretation part of AGW and the minority of scientists and the political organizations pushing them. The remedies these charlatans push would be far more catastrophic than the moderate warming that observed reality indicates. This agenda is the single most dangerous issue out there, in my opinion.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:48pm PT
Punctuated Equilibrium is pretty easy to understand. You have a set of physical conditions, and systems within those settings settle down into a steady equilibrium state.


Punctuated Equilibrium has to do with the evolution of species/genetics and a very young concept. Earth' physical history


By stating this you are indeed creating a "Static" environment. What standard or time frame can Natural Science deem this a valid claim.

Natures. Or, science i.e Man?

There lies the true issue.


To set the base time frame of 25-180 years, then staunchly and unequivocally claim this as NEVER happening before in the broad and extensive time line within the nature of the earth's systems, is just plain ludicrous at best.


If any of you can indeed show that at NO time in the past 1 billion years of earths history, nothing equal to what is occurring now, has "NEVER" happened, then I will concede.



I would just like to point out that the Chuff has been absent. The tone and discussion has been civil , at least well within acceptable levels to support a reasonable debate of ideas and observations.

This is no coincidence



As are the handful of suspects on "your side" that induce the mania as well.

No coincidence Brewsky.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:51pm PT
^^^^^^


Yes I know it is your opinion. My point is is that opinion, conjecture, assertions etc are all fine and dandy but to be of value to a reasonable level of certainty they must be substantiated. I can have an opinion that "the snow is stable" and because I've been kicking around the block for a while I can "feel" pretty certain about it.

But that won't get your very far in court.

Your opinions run contrary to the institutional opinion, which is backed up by science to a high level of certainty.

In order for your opinions to be of value they must be substantiated which you cannot do.

Again, can you substantiate that the institutional science is corrupt?

If not I am willing to at least consider other vehicles that provide you certainty. For instance you might claim that because half the population "has doubt" there must be something to it. As dubious a claim this may be I don't mind exploring it which is why I keep mentioning intuition. Sometimes Intuition is all that is available to us, such as out on a snow slope. It really has its uses....
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
Did the navy de classify any of their ice thickness data?

Yes, the Navy has declassified much of their ice data. Kwok & Rothrock (2009) have a detailed analysis:

Kwok, R., and D. A. Rothrock (2009), Decline in Arctic sea ice thickness from submarine and ICESat records: 1958 – 2008, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L15501, doi:10.1029/2009GL039035

The decline of sea ice thickness in the Arctic Ocean from ICESat (2003–2008) is placed in the context of estimates from 42 years of submarine records (1958–2000) described by Rothrock et al. (1999, 2008). While the earlier 1999 work provides a longer historical record of the regional changes, the latter offers a more refined analysis, over a sizable portion of the Arctic Ocean supported by a much stronger and richer data set. Within the data release area (DRA) of declassified submarine sonar measurements (covering 38% of the Arctic Ocean), the overall mean winter thickness of 3.64 m in 1980 can be compared to a 1.89 m mean during the last winter of the ICESat record— an astonishing decrease of 1.75 m in thickness. Between 1975 and 2000, the steepest rate of decrease is 0.08 m/yr in 1990 compared to a slightly higher winter/summer rate of 0.10/ 0.20 m/yr in the five-year ICESat record (2003– 2008). Prior to 1997, ice extent in the DRA was >90% during the summer minimum. This can be contrasted to the gradual decrease in the early 2000s followed by an abrupt drop to <55% during the record setting minimum in 2007. This combined analysis shows a long-term trend of sea ice thinning over submarine and ICESat records that span five decades.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:56pm PT
Again, can you substantiate that the institutional science is corrupt?

I don't.

The many members in the field of Climate Science that are discredited and doomed to the dungeon because they are not in line with the Consensus, do.

They are the experts. Not you nor anyone here. Many of them are full time researchers for the same orgs (NASA, NOAA etc) that the damning "Consensus" members work with and for.


Many have been at this Climate Science game longer than most of the CONSENSUS members. Many were at one time full fledged partipants and originators of the elite IPCC.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 16, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
They are the experts.

How do you know they are? How do you make this determination? By what criteria?


Intuition?
Messages 12241 - 12260 of total 28522 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