Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 12261 - 12280 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:50am PT
Many here do not mind being fools.

Credit: Wade Icey
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 23, 2014 - 02:07am PT
I think there was a recent study claiming upwards of a 12% increase of greening of the planet as a result of the higher trace CO2, mainly in arid regions where C4 plants prevail as they require less moisture. The Idso's over at CO2 science have a lot of material on effects of a warming phase world on flora and fauna.

The only other thing i might add is that there is a fool reborn every minute and not all of them are of what ED infers as the intellectually inferior class, which in ideologies he seems to support might be as high as 80% of the populace. All hail The Chief.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 23, 2014 - 08:39am PT
Hmm, perhaps theoretically possible, I don't know--humans don't directly engage in photosynthesis; I suppose respiration has some effect on CO2.

But you're missing the forest for the trees when you try to break it down like that

I don't think so. You acknowledge that humans are causing warming by increased CO2 emissions through your 'increased plant growth negative feedback loop' gambit (I won't call it a theory without some reference to some calculations, you know... guesswork).

If human-contributed CO2 is or will cause an increase in plant growth its patently simple to see that humans can regulate the CO2 content of the atmosphere simply by reducing or increasing the CO2 contribution.

So when you're hacking at your forest be careful lest one of your own trees hits you in the head.

DMT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 23, 2014 - 10:19am PT
You have established the disgusting and pathetic protocol of immediately discrediting, personally attacking and demeaning anyone that does not side with your agenda, as an important component of establishing this ideology throughout the world. As evidenced here on this thread by you and the others.
The chump said this?
It's his agenda in a nutshell.
He's too stupid to crunch any numbers, so he bullshits.
WBraun

climber
Jan 23, 2014 - 10:55am PT
This mornings front page headlines:

NOAA: World in 2013 was 4th hottest on record

What does this mean?

It means this thread will definitely go on and on and on and on etc etc etc .....

Carry on men!

:-)
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 23, 2014 - 10:58am PT
the chump is a trailer trash moron who is too stupid to crunch numbers
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:03pm PT
Here is a question for the pro-modeling crowd:
what is a non-trivial prediction of the current models that we can later check to see if they get it right?
I understand we may need to wait a few years, that's OK, just something concrete that may allow me to say "nyah nyah nyah" or "oh crap they actually got it right."
Of course it's possible that the model may be "right" by luck (I don't think it can be "wrong" by luck, there's a lack of symmetry there).
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
Blahblah, that's the heart of the matter and the reason I'm here. The models long ago disproved their own projections and therefore the extremes of CAGW theory. Reality failed them by not having a linear temp rise along with CO2, by the south pole getting cooler and adding ice, by not having a mid tropospheric hotspot, by feedbacks being on the negative side instead of positive, and on and on. Now when you confront these climate religionists with these facts they will deny and point to this new study or that, all productions of the multi hundred billion dollar climate industry and evangelical society. A good example.being Ed's graph above. Warm ,windy, rainy conditions are not unusual in the southcentral AK winter Bruce. They are called Chinook's and occur several times most winters.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 12:29pm PT
what is a non-trivial prediction of the current models that we can later check to see if they get it right?
I understand we may need to wait a few years, that's OK, just something concrete that may allow me to say "nyah nyah nyah" or "oh crap they actually got it right."

Credit: Cheesegraphs
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:00pm PT
Peeeeeeeeeeeeeerfect, wade.


Thanks Cheese, thought it might be upside down. Welcome to the Anthrocene.

Credit: Wade Icey


Now, standing by for the proverbial and ongoing name calling, personal attacks, discrediting attempts and all the rest of the protocol sorts....

what are you on about? have a great day Chef.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
Credit: Wade Icey
TLP

climber
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:22pm PT
Planet Earth and the actual natural component of Climate, do not crunch numbers.
Only egocentric humans that think and claim they know everything, do.
Accept the planet and it's diverse and very COMPLEX behavior as something you CAN NOT control.

This seems to me to be a very telling set of statements, which appear to be the same as saying "do not bother to do any science at all, because the planet is complicated (true) and it is what it is." That was basically the church's position in the Dark Ages and has been judged to be obsolete by most modern societies. In my opinion, that viewpoint is irrelevant to any discussion of the validity of one or another specific science. Personally, I think science is useful because understanding things is helpful in dealing with the consequences of natural and human-influenced processes. Knowing the causal connection between a big earthquake and a soon-to-arrive tsunami is useful to an Indonesian coastal resident, I would think. But apparently The Chief believes, on the contrary, that the tsunami is just going to come - there have certainly been bigger ones in the last 500 million years - so you might as well just get washed away.

In another direction, I think blahblah's question about a non-trivial prediction is a reasonable one, though the answer is not simple for two reasons: it needs to incorporate controls relating to unpredictable or semi-predictable but irregular natural processes (volcanic eruptions, ocean oscillations); and, once one is suggested, the wording and parameters will just be contested along the lines of, they're fudging the temperature data bases anyway, that's not an acceptable prediction. That said, Ed's graph provides a first cut: that for for X number of years (like 45, say) out of Y (50?), observed temperatures, smoothed according to some standard mathematical methodology, will be within Z amount (in absolute numbers, or standard deviations) of the average predicted global temperature of all the models, or some subset of them as we gain an improved understanding of which ones are most valid and are based upon the most realistic patterns of human activities (such as emissions and deforestation). And as his graphic shows, the observed temperatures certainly fall within the range of the collective modeling effort. Probably needs to be expanded to accommodate increasing understanding of ocean heat content. But something along those lines would be useful. Basically, scientists do this general kind of evaluation all the time with modeling, and when something doesn't fit, start looking at all the inputs and calculations to see what might be wrong. I don't do climate, but I do vegetation modeling sometimes, and that's exactly what we do.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
Planet Earth and the actual natural component of Climate, do not crunch numbers.
Only egocentric humans that think and claim they know everything, do.
Accept the planet and it's diverse and very COMPLEX behavior as something you CAN NOT control.

This seems to me to be a very telling set of statements, which appear to be the same as saying "do not bother to do any science at all, because the planet is complicated (true) and it is what it is."

The statements are born from Contempt.

DMT
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:41pm PT
Yup!


Contempt

No need to add anything else.

DMT
dirtbag

climber
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:44pm PT
Like I said yesterday, it's a sun up to sundown effort for #1.
moosedrool

climber
Stair climber, lost, far away from Poland
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:53pm PT
It is good to see nobody got converted.

;)
dirtbag

climber
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
Boo hoo hoo #1.
TLP

climber
Jan 23, 2014 - 01:59pm PT
Weren't your motorcycle (sweet ride!) and the fuel you put in it directly derived from exactly that Scientism you are criticizing? Unless you are collecting rainwater, a pretty poor approach in the West just now, doesn't your water supply come out of some scientifically designed system? You can't have it both ways. The vast majority of people who do sciences do not in the remotest way believe human beings control everything. Though the species has done a lot of habitat modification, one way or another.

Realistically, I don't think there will be any major collective action about CO2, and whether there even should be is a totally fair question. Absent China buying into the effort in a huge way, my personal answer is No. But either way, it is really useful to do the science that will enable us to have some idea of the timeline of sea level rise, for example, and plan for it. Any kind of useful sea defenses are expensive and take a long time to build. Or changes in precipitation patterns that affect major water systems. It's sensible to try to figure this out and adapt to the reality. Plus, if it turns out that the western U.S. gets one of those mega droughts that you correctly point out have occurred regularly in the centuries prior to the 20th, we'd be better prepared for that too. Maybe we'd even have figured out enough about the natural oscillations that we'd know roughly when one of those was going to come down the road.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 23, 2014 - 02:04pm PT
Up De Nile Summer Iced


Here comes the bullshet streams...

You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.
the proverbial modern day Western Extremist Socialist Sceintissceintism/socialists ideological agenda pursuing climber tribeAGW political/social ideology agenda

Hey dipshet egocentric humans
you egocentric scientism humanoids
you and your extreme left-wing socialist liberal eco-freak scientism political zealots
your eco-freak humans
Here comes the bullshet streams...


You and the rest of your tribe are merely a micro "Blip's and Wiggles" on the ass of this planet
May the God of this Universe be with them having to endure your pathetic mentality and totally negative attitude their entire lives.
Perfect example of your self-centered ego based thinking, ideology and agenda
.Now.. move along useless TARDBAG!

You and etal have taken those statistics and data and merely twisted/manipulated the verbiage,
incorporated your ego/self-centered titles onto them by claiming that only those/you with the knowledge to understand the science can do so intellectually (Scientism), and have used it all to perpetuate your political/social ideological fantasies (AGW fear mongering agenda) of how we humans here on earth need to start living by in order to save ourselves and the rest of the natural world.

You have established the disgusting and pathetic protocol of immediately discrediting, personally attacking and demeaning anyone that does not side with your agenda, as an important component of establishing this ideology throughout the world.having to endure the likes of your sorryass all this time

Hey dipshet egocentric humans
you egocentric scientism humanoids
you and your extreme left-wing socialist liberal eco-freak scientism political zealots
your eco-freak humans
Here comes the bullshet streams...

Not only does your Spouse have to put up with your total negative selfish presence, but you actually were selfish enough to bring kids into this world and then having forced them to endure you for the time you're on this planet???
Pathetic
your eco-freak humans
That bushel of sour cherries must be over loaded

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

FAIL.

Yeah, they match up alright.. if you got your head up your aSSE
Here comes the bullshet streams...
Desperate deflections and discrediting with totally distorted and non-correlating pulling outta their asses scientism information and personal attacks etc.
It is nice to see how you now relinquish that fantasy concept
and the rest of your Three Ring Circus Circle Jerk FAIL and does not go with the Political Ideology of the Buffonary AGW Tribe.
Grab them towels and wipe off your faces, again.
With that said, the/your AGW theory just got shot in the face with a proximity HE 20MM round.

BAM!

Talk about eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeggo!

I thought you were on track on how it was primarily HUMAN EMISSIONS that was causing/forcing all the warming,
You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.

The Graph is spot on.
Here comes the bullshet streams...

so we commence the deflecting/mocking whatever... nice!!!
As you pick your ass and then eat it for dinner

nice!!!

You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.

From the day your poor mother spit your sorry ass out, it has been nothing but down, down, and down......

Hey dipshet egocentric humans
you egocentric scientism humanoids
you and your extreme left-wing socialist liberal eco-freak scientism political zealots
your eco-freak humans
Here comes the bullshet streams...

Desperate deflections and discrediting with totally distorted and non-correlating pulling outta their asses scientism information and personal attacks etc.

Now this is seriously funny!
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

FAIL.

Beyond hilarious now
Simply satisfying to see what supposed "professional" PhD's and Scientists truly behave like when their ideological agenda starts failing, big time

STOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPID human scientists are trying to take ALL the credit for humans causing all the warming

You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.

Same bullshet
You guys are really getting funny.
Beyond hilarious now.
Left Wing Extremist Socialist story telling, photoshopping and propagandist tactics.

Hey dipshet egocentric humans
you egocentric scientism humanoids
you and your extreme left-wing socialist liberal eco-freak scientism political zealots
your eco-freak humans

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

FAIL.

Here comes the bullshet streams...

Next, please!



blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Jan 23, 2014 - 02:31pm PT
In another direction, I think blahblah's question about a non-trivial prediction is a reasonable one, though the answer is not simple for two reasons: it needs to incorporate controls relating to unpredictable or semi-predictable but irregular natural processes (volcanic eruptions, ocean oscillations) . . . And as his graphic shows, the observed temperatures certainly fall within the range of the collective modeling effort. Probably needs to be expanded to accommodate increasing understanding of ocean heat content. But something along those lines would be useful. Basically, scientists do this general kind of evaluation all the time with modeling, and when something doesn't fit, start looking at all the inputs and calculations to see what might be wrong. I don't do climate, but I do vegetation modeling sometimes, and that's exactly what we do.

Good point about volcanoes in particular for short term predictions--that alone may make relatively short term predictions impossible I suppose.
But the reason I'm looking for "future" predictions instead of "past" predictions is to keep them from cheating by just tweaking the models to fit with whatever the temperatures happened to be through numerical fudging (that's what I see as the problem with the statistics based approach, which I thought Ed was against, but now I guess he's for).

Here is an analogy: as I understand it, it is entirely possible to create a statistics "model" that accurately links any particular data sets together, such as temperatures, Broncos win-loss record, and the good ol' price of tea in China. Of course there is zero predictive power in such "models."
That's basically why we need to look at future predictions rather than past predictions (yeah it seems ridiculous to have to specify that predictions must be about the "future," but that's not my fault--the modelers are the ones who make "models" that seem to correspond to past data and then brag about how great they are!).

Messages 12261 - 12280 of total 20087 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