Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 13261 - 13280 of total 21596 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
WBraun

climber
Jan 18, 2014 - 11:17am PT
Bruce Kay -- "I fight these ethicless bastards not to persuade them but to persuade those who do have ethics but have mistaken illusion for reality."


This coming from a guy who doesn't even know who he really is and why he was born on this planet.

And what to speak of reality itself, you're clueless.

Oh save us Bruce from our selves when you can't even save your own self first, period.

Learn to save your self first other wise you'll just end up fuking up everything outside of your defective self.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 18, 2014 - 11:22am PT
The Chief demands.

"... answer the question WITHOUT asking another and dodging the question... thanks."


But if you ask the same of he, you will soon see why he makes this demand. It is his method of discourse. Dodge the question and deflect by demanding you answer his strawman questions.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 18, 2014 - 11:36am PT
Wilbeer, thanks for posting the Mother Jones article:

http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2013/09/debunking-climate-change-deniers


Extremely telling, especially the Murdoc tweet. Why those mo-fos are playing with fire in this way is truly a mystery to me.

Anyway, here's an excerpt,

September of last year saw historically low levels of Arctic sea ice. This year, the amount of sea ice was far, far below normal, but the extent was more than the devastatingly low amount of last year's record. Murdoch calling that a record increase, like it's a good thing, is garbage. It's like getting pneumonia a month after a nearly fatal heart attack, and having someone tell you your health is great now.

Rupert Murdoch has a half million followers on Twitter, incidentally, and obviously his opinions can reach far more people through his media holdings. He may spew nonsense, but it's nonsense that gets spread far and wide.



And you get folks who have an inability to see through the ruse, and they parrot the nonsense, even when shown in black and white how wrong they are.
WBraun

climber
Jan 18, 2014 - 11:36am PT
Norton

You have no power ......

You're just a tiny little chiwawa leg humper with no brains.

You ride on the coat tails of everyone else.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 18, 2014 - 11:45am PT
Credit: Cheesegraphs
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jan 18, 2014 - 12:07pm PT
The anomaly in the data does nothing to undermine the congruence of the trend lines as a whole.

You're straining over a gnat.

Chief, Have you read the Tao Te Ching? Do you attempt to be congruent with the principles of Taoism?
TLP

climber
Jan 18, 2014 - 12:18pm PT
There are various peer-reviewed sources that have stated in their summaries that "natural" (meaning non-anthropogenic - what, aren't we "natural" too??) cycles such as ENSO and solar variation and erratic events such as volcanic aerosol emissions explain most of the global temperature patterns up to about 1950 or 1970 or so (I'm not going to spend the time to check the consensus date), but that human CO2 emissions become a big factor after then. Over-simplified, but that's the answer you're asking for. There are surely some human effects earlier, CO2 has surely been increasing steadily since the Industrial Revolution was underway, soot, human aerosol emissions, etc., but the overlay of the various natural occurrences predominates pre-1950. Rick linked a great review paper on solar influences that talks about this (Gray et al. 2010).

As for your specific graph questions, if you look at this plot of ENSO changes, you'll see that there are El Nino events roughly coinciding with the notable temperature increases in your Hadley graph, and La Nina with the decreases. Roughly; this is not the only factor.
Credit: TLP

This stuff is exhaustively discussed in the literature going back decades before climate change and CO2 were widely discussed at all. Looking at the period 1850-1900 gets very confusing because that's right after the end of the Little Ice Age, but we're another hundred years from that and we have a lot better data of different kinds. Bottom line is, when you combine the natural variations and stochastic events (volcanoes) with the modeled CO2 effects, it matches observed global temperatures for recent decades and up to the present pretty well.
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jan 18, 2014 - 12:51pm PT
Chief, I did answer the question. My answer is that science and the Tao are not mutually exclusive. Science is observation of the manifestations of the Tao.

I embrace and live this model completely. Each mode and model of observing and experiencing has inherent limitations and feeling comfortable with multiple models and modes helps to diminish, but emphatically not overcome, the limits of experiencing what is. None of us actually know reality; we only know what we perceive of reality and our perceptions are controlled by the conditioning of a part of our brain called the reticular activating system. We only perceive what sensations (sight, sound, touch, taste, smell) the reticular activating system filters for and sends to our frontal cortex. That system is at the core of the concept of reality being Maya (illusion). Science and mysticism are different views of the same diamond.

As part of my practice, I measure and evaluate the acupuncture meridians and the results of acupuncture treatment using a computerized ohmmeter. The effect of treating specific acupuncture points on the nervous system has been measured using PET scans of the brain. The belief that Taoist models are incompatible with scientific models is an arbitrary abstraction.

In global, rather than human terms, the blip is still a blip. The overall trend still proves the point.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 18, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
science doesn't mix with stupidity and/or irrationality

but it has studied both
dirtbag

climber
Jan 18, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
Which of the two do you base your existence on.

One or the other.

Regardless if science, as you claim is simply just an "observation".



Also, you did not answer my question in regards to the forcing mechanism that initiated the first temp spike incident of 1910-1945.

Your answer of it goes along with the "trend" does not answer the question of the premise of forcing.

The "Observations" clearly indicate that the C02 was no where near the the temps during that PRE-WW2 occurrence that is equivalent to the latest incident.

The "models" and "observations" are not one in the same in this case and does not coincide with the current theory that human emitted C02 is the primary forcing mechanism.


Observe this, Chief Number One:




































































rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 18, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
The graph combining ENSO, solar variability, volcanic aerosols, and of course CO2 presented by Chiloe and expanded upon by ED is questionable TLP in values assigned to solar, aerosols,and the exclusion of PDO which directly affects the intensity of El Nino/La Nina events. First off, absent any combination of significant volcanic events for over 20 years how can any value other than negative for reflection of incoming solar be assigned to it. How do the know the present opacity of the atmosphere is not due to biological release such as increased DMS or increased cloud seed nucleation by increased CR? They don't period. The solar value is questionable since they ascribe only a previously determined level of TSI. AS far as the the exclusion of PDO, that is another mistake. The PDO is a upwelling/downwelling oscillation of approx. 50-60 years duration, of roughly equal parts positive and negative. The ENSO is a surface and near surface wind driven geographic sequestration/release of solar and downwelling IR heated waters and is heavily influenced by the cycle of the PDO.Now, since approx. 2000 we are in a negative PDO, meaning much of the surface water is moderated by water from the deep, therefore favoring a prolonged period of weak EL Nino and stronger LA Nina conditions. This is why i said they could use any fitting value of mechcanisms, including the pattern of thrown chicken bones to get a graph matching just past and present conditions. If they chose the wrong indexes, values, or likely missed important largely unknown and unmeasured mechanisms, that graph will diverge more and more from real world observation as we move downstream in time. Their graph is as useless in long term projections as the current generation of GCM's. The science is not there yet,and likely will never be, given random events, to produce accurate models projecting out much past current weather reports. Take a look at the work of Don Easterbrook and Joseph Aleo for scientific review of some of the above subjects.
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jan 18, 2014 - 01:40pm PT
Chief, Already stated that science and Taoism are not incompatible. Think implicate and explicate order per Bohm. As for the blip there are multiple models for adaptive responses in climate modulation that have been proposed to answer that observation. And, no, I'm not going to continue the conversation about it, because it's a dead end.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 18, 2014 - 02:34pm PT
The graph combining ENSO, solar variability, volcanic aerosols, and of course CO2 presented by Chiloe and expanded upon by ED is questionable TLP in values assigned to solar, aerosols,and the exclusion of PDO which directly affects the intensity of El Nino/La Nina events.
Nope. That's quite easy to test, scientists have tested this many times of course, I can even test it right here.

Here's an updated version of my ultra-simple ARMAX model for NCDC global temperature, predicted from aerosol optical depth (aod), multivariate ENSO index (mei), CO2, and total solar irradiance (tsi). Anyone who can read regression output will note that all four significantly affect temperature, with CO2 by far the strongest. The formatting is a mess, but this basically replicates (slightly updated) what I did a while back. Probabilities from statistical significance tests for the individual predictors are shown in bold.

ARIMA regression

Sample: Feb1980 - Oct2012 Number of obs = 393
Wald chi2(6) = 637.00
Log likelihood = 404.9257 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000
------------------------------------------------------------------

ncdctemp | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------

L1.aod | -1.170165 .4312863 -2.71 0.007 -2.01547 -.324859
L1.mei | .0496283 .0099696 4.98 0.000 .0300883 .0691684
L1.co2 | .0095901 .0008292 11.57 0.000 .0079649 .0112153
L1.tsi | .0493491 .017525 2.82 0.005 .0150007 .0836975
_cons | -70.46668 24.00868 -2.94 0.003 -117.5228 -23.41053
-------------+----------------------------------------------------

ARMA |
L1.ar | .7627463 .0581781 13.11 0.000 .6487193 .8767732
L1.ma | -.3670857 .0835988 -4.39 0.000 -.5309364 -.203235
-------------+----------------------------------------------------

/sigma | .0863159 .0026996 31.97 0.000 .0810249 .091607
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 18, 2014 - 02:44pm PT
And here is exactly the same model but with the PDO index included as a 5th possible predictor. Again the formatting is sloppy but if you can read regression you'll see the PDO is the only one of these five predictors that does *not* significantly affect temperature. Probabilities from statistical significance tests for the individual predictors are shown in bold.

ARIMA regression

Sample: Feb1980 - Oct2012 Number of obs = 393
Wald chi2(7) = 635.98
Log likelihood = 405.0842 Prob > chi2 = 0.0000

------------------------------------------------------------------

ncdctemp | Coef. Std. Err. z P>|z| [95% Conf. Interval]
-------------+----------------------------------------------------

L1.aod | -1.163197 .4378879 -2.66 0.008 -2.021441 -.3049525
L1.mei | .0512049 .0101979 5.02 0.000 .0312173 .0711925
L1.co2 | .0094909 .0008578 11.06 0.000 .0078097 .0111722
L1.tsi | .0487908 .0175353 2.78 0.005 .0144223 .0831593
L1.pdo | -.0041615 .0082401 -0.51 0.614 -.0203119 .0119888
_cons | -69.66773 24.02906 -2.90 0.004 -116.7638 -22.57164
-------------+----------------------------------------------------

ARMA |
L1.ar | .7662463 .0578341 13.25 0.000 .6528935 .8795991
L1.ma | -.3732864 .0834124 -4.48 0.000 -.5367716 -.2098012
-------------+----------------------------------------------------

/sigma | .086281 .0027424 31.46 0.000 .0809061 .0916559
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 18, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
Those analyses are ultra-simple as I said (took me about 5 minutes) and by no means definitive. Others have done far more detailed work and reached similar conclusions. What I'm trying to show here is just a glimpse of how science works: testing hypotheses and finding out what results.

Back to the PDO, one theoretical problem it has as a predictor of observed temperature is that the PDO index is itself defined from observed temperature, so of course there is some correlation. What the analysis above suggests is that this correlation is largely spurious, when you take other things (MEI, AOD, TSI and CO2 in this instance) into account. Put another way, the evidence suggests that PDO-related temperatures and global temperatures are correlated in part because they have common causes, not because one causes the other.

But don't take my word for it, anyone can be a real skeptic and try things out for themselves. I think you could get roughly similar results using the ordinary multiple regression function in Excel, although the confidence intervals and significance tests there will be invalid (because disturbances are not independent and identically distributed, but that's a whole 'nother talk).
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jan 18, 2014 - 03:47pm PT
Chief,

You can read and regurgitate Lao Tzu's words, but you do not understand them. The principles of taoism do not refute science. Many phenomena observed through science conform to yin and yang - the sympathetic (yang) and parasympathetic (yin) nervous systems and afferentation (yin) and efferentation (yang) of the nervous system come to mind.

You have no real grasp of science, scientific terms, or scientific principles; you're just acting like a blowhard (I don't know if you actually are or not, I haven't had the opportunity to observe directly). My wife tells me I have two ears and one mouth so I can listen more than I talk and actually learn things. She's put up with me for over thirty years and her advice has served me well. I hope it does you, as well. Actually study the basic workings of science. I'm still working on it, but it brightens my experience and understanding of the world much more than dogma. Wish I were as smart as Ed H. or Chiloe, but I'll have to settle for the data storage, RAM, and processing power that I have, such as it is.

Here is the link to Bohm's idea about implicate and explicate order. It may be wrong, it may be right, it is interesting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicate_and_explicate_order

Oh, and Bohm is referring to impicate as in convey (a meaning or intention) indirectly through what one says, rather than stating it explicitly; imply rather than implicate as in show (someone) to be involved in a crime.

Much of your postings relate to Lao Tzu's -

“Those who know do not speak. Those who speak do not know.”

Or, similarly, according to Shakespeare -

"Methinks thou protest too much."

It would probably be best for us to focus on Lao Tzu's observation -

“Simplicity, patience, compassion.
These three are your greatest treasures.
Simple in actions and thoughts, you return to the source of being.
Patient with both friends and enemies,
you accord with the way things are.
Compassionate toward yourself,
you reconcile all beings in the world.”

And, sincerely, the Ralph Alan Dale translation of the Tao Te Ching is THE gold standard, IMHO! ;-)
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 18, 2014 - 04:02pm PT
There was an odd comment a few days ago about peer review, in which the author meant to praise WUWT:
As chiloe pointed out, the articles their receive instant peer review and criticism leading some prominent posters like Bob Tisdale to pull down his paper. If only the CAGW community received such critical peer review of their papers instead of the more common place "pal review".
The commenter does not understand either peer review or science, misstates what I said, and gets reality backwards. But both peer review and "pal review" are interesting topics worth discussion.

The "pal review" thing is suddenly in the blogs again as a new journal called Pattern Recognition in Physics was cancelled by its publisher due to exactly that problem, after only two issues. Climatologist James Annan describes the big picture, with links:
Recognising a pattern
The pattern goes something like this: climate sceptic can't publish their nonsense in any real journal under normal peer review condition. CS attains editorship of journal. CS invites his pals to submit their nonsense, they all "review" each other's papers, and recommend them for publication. CS claims that new peer-reviewed research casts doubt on climate change, or words to that effect. Journal reputation goes down the pan. Exhibit A, Climate Research. Exhibit B, Energy and Environment.
Let's now examine Exhibit C: "Pattern recognition in Physics, an open-access journal". Editor Niels-Axel Mörner, check. Authors and reviewers Scafetta, Tattersall, Jelbring, etc, check. "Pattern recognition in Physics, an ex-journal", check.
Annan's first two links are Wikipedia pages describing previous climate "pal review" incidents, and then the most recent. In its first two issues half the PRP articles were written by the editors. Apparently there were even more problems with the pal reviewers. In cancelling this journal, the publisher wrote:
In addition, the editors selected the referees on a nepotistic basis, which we regard as malpractice in scientific publishing and not in accordance with our publication ethics we expect to be followed by the editors.
Exhibit A, Climate Research.
Exhibit B, Energy and Environment
Exhibit C, Pattern Recognition in Physics
TLP

climber
Jan 18, 2014 - 04:55pm PT
^^^^ Man, Chiloe scores a hat trick today!
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Jan 18, 2014 - 05:20pm PT
The AGW industry is getting smarter and colluding to make predictions
that cover the entire spectrum. Wet,dry, hot, cold.

This is possible with so many dot.orgs financed by government grants.

Its a certainty that one of the models will be close to reality
because every possible outcome has been purposely predicted.

Then the Warmists raise their fists and declare a false victory.

Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jan 18, 2014 - 05:49pm PT
Chief,
Already answered the questions you keep posting in previous posts. Two ears, one mouth, remember?

We all need to consider that our suppositions about reality need to have some standard of validation that is external for them to pass the threshold of legitimacy deserving respect. We all deserve the clarity that comes from reading more, listening more, not believing everything we think, always being critical of data and its' meaning, but realizing the preponderance of evidence prevails. also, we can keep observing, keep learning, keep open, don't figure we have all the answers, figure that other people have some of the answers that we don't have. It's all about getting as close to reality as possible. That's where the "magic" is happening! Making random sh#t up and sheltering your ideas in bombast just doesn't have the same juice. We can bathe ourselves in the breadth and depth and beauty and "magic" of reality!

Or, we can do this...

“A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small parcel.”
~John Ruskin
Messages 13261 - 13280 of total 21596 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