Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 13441 - 13460 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:01pm PT
Takes two to tango....
Why are you on this thread?
It's like watching the Simpsons, right?

And don't forget
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

A question for DMT:
Are you not concerned for the future of your kids?
Cragar

climber
MSLA - MT
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:08pm PT
Interesting plot that the chief has found.

yeah, kinda the problem with a fair number of folks posting here, they find what they believe and are looking for. They don't create and divulge the metadata and methods of the resulting plot, they 'find'/regurgitate stuff in agreement and cannot reproduce these found images they post. Quite hilarious in a not so funny way.

To make a valid argument, y'all gotta create your argument, not find it, unless you can replicate and understand it.

^^just trying to say differently what has been said and subsequently ignored up thread +/- 100's of times.

raymond phule

climber
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:25pm PT
Haha, the stupidity is endless.


Every "Graph" I posted today and yesterday are all collected and recorded DATA/OBSERVATIONS that have actually occurred!

No model or prediction.

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2325932#msg2325932

The first graph goes to 2035. Did the author use a time machine when he recorded the data?

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:26pm PT
Every "Graph" I posted today and yesterday are all collected and recorded DATA/OBSERVATIONS that have actually occurred!

No model or prediction.

LOL, Chief. Look at the dates in the graph you posted.

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:26pm PT
Why are you on this thread?
It's like watching the Simpsons, right?

I have never watched an episode of the Simpsons, so no, its not like that.

And don't forget
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

Well the Magnificent Five don't strike me as evil, sorry.

A question for DMT:
Are you not concerned for the future of your kids?

In the context of this thread? No, I am not that concerned.

DMT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:30pm PT
If you will indulge us, DMT, I'd really like to know your thoughts on Climate Change.

raymond phule

climber
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:43pm PT

Let's look at them dates....

You missed to look at the dates for one of your figures...

edit:

Corresponds just perfect with the one above.

Yes, but it still show a prediction into the future.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:47pm PT
My thoughts?

First of all, in regards to human-cause climate change, my opinion of it means nothing. Time alone will resolve the central 'human caused' component. Time will also solve the repercussions of it all.

With regards to the political realm I think the deniers often make a good case of two points:

1. Some of the proponents of the 'have to act now' school are guilty as charged of misinformation, grand standing and dire predictions. Scientists should not take this personally, however. This is not an indictment of the data analysis. It is a recognition that bullshit is not limited to one side of this debate.

2. The oil lifestyle we all enjoy, me and the chief included, will not be fundamentally altered until the cost of oil exceeds some other, cleaner, fuel source.

So yeah I can give you the plucked heart-string note 'of COURSE I am concerned about human caused climate change.' Because of course, I am! But I can also shrug off a lot of the 'must act now' hysteria as political bullshit that does not take into account the reality of a global economy.

Big article in the local rag yesterday about how Chinese coal-burning pollution is contributing to California smog, perfect example actually.

Is the U.S. prepared to say 'no' to coal-produced products from China?

Of course not!

Will all this be dumped at the feet of subsequent generations? Of course it will!

Will my generation leave the planet for the better or for the worse?

Yes. :D

DMT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 22, 2014 - 03:54pm PT
Thanks DMT.
Your opinion does mean something, because politicians will do nothing until the public demands it.

I was hoping for your opinion of the science, as that is what the deniers are actively trying to discredit. I was also wondering what your impression is of the magnitude of the problem.

I don't pay much attention to the politics of possible solutions, because there won't be much impetus to solve the problem until we all agree that there is a problem.

Time will also solve the repercussions of it all.
Do you mean "time will clarify the repercussions" ?
cause I suspect time will make the repercussions worse, not better.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:03pm PT
I was hoping for your opinion of the science, as that is what the deniers are actively trying to discredit. I was also wondering what your impression is of the magnitude of the problem.

I think the science is solid. Its not static nor is any model ever 100% accurate of even current conditions much less those that lie in the future. The attempts to discredit the science here in this thread have utterly failed. The reason they are failed is the deniers formed their opinion first and then went looking for supporting material. Meaning they took a completely unscientific approach to arguing against human caused component of climate change. They will never win such a debate because there is no debate.

The magnitude? Straight up - I do not know. I am not impressed with chicken little sky is falling hysteria, however.

For example: Did human activity cause the glaciers to melt? Reworded, would the glaciers have remained intact sans human activity?

I do not know.

Ask away if you've more questions. I'm a genuine fence sitter as the chief charges. I can be (and have been) swayed... but I'm not easy.

DMT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:10pm PT
Good enough.
I wanted an opinion from a man in the street, who has been exposed to the info in this thread, but doesn't have a science background.

None of us knows the magnitude of the problem for sure, but my reading indicates there is a good chance that we won't like it.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:14pm PT
Time will also solve the repercussions of it all.
Do you mean "time will clarify the repercussions" ?
cause I suspect time will make the repercussions worse, not better.

"Worse" and "better" are value judgements that presently escape me. "Different" is where I land these days.

That aside, yes, I mean time will resolve the repercussions of human caused change. I left out the word climate on purpose. Climate is only one of the global aspects of human change. We seem bent on killing the host planet using a variety of different means.

Where ever possible I think 'human caused change' should be conflated - climate, ecosystem health, pollution, noise, chemicals everywhere, population, etc.

Speaking from a strictly fatalistic view? Humanity is doomed. Our species will fill the petrie dish of life and consume everything it can in route to... exhausting the petrie dish.

Can humans unite on a global level to combat our impact?

No, not at present. Not even close. So I return to my statement - time alone will resolve the accuracy of the current science, yes. And time alone will deal with the repercussions of the actual climate change.

There is very little I can do to help assure my children's future will be like my present... because it won't be.

DMT
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:14pm PT
They will never win such a debate because there is no debate.

Truth.

Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:25pm PT
an interesting sidetrack
some of the comments are good also

http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2014/01/life-keeps-changing-why-stories-not-science-explain-the-world/283219/
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:29pm PT
I'm not saying the skeptic camp is any better. I'm just pointing out some climate scientists toss neutrality when it's beneficial.

Sketch, can you post some names of the climate scientists you say toss neutrality?

I am asking because what I read mostly is the hammering any scientist gets within their own scientific community when either their data collection or conclusions are not supported by peer review

names, thanks?
TLP

climber
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:34pm PT
Take for example USHCN's v1 which adjusted modern temps up a half a degree c, or v2 which dropped the past temps by a full degree c. It seems the adjustments always go the same way-to make it look as the modern era is unprecedented and almost all the graphs you guys are posting are based on these maladjustments.

Rick, you seem to see monsters and a conspiratorial plot under every bed. You should look at the explanation of exactly what the data adjustments are that you are worried about (for V.2, that's Menne, Williams, and Vose, 2009; available at ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/ushcn/v2/monthly/menne-etal2009.pdf).

For example, here are some of the quality checks applied to daily data: days on which both maximum and minimum temperatures are 0 F; duplication of data for an entire year or month; impossible value (temperature exceeds known world records); various kinds of inconsistency such as whether a temperature exceeds that on the preceding and following days by more than 25 C (45 F); and so on. Similarly for monthly data: temperatures that exceed the climatological means for the same station and month by at least five standard deviations; and others.

These are really standard types of data quality checks that are used in all kinds of research where field data is going to be summarized or subjected to statistical tests or modeling.

Others are unique to climate monitoring: the time of day that observations are made has changed over the years, and that affects the data because temperature changes all day long. It seems entirely reasonable to correct for this kind of thing, which has absolutely nothing whatever to do with cherry-picking data to find a particular result. You need to read the description of the methodology and explain what specific things you take exception to; or if not, then accept that it's a valid and unbiased methodology and the corrected data is the best set to use for analysis.
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:41pm PT
What a fukking 'tard. I can't believe I paid you money to wash boat decks. Makes me ill.

If you're like most of the pro-GW crowd, don't worry, you didn't! (Remember good ol' Romney and the 47%--lots of truth there).


None of us knows the magnitude of the problem for sure, but my reading indicates there is a good chance that we won't like it.

Lots of confusion here too.
Remember that a little temp rising + some more CO2 = more plant growth.
That's usually considered to be a good thing, no?


One more:
I am asking because what I read mostly is the hammering any scientist gets within their own scientific community when either their data collection or conclusions are not supported by peer review
Norton, don't know what you read, but try reading the Economist. They had a pretty good cover story recently about the failure of "peer" review (judging by the "scientists" who post on this thread, that shouldn't be too surprising).
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 22, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
TLP. they are not under the bed. Quite the opposite, the agenda has been published material from day one-see Club of Rome and limits of growth for one example. The adjusted data always goes one way and the "reasonable" explanations are endless. Why can't you accept what is patently obvious?
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 22, 2014 - 05:06pm PT
Remember that a little temp rising + some more CO2 = more plant growth.
That's usually considered to be a good thing, no?

Why would more plant growth be considered a good thing, all by itself?

DMT

blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Jan 22, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
Why would more plant growth be considered a good thing, all by itself?

DMT

Glad to finally get some meaningful dialogue here--
We eat plants and things that eat plants. With a few exceptions, plants are good, at least in most people's opinion!

And increased plant growth has a nice side effect: to the extent that increased CO2 emissions are increasing global warming and that's a bad thing, then the expected increased biomass caused by more favorable growth conditions will absorb at least some of that increased CO2, and retard the process.

It's what scientists call "negative feedback" (somewhat like what Chiloe does when I or certain other people post here, but it has a more technical meaning too).
Messages 13441 - 13460 of total 21618 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews