Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14001 - 14020 of total 28427 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 9, 2013 - 09:39pm PT
The distinguished MIT professor of physics, Dr. Richard Lindzen, recently penned a short, sober evaluation of IPCC AR5 and the state of climate alarmism. You climate hotheads should cool off by trying to comprehend the simple truth of it all. See below.

http://www.thegwpf.org/richard-lindzen-understanding-ipcc-climate-assessment
Hankster

Social climber
Golden, CO
Oct 9, 2013 - 09:58pm PT
You climate hotheads should cool off by trying to comprehend the simple truth of it all.

BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Oct 9, 2013 - 11:05pm PT
A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grow up that is familiar with it.


This has happened. When plate tectonics suddenly explained everything, quite elegantly, there were some old timers who couldn't let go of geosynclinal theory, because they had published and built their careers on it.

Eventually they died off, to be honest. Now geosynclinal theory is a footnote that most young geologists have never heard of. Type "geosynclinal theory" into wiki and it will take you to a short page describing its replacement by plate tectonics, which is a simple theory. Geosynclinal theory was so damn complicated and weird that its exit was not missed.

Any scientist who spends his time writing for the Wall Street Journal and not publishing is a goner. He has passed his prime and is now a politician.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 9, 2013 - 11:06pm PT
Really Wyna, who is deluded,the originator of the above posted diatribe or the subject? Seems to me the date on the peice was 2010, so we have three more years of evaluation since. Lindzen is right, whether the IPCC admits clearly or not the climate sensitivity estimates of a doubling of co2 are trending downwards. The expected values of positive feedbacks relentlessly hyped by the supposed 97% consensus ( odd, their was no Cook et al study in 2010) is being drowned out by effects of under appreciated and ignored negative feedbacks- witness the 15 year atmospheric warming hiatus the hotheads do their best to lie about. And to try to explain away the fiasco of climate gate doesn't wash with the public or scientific community at large.

Ahh Base, the reluctant hero, forever searching out more petroleum deposits to power our modern way of life and make up for the inadequacies of "green energy".
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 9, 2013 - 11:14pm PT
Seems to you huh Rick.....good thing yer on the case inspector clouseau.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 9, 2013 - 11:30pm PT
Pretty interesting how until 1999, the Oceans heat index was for the most part, stable and consistent. This of course corresponds to the new studies that indicate that is where all the warming went during the hiatus.











The key point that the researchers from NOAA and the other climate scientists will not elaborate on, that is also the year when the NOAA ARGO 3000 floats began being dispersed throughout the worlds oceans.

Coincidence. Hmmmmmm.


Lack of sustained observations of the atmosphere, oceans and land have hindered the development and validation of climate models. An example comes from a recent analysis which concluded that the currents transporting heat northwards in the Atlantic and influencing western European climate had weakened by 30% in the past decade. This result had to be based on just five research measurements spread over 40 years. Was this change part of a trend that might lead to a major change in the Atlantic circulation, or due to natural variability that will reverse in the future, or is it an artifact of the limited observations?

In 1999, to combat this lack of data, an innovative step was taken by scientists to greatly improve the collection of observations inside the ocean through increased sampling of old and new quantities and increased coverage in terms of time and area.

That step was Argo.
http://www.argo.ucsd.edu/


Watch these and see what happens to the worlds ocean heat distribution before ARGO. Then after the 3000 ARGO floats were dispersed and implemented in 1999 and on line.

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nodc-temp-obs-at-250m.gif

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nodc-temp-obs-at-500m.gif

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nodc-temp-obs-at-1500m.gif



Again, coincendence?



I think not.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 9, 2013 - 11:34pm PT
Mono, what you and others living in the delusional realm don't get is that in the real world effects like ENSO, volcanism, solar fluctuations, and many other effects can never be seperated from the raw data-they create the raw data. If you don't get this you are forever doomed to Lala land.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 9, 2013 - 11:38pm PT
Pretty amazing MONO how prior to 1999 and ARGO, there are obviously minimal data ocean heat collection points.

After 1999 and ARGO's 3000 floats go on line, it is a whole different story. Everything gets warmer. At all depths.


Pretty amazing what happens to the data when your data collection resources are increased 3000%.



http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nodc-temp-obs-at-250m.gif

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nodc-temp-obs-at-500m.gif

http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/nodc-temp-obs-at-1500m.gif




What a crock of bullshet deception on the IPCC's/AR5's part.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 9, 2013 - 11:53pm PT
Hey MONO and CHILOE, the deception and bullshet grows...



Now that is pretty fking amazing and a great magical show.








As the percentage of data collection points/coverage (ARGO) goes up, so does the warming.



wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Oct 10, 2013 - 07:48am PT
"inadequacies of "green energy""

Says the FF stockholder.

There is only one reason for this smear. Big Oil
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 10, 2013 - 11:20am PT
what you and others living in the delusional realm don't get is that in the real world effects like ENSO, volcanism, solar fluctuations, and many other effects can never be seperated from the raw data-they create the raw data.

That's cute... Dr. Al Siding thinks he knows something he is clearly clueless about.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 10, 2013 - 11:32am PT
Quack all you want about Lindzen. He is still the Senior Climate Science professor at MIT with over 35 published and peer reved papers in the past nine years.

To quack on Lindzen is to do the same to MIT.


RILEDUP,

Coming from Jimmy Hansen, it is most assuredly that he distorted every word.

James Hansen recalls meeting Lindzen whilst testifying before the Vice President's Climate Task Force: "I considered asking Lindzen if he still believed there was no connection between smoking and lung cancer. He had been a witness for tobacco companies decades earlier, questioning the reliability of statistical connections between smoking and health problems. But I decided that would be too confrontational. When I met him at a later conference, I did ask that question, and was surprised by his response: He began rattling off all the problems with the date relating smoking to helath problems, which was closely analagous to his views of climate data.

Old Doc Jimmy disdains the Lindzen man. Just as many here do myself, RICK S, RON etal. It is synonymous with the protocol of all the WARMISTS defense.

Discredit and demean to a pulp.

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 10, 2013 - 11:42am PT
That's cute... you can't trust science or scientists, unless the Chuffer agrees with them, then you best recognize the awesome intellectual authority of ONE Prof Emeritus because they are at MIT.

According to an April 30, 2012 New York Times article, "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point "nutty." He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate." However, he believes that decreasing tropical cirrus clouds in a warmer world will allow more longwave radiation to escape the atmosphere, counteracting the warming. Lindzen first published this "iris" theory in 2001, and offered more support in a 2009 paper, but today "most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzenís theory discredited" according to the Times article.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 10, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
EDH

academic freedom at the universities and colleges generally separates the faculty peculiarities from the institution, that is, professors are pretty much free to say anything they want to say free from the strictures of their institutions.

there are ways that professors can get fired, but not for voicing opinions.

That being the way it is, those institutions are generally insulated from their faculties' positions on controversial matters. Criticizing Lindzen has nothing at all to do with criticizing MIT.

Well that says tons then for the Higher Education Institution if they maintain a staff of as you here state, "junk science" quacks.

Especially keeping that particular individual in the Senior capacity in which they are and have been in.

Like I said, the generalized critique of Lindzen and his supposed science, is a direct reflection on the institution as a senior active faculty member. He is teaching that supposed junk science to his students on a daily basis.

Thus, MIT endorses the proliferation of JUNK SCIENCE to their student body.


OH, and there are many other very reputable higher education institutions that maintain the "Quack Skeptics" on their faculty. Allowing them to do just as MIT does, to proliferate their quack junk science to the student body.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 10, 2013 - 12:13pm PT
So The Chief, how does bashing MIT and it's professors relate to the topic at hand--climate science?

The Chief cannot stick to the topic if his view is shown to be muddied by opinion instead of by fact.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 10, 2013 - 12:16pm PT
You all bash dudes like Lindzen, you are bashing the institution that maintains them on their faculty to teach about Climate Science to their student body.

According to you KMAN and the rest here, them skeptic scientists are teaching and proliferating nothing more than JUNK BULLSHET BIG OIL PAID FOR SCIENCE.

Go figure...


Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 10, 2013 - 12:21pm PT
academic freedom at the universities and colleges generally separates the faculty peculiarities from the institution, that is, professors are pretty much free to say anything they want to say free from the strictures of their institutions.

there are ways that professors can get fired, but not for voicing opinions.

Really?

How about Richard Sternberg, Caroline Crocker, Robert J. Marks and Guillermo Gonzalez?

They all faced significant consequences for voicing unpopular opinions.

From Roger Pielke, Jr.
http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.com/2010/06/do-climate-blacklists-matter.html
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 10, 2013 - 12:30pm PT
Better put out some red flags on these Universities for allowing junk science proliferators on their faculty....

Judith Curry is a former professor of Atmospheric and Oceanic Sciences at the University of Colorado-Boulder and has held faculty positions at Penn State University, Purdue, and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She is currently a professor and Chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and has held this position since 2002.

Roger A. Pielke Sr.... Senior Research Scientist, Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES), University of Colorado in Boulder Professor Emeritus of the Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University, Fort Collins


And the list of Junk Science Proliferating Professors will grow..
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 10, 2013 - 12:40pm PT
You all bash dudes like Lindzen, you are bashing the institution

I must have missed the point where anyone where bashed Lindzen as a person or MIT as an institution. They may have bashed the research in question, but can you really blame them?

Dr. Lindzen acknowledged that the 2009 paper contained "some stupid mistakes" in his handling of the satellite data. "It was just embarrassing," he said in the Times interview.

You on the other hand... everyone bashes you because you are an idiotic blowhard who doesn't know sh#t about sh#t, yet you continue to insist you do and that your UNINFORMED OPINION is somehow relevant.

Awesome... sketch posted a link to a blog... I'm sure it is fully of factual information and totally relevant to climate science. I can't wait to read it!
raymond phule

climber
Oct 10, 2013 - 12:42pm PT

And the list will grow..

You are the person that made that connection and your list of crap universities and organizations is already much much longer and probably even consist of every university in the world.

Your and your peers view is so ridiculous. You have no problem to discredit most scientists but still make authority arguments when your favorite scientists are discussed.

Hansen is for example the worst person on earth and should be ignored even though he is employed by Nasa. Spencer on the other hand is a very important authority because he has been working with Nasa.
Messages 14001 - 14020 of total 28427 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