Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14161 - 14180 of total 21604 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Feb 17, 2014 - 11:46am PT
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/science/some-scientists-disagree-with-presidents-linking-drought-to-warming.html[/quote]

In delivering aid to drought-stricken California last week, President Obama and his aides cited the state as an example of what could be in store for much of the rest of the country as human-caused climate change intensifies.

But in doing so, they were pushing at the boundaries of scientific knowledge about the relationship between climate change and drought. While a trend of increasing drought that may be linked to global warming has been documented in some regions, including parts of the Mediterranean and in the Southwestern United States, there is no scientific consensus yet that it is a worldwide phenomenon. Nor is there definitive evidence that it is causing California’s problems.

In fact, the most recent computer projections suggest that as the world warms, California should get wetter, not drier, in the winter, when the state gets the bulk of its precipitation. That has prompted some of the leading experts to suggest that climate change most likely had little role in causing the drought.

DMT
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 17, 2014 - 11:56am PT
I don't think anyone refutes the fact that global temperatures warmed to modern era highs in the 90s. It's what's happened in this century that's causing a lot of skepticism.
No, that's just the current denial argument. Before this one we had "urban heat islands" or "uncertainty" or "clouds will save us" or "why isn't ocean heat content rising?" or "the satellites and radiosondes don't agree with the surface temperatures." Each of these (often incompatible) points of denial were being pushed by the same folks, including the most prominent denialists in science, who today are all about the "hiatus." So the hiatus might be their current argument but it's certainly not the source of their beliefs.

The problem I have with a lot of the experts is they won't even acknowledge the "hiatus" or they've come up with new rationalizations to discount it.
You haven't tried to read or understand any of these experts, so far as I can see. There's a lot of new research on this topic, much of it discussed on this thread. You can't read that research or do the math yourself, so you dismiss it as "rationalization" based only on your politics. Or in a particularly dumb post you wink-wink nudge-nudged about it, which would sound clever only on a blog where nobody else could read the paper or do the math either.

Back in the 90s, were any of the experts predicting a pause?
You mean, were they predicting an unusually prolonged La Nina state combined with the lowest solar max in generations? No, I don't think anyone foresaw that. The models attempt to forecast what their physical basis implied would happen if ENSO, solar and other forcings stayed "average" on multi-decade timescales.

One thing to note is that what you see in most of the model-run graphics are averages across many runs. Individual runs could be widely different, and some of them do show pause behavior. We've only got one Earth so we can't average what it would do over a hundred experiments from similar starting conditions.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 17, 2014 - 12:11pm PT
If we reached today's warming level in the 90's, why was 1999 so cold?

The answer: variation.

The result: We did not reach today's warming level in the 90's.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Feb 17, 2014 - 12:15pm PT
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:6/plot/hadc...
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1998/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1998/trend
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 17, 2014 - 12:21pm PT
Thanks for making my point.
I did not make your point, but go ahead and try to make it yourself. Put together whole sentences into a paragraph. Can you do that?
Dropline

Mountain climber
Somewhere Up There
Feb 17, 2014 - 12:33pm PT
There is an interesting, and related, article about an interview with renowned independent scientist and environmentalist James Lovelock here.

http://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2008/mar/01/scienceofclimatechange.climatechange

It's an old interview, but still an interesting perspective.

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Feb 17, 2014 - 12:44pm PT
Then you claimed I "haven't tried to read or understand any of these experts". Nothing like a good ad hom.
Prove I'm wrong.
dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
Again EDH, keep posting all them "Prediction" papers that your DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT, STATE and FEDERAL, of late, have totally IGNORED.


WHY?

Actually, Obama has recently said that climate change is one of the major problems of our time.

Dimwits like you and right wing know nothings in Congress get in the way.
dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 12:57pm PT
Fact is, they, the current DEMO government, IGNORED all them supposed CC Models. They did not BELIEVE them. More like just plain incompetent and complete bullshet.


Prove it.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Feb 17, 2014 - 12:58pm PT
Obama will say anything at this point to DEFLECT focus from his crapfest of an administration.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:01pm PT
coward
dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:02pm PT
LOL...

Prove the models, whichever models you were talking about, were ignored.

Prove it.

Edit:

Norton nails it succinctly.
dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:09pm PT
You're changing the topic #1.

Fact is, they, the current DEMO government, IGNORED all them supposed CC Models. They did not BELIEVE them. More like just plain incompetent and complete bullshet.

This is what you said.

Prove it.



dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:11pm PT
Do you know the models were ignored? Or not believed?

Show the money!

Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:13pm PT
my goodness, chief

you really do believe that one man, a US President. has the power to create snow melt to keep the water tanks nice and full

he walks on water, eh?

gee, I have a pot hole in my street, how come Obama hasn't come here and filled it yet?

dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:13pm PT
Yes, we know reservoirs are dry. Posting photos over and over again do not demonstrate your point. As far as I know Brown and Obama do not know how to do effective rain dances.



dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:15pm PT
Fact is, they, the current DEMO government, IGNORED all them supposed CC Models. They did not BELIEVE them. More like just plain incompetent and complete bullshet.


Prove it.


Edit: you added the all caps, not me. You thought it was a point worth emphasizing, not me. So where's the beef, chief?


dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:17pm PT

Fact is, they, the current DEMO government, IGNORED all them supposed CC Models. They did not BELIEVE them. More like just plain incompetent and complete bullshet.

Prove it.


dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
Quit dodging what you wrote.

Coward.

dirtbag

climber
Feb 17, 2014 - 01:19pm PT
Fact is, they, the current DEMO government, IGNORED all them supposed CC Models. They did not BELIEVE them. More like just plain incompetent and complete bullshet.

There you go...



Where did they say or do something that shows they do not believe or ignored climate change models?







Messages 14161 - 14180 of total 21604 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