Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14181 - 14200 of total 29706 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 13, 2013 - 01:04am PT
MONO
You will find that lots of charts are averages of multiple data sets, just like the ocean heat content.

You MONO just happen to utilize which ever one appears the best to suite your case. Cus neither of the two graphs used tonight come any where near the other.


Perfect example of the total disparity in both the data and verbiage within this entire AGW issue.


averages of multiple data ...

Complete bullshet claim to substantiate which ever defense needs to be presented at the time.


Your repeatedly posted graph does NOT do that by any means according to the data presented in the second graph which you claim shows flatlining in your ARGO defense.

They are NO where near one another. No where!

If the two graph's (data sets) are avg'd into one graph, both your defenses tonight are shot to shet.

FAIL!



Cite ALL the data sets that were utilized then "averaged" in order to come up with the information in your consistently posted graph below...




raymond phule

climber
Oct 13, 2013 - 01:07am PT

Look at you. Splitting hairs...

and being a d1ck about it.

and you are just being an idiot. I am not just splitting hairs about the grouping because the difference in what you have found in a blogg and what was actually asked in the article is very important. You obviously haven't cared to read a short and very easy to read article.

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 13, 2013 - 01:26am PT
Fact is MONO, this "averaged" data set from NOAA (Levitus et al.) for the same time frame and Ocean Depths clearly indicates how after ARGO was implemented, the warming spiked considerably and indicates NO flatlining as you stated:


http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html


Amazingly, it still falls way short in coming any where close to correlating with your "averaged" graph. Even the beginning data is completely off by a substantial margin.






Even more interesting is this statement from the Leviticus (NOAA) study:

Levitus et al. use OHC measurements from ARGO floats corrected for systematic errors, as well as data from expendable bathythermographs (XBT) and mechanical bathythermographs (MBT), with the necessary corrections applied. A bathythermograph is an instrument which has a temperature sensor and is thrown overboard from ships to record pressure and temperature changes as it drops through the water. These were the main instruments used to measure OHC before the ARGO float network was deployed starting about a decade ago to provide more accurate and consistent data.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/levitus-2012-global-warming-heating-oceans.html

In other words, the data collected prior to the deployment of ARGO was NOT consistent nor very accurate or anywhere close to accurate & consistent as that which has been collected from ARGO.

Obviously playing a major role in the "SPIKE" after the deployment of ARGO. That comes from the "averaged" data sets from the above NOAA study for the same time frame indicated in your graph.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 13, 2013 - 02:17am PT
ALSO!!!



Appears that the GOV'T is not all that interested in developing alternative Nuclear Energy options either.

The DEM ruled SENATE has a play in it as well. Do not blame it all solely on the HOUSE.

Bummer to see you get the jack EDH. But your post from the other thread clearly shows that this AGW deal is not at all high on the GOV'Ts priority list...

More problematic, LLNL, and all the national labs, are contractors, not federal employees, so they are not going to get back pay (currently). The various contractual issues are being "worked" but paying contractors for not working is not usually an "allowed expense." That means we're taking a pay cut starting October 18th if there is no budget.

If this drags through November, we won't have health insurance that month as the lab doesn't have the cash, and we're not working... though the lab management is trying to work out some mitigation.

All the national labs are facing this problem, the difference in timing of the closings has to do with the amount of "carry over" the labs have from the previous fiscal year. Usually this is a maximum of 14% of the total budget. In the past decade of disfunction in the House, these funds were necessary to get the labs through the period it has taken to get a budget, or at least a "Continuing Resolution." Unfortunately that time has increased over the last few years... and last year's sequestered budget greatly reduced the funds available to carry over.

The previous shutdown in 1997 was after the House had approved the appropriations bill including the labs, so it wasn't an issue. This time it will be a real problem for most of the lab employees.
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2246269&tn=0


This is a clear indication where the Nation stands on this AGW issue.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Oct 13, 2013 - 09:08am PT
A list of questionable journal publishers is here
http://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/
and the list criteria is here
http://scholarlyoa.com/2012/11/30/criteria-for-determining-predatory-open-access-publishers-2nd-edition/

The most basic obligation of a scientific journal is to perform peer review, arXiv founder Ginsparg says. He laments that a large proportion of open-access scientific publishers "clearly are not doing that." Ensuring that journals honor their obligation is a challenge that the scientific community must rise to. "Journals without quality control are destructive, especially for developing world countries where governments and universities are filling up with people with bogus scientific credentials," Ginsparg says.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 13, 2013 - 09:40am PT
and you are just being an idiot. I am not just splitting hairs about the grouping because the difference in what you have found in a blogg and what was actually asked in the article is very important. You obviously haven't cared to read a short and very easy to read article.

More of the same. What a surprise.

The study plays fast and loose with definitions. According to the intro, the consensus position is humans are cause global warming, which means anyone who thinks humans have caused any warming (even 1%) are part of the consensus.

According to just about every climate change expert I've read and the IPCC (let's exclude skeptics), humans have caused most of the warming in recent history. Less than 1% of all the papers examined support that position. Less than 2% of the papers stating a position support that position.

Obama took the study and ran with it, tweeting the 97% of scientists agree that AGW is dangerous. That was a blatant lie.

One of the study's authors, Dana Nuccitelli, has a blog at The Guardian. Last month he wrote about the IPCC stating "with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming". He twisted that into "100 percent of the global warming over the past 60 years is human-caused, according to the IPCC's latest report". That's a lie. It's propaganda.

What do you think the consensus opinion is regarding man's contribution to global warming? What percentage of the warming has been caused by man?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 13, 2013 - 09:49am PT
Peer review has been on my mind lately as we wrap up one paper and think of drafting two others. Also there seems to be a small stack of requests to do reviews in my inbox. Everyone who goes through this could tell stories about the times it worked well and poorly. The effort and intelligence of editors can make a big difference. Still it's a central and important part of the process.

I've seen some quite silly blog posts where over-sensitive authors recount a normal but critical review experience, and whinge of persecution to their fans.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 13, 2013 - 10:08am PT
According to the ARGO site, the primary reason for it's design and implementation was the fact that the data being collected prior to it's deployment was sparse, inconsistent and inaccurate.

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/index.html



Also, all three SAT's that are used in conjunction with the previous ALACE floats program and then the current ARGO float Program, DO NOT COLLECT TEMPS. They only collect TOPOGRAPHICAL/HEIGHT DATA. So they have absolutely NOTHING to do with measuring the salinity nor temperatures of the Oceans.

TOPEX/Poseidon, Jason-1, and OSTM/Jason-2 all have the same suite of instruments.

They are:
Altimeter(s) - measures range (the distance from the satellite to the Earth's surface), wave height and wind speed.
http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/technology/


Bottomline, the fact that the obvious spike in temps after the implementation of ARGO seriously questions the true accuracy and reliability of the data sets previous to it's deployment.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 13, 2013 - 10:43am PT

According to just about every climate change expert I've read and the IPCC (let's exclude skeptics), humans have caused most of the warming in recent history. Less than 1% of all the papers examined support that position. Less than 2% of the papers stating a position support that position.

You could always read the article and try to understand it. You are for example using "support that position" incorrectly above.

I definitely don't think that the cook et al. paper is the last word on the matter but any criticism should at least be based on the article.

The article do for example clearly show that a large part of authors do not make any exact claims in regard to AGW in their abstracts.
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 13, 2013 - 10:47am PT
What do you think the consensus opinion is regarding man's contribution to global warming? What percentage of the warming has been caused by man?
raymond phule

climber
Oct 13, 2013 - 10:58am PT
That most of the warming has been due to humans.

Can you answer my posts now? For example how you came to the conclusion that "Less than 2% of the papers stating a position support that position." when the problem is that most of the articles that stated opinion didn't do it clear enough.

raymond phule

climber
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:06am PT

One of the study's authors, Dana Nuccitelli, has a blog at The Guardian. Last month he wrote about the IPCC stating "with 95 percent confidence that humans are the main cause of the current global warming". He twisted that into "100 percent of the global warming over the past 60 years is human-caused, according to the IPCC's latest report". That's a lie. It's propaganda.

I have just skimmed that article but it is clear that he tries to explain what he means. You know that not everything is about finding catchy sentences that you can disagree with?
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:08am PT
Less than two percent of the papers endorsing any AGW explicitly stated that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:10am PT
Yes, I know that. Can you now answer what the implications of that is and how you come to that conclusion?
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:11am PT
I have just skimmed that article but it is clear that he tries to explain what he means. You know that not everything is about finding catchy sentences that you can disagree with?

It was part of the title.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:14am PT
What do you think the consensus opinion is regarding man's contribution to global warming? What percentage of the warming has been caused by man?


The above is the primary argument and basis for this entire issue over the last 40 something years. Climate Science has been doing all it can to validate this "theory" of theirs.


In the meantime, with all the resources and funding going towards "proving" it, no real VIABLE or AFFORDABLE energy alternatives have been implemented globally.


Like DMT posted a couple of weeks ago, the FF resources are indeed finite. The SCIENCE world needs not continue to ponder on proving itself right by every 5 or 7 years coming out with studies that increase it's statistical ego in assuring itself what is causing the warming and thus remaining in the problem.

Instead, it could have and now needs to come up with viable and affordable IMMEDIATE solutions that can be applied by ALL humans throughout this planet. Something of which it has failed to do over the last 40 something years with the ongoing back and forth finger pointing argument such as the one that prevails here on this thread, continues. Being which side of the coin is right.

Imposing taxes and fines on the worlds largest energy consumers (being the manufacturing sector) and producers, is not an alternative that motivates change on their part. It just motivates those entities to pass on the financial burdens that are being imposed on them onto the consumers. The common man. In the mean time, the emissions continue to rise and no one does anything to mitigate shet. Business remains as usual on a daily basis globally and no one changes any behavior cus they are only insistently pointing the finger at one another.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:24am PT
It was part of the title.

We've established that Sketch can't read this stuff, and is sure he does not need to.
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:30am PT
It was part of the title.

We've established that Sketch can't read this stuff, and is sure he does not need to.

Apparently, some of the alarmists are okay with blatant lies.

It's good for the cause, eh?
raymond phule

climber
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:32am PT
It was part of the title.


Yes, I know and I hoped that you and other people read the full article before making claims about lies.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 13, 2013 - 11:35am PT

Apparently, some of the alarmists are okay with blatant lies.

It's good for the cause, eh?

Blatant lies? You know that the IPCC report are more than a couple of paragraphs with conclusions?
Messages 14181 - 14200 of total 29706 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