Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 14181 - 14200 of total 28284 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 12, 2013 - 02:43pm PT
Sketch and Ron, keep shoot em.

Their responses are so scientifically hilarious and statistically on track.

BTW: The UN is nothing more than a big ass socialized corporation.


BINGO!!!

One major problem with the high priests of Anthropogenic Global Warming / Climate Change / Climate Disruption is their certainty about the future. Their zealous followers treat their predictions as absolutes. And then when these predictions don't pan out, the high priests come up with new alarming scenarios. And the followers accept the new future as fact... again.



Why? Because none of the climate forecasting models used in the IPCC reports accurately forecasted the "hiatus" of the last 10-15 years. Even if CO2 levels are the primary driver for rising temps, it's reasonable that we would have ebbs as the trend continued upwards. Yet all of those models showed temps higher than actual temps. To me, these modelers seem a bit myopic in assessing the situation. They're 0-47. These results knock the crap out of their credibility.









Below is one Badass FF burning V-Twin handmade in Australia!

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 12, 2013 - 02:56pm PT
Sorry Wiley Rhino,, but your the one that lied. I issued you a chance to prove it and like GW its been a fail.



mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 12, 2013 - 03:15pm PT
I use basic science and chemistry on a daily basis. Geometry as well.

bahahahaahhahahaaaaaaaa.

Yeah, and I basic taxidermy skills every time I dispose of a rodent my dogs bring home.

Idiot.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 12, 2013 - 03:19pm PT
wow.. A DOCF quote? Yur kidding right?


Look Riley Whino,, either copy past MY quote where i said "there will be no hurricanes" or STFU.

Your sole purpose here is to attempt to smear degrade and insult,, per usual. But heres a hint,, at least do it so that it cant be immediately dis-proven in this very thread.


And fer snaps sake quoting DocF is like quoting West boro. Holey weak sausage martha....




edit: wes,, when i was 6 i could recite the periodic table of elements.

I work with 7 major acids from metal tans (chromium) to organic and the neutralizers, ph levels, inhibitors etc etc etc. You have zero clue as to the amount of chemistry involved in my trade. zeeerowwww...



command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Oct 12, 2013 - 03:26pm PT
"According to India Met reports,
Andhra Pradesh has been hit by super cyclones
(is there any other kind?)
30 times in October alone over the last 74 years and the latest
- Cyclone Phailin-
is the 31st cyclone.

So no climate change disaster there. Just normal weather.
Cyclones in the Bay of Bengal?
Oh is it October again?
Right.

"In the last 124 years, Andhra Pradesh has seen 77 cyclones.

And the month of October has witnessed it for the highest 77 times.
As it is not coming to us as a surprise, precautionary measures have been
put in place.
They are geared up to ensure that the loss of life and property is minimal."

http://www.hindustantimes.com/India-news/PhailinEyeOfTheStorm/Phailin-live-darkness-envelops-Odisha-Andhra-coastline-6-5-lakh-evacuated/Article1-1134374.aspx

:9:0
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 12, 2013 - 03:31pm PT
So no climate change disaster there.


Bullshet!

To the warmist, anything that happens these days is a CC disaster. Anything.


Gotta keep to the fear brewing.

The FEAR!!!
command error

Trad climber
Colorado
Oct 12, 2013 - 03:41pm PT
A clear case of spite by the warmists of not stopping the cyclone.

All they claim they had to do was by activate a few of their
magical carbon dioxide noxious incantations and 'poof' it would be over.




raymond phule

climber
Oct 12, 2013 - 04:06pm PT

The latest "97% agree" paper and discussion in another example poor credibility from the AGW camp. The researchers looked at 12,000 papers/studies. 8000 were disqualified. Of the rest, the consensus supporters were broken down to three groups - Manmade CO2 has caused warming, CO2 has caused most of the warming of the last 50 years and lastly CO2 has caused most of the warming of the last 50 years (and the future looks bleak). Of the papers stating a position of any kind, less than 2% stated the gloom and doom scenario. Well... that's not quite right. According to Cook et al, 2%. However, several the the authors in that group publicly objected to being put in that group. Less than 25% of the papers (if Cook et al are correct) supported the IPCC consensus position. Again. It's about credibility.

Where did you find that "information"? It is at least clear that you didn't find that in the Cook et. al. paper.

Yes, credibility is important and you have lost most of your credibility when you write things that everyone can see are not correct
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

You didn't even get the groupings of the papers correct.

"1 Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing
most of global warming.
2 Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: paper explicitly states humans are causing
global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact.
3 Implicit Endorsement: paper implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research
assumes greenhouse gases cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.
4 Neutral: paper doesn't address or mention issue of what's causing global warming.
5 Implicit Rejection: paper implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming
without saying so explicitly. E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global
warming.
6 Explicit Rejection without Quantification: paper explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans
are causing global warming.
7 Explicit Rejection with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing less
than half of global warming."


The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 12, 2013 - 04:28pm PT
So EDH, answer this..

How many Surface Global Temp sensors were there during this period:

1891 dT= -0.561ºC
1892 dT= -0.627
1893 dT= -0.724
1894 dT= -0.485
1895 dT= -0.571
1896 dT= -0.404
1897 dT= -0.312
1898 dT= -0.388
1899 dT= -0.336
1900 dT= -0.193



And how many during this period:



2003 dT=0.754
2004 dT=0.663
2005 dT=0.871
2006 dT=0.811
2007 dT=0.898
2008 dT=0.684
2009 dT=0.72
2010 dT=0.881
2011 dT=0.678
2012 dT=0.71




With your answer, also include why there should not be any adjustments from the first period to compensate for the 2nd or current period.

Fact is, there were less than 4% of verified sensors during first period than there are during the second period. And the locations are completely different.

But of course, just like the ARGO disbursement issue of 3000 sensors globally in 1998, we do not want to tell the general public that.

RIGHT EDH?


Sooooo much for the accuracy of your statistics.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Oct 12, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
About the same coverage in 1900 as now for HADCRUT3, which shows considerable warming, as do all the data sets.

Credit: monolith


BTW, Chief. The data shows the oceans were warming before Argo ramped up and after Argo was fully populated.

Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Oct 12, 2013 - 04:57pm PT
Norton, can you cite your source please?

We've got to keep this legit, right?
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:08pm PT
I use basic science and chemistry on a daily basis. Geometry as well.
Give us some examples so we can see whether you mean grade 12 basic or grade 2 basic.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:13pm PT
Well.

Let's take a look at locations and years IN SERVICE:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:GHCN_Temperature_Stations.png



The above paints a pretty picture as to the accuracy of statistics for anyone given locations.

Pretty amazing how the sensors around the warmist year round locations, ie the equator & tropics, have only been in service for 50 years or less. Adding of course to HEAT that was not included in any of the data prior to their service.

Also, take note how many of the sensors that have been around more than 75 years, are mostly ALL located in the Northern portion of the Northern Hemisphere.

Sure does do wonders to the warming trend when more data comes on line that is located in the hottest areas of this planet in just the last 50 years.

Another fact of reality, the sensors that have come off line due to age etc in the past 40-50 years, mostly come from the Northern coldest portions of the globe. Leaving MORE in the warmist areas.

And you all call that accurate.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:15pm PT
Ok Malemute,, say im using a chrome tan, what does the ph have to be to maintain satus of the skin? What do you neutralize with and when? And then add complexity's like the use of stop rot agents pre tan, which react with certain tans, is Chrome tan then viable or not? Or do i go organic or other various chemical acids? Just another day in the shop. Then theres fighting bacteria's-- got about eight different chemical remedies there too. Want me to go on about humidity, temps and expanding foams too?
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:25pm PT
Where did you find that "information"? It is at least clear that you didn't find that in the Cook et. al. paper.

Yes, credibility is important and you have lost most of your credibility when you write things that everyone can see are not correct
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

You didn't even get the groupings of the papers correct.

"1 Explicit Endorsement with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing
most of global warming.
2 Explicit Endorsement without Quantification: paper explicitly states humans are causing
global warming or refers to anthropogenic global warming/climate change as a given fact.
3 Implicit Endorsement: paper implies humans are causing global warming. E.g., research
assumes greenhouse gases cause warming without explicitly stating humans are the cause.
4 Neutral: paper doesn't address or mention issue of what's causing global warming.
5 Implicit Rejection: paper implies humans have had a minimal impact on global warming
without saying so explicitly. E.g., proposing a natural mechanism is the main cause of global
warming.
6 Explicit Rejection without Quantification: paper explicitly minimizes or rejects that humans
are causing global warming.
7 Explicit Rejection with Quantification: paper explicitly states that humans are causing less
than half of global warming."

Look at you. Splitting hairs...

and being a d1ck about it.

Let's cut to the chase. The only group that agrees with the IPCC position on global warming is group 1.

Group one accounted for less than 1/2 of one percent of all papers examined. Among the papers that supposedly took a position on AGW, Group 1 made up less than 2 percent of the group. Several authors on that group took exception to being included.

The paper plays fast and loose with the consensus opinion. It's BS.
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:28pm PT
Hey Monolith - what's your source for heat content from 700 to 2000 meters, for years before 2000?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:37pm PT
Hey Monolith - what's your source for heat content from 700 to 2000 meters, for years before 2000?

According to ARGO, prior to the disbursement of the 3000 floats in 1999, it was minimal to slim none.

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/


Pretty amazing how the oceans suddenly got warmer AFTER the ability to acquire data from those depths came on line.






And again, that is something the WARMISTS do not want to openly divulge to the general stooooopid public.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:45pm PT
REALLY MONO??

Argo didn't start it's steep ramp up till 2002.







Geeee, nice RAMP UP around 2002. Right on cue!


Keep up the bullshet MONO.
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:49pm PT
It was totally made up.

Sad but true.

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 12, 2013 - 05:58pm PT
The 2002 call is from the IPCC dumbass. NOT ME! The GRAPH is comes from the AR5.


Shows the "Global Coverage" from none other than.... ARGO!




Again, pretty amazing how things get warm when you got resources deployed that finally give accurate real time readings where there were none prior.
Messages 14181 - 14200 of total 28284 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