Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 15341 - 15360 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:16am PT
Record Cold Summer Of 2014. Tree Leaves Changing Color Middle Of August!

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/08/15/experts-cold-summer-leads-to-changing-leaves-in-august/

Do you believe those Final-Fantasy-global-warming-papers or your own eyes?




raymond phule

climber
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:23am PT

Do you believe those Final-Fantasy-global-warming-papers or your own eyes?

Unless you travel all over the world all the time is it kind of useless to believe your own eyes on a global matter.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:00pm PT
Regardless of your back pedaling over definition, You can draw no conclusion of climate trends by short term weather variation- your own words from earlier posts on this thread. Your short term uptick emphasis is ridiculous. Your red line representing true climate trends over the 38 year period stands regardless of NOAA"s baseline or non baseline. Nice try, but no cigar senor.
raymond phule

climber
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:08pm PT

Regardless of your back pedaling over definition, You can draw no conclusion of climate trends by short term weather variation- your own words from earlier posts on this thread. Your short term uptick emphasis is ridiculous. Your red line representing true climate trends over the 38 year period stands regardless of NOAA"s baseline or non baseline. Nice try, but no cigar senor.

It is just sad.

The red line is not a trend which should be obvious if you look at the data.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:15pm PT

Three different emissions pathways to give 67% chance of limiting global warming to 2C (From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, Figure 22)

The graph shows three different scenarios, each with the same cumulative emissions (i.e. the area under each curve is the same). If we get emissions to peak next year (the green line), its a lot easier to keep cumulative emissions under control. If we delay, and allow emissions to continue to rise until 2020, then we can forget about 80% reductions by 2050. Well have set ourselves the much tougher task of 100% emissions reductions by 2040!

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/01/bill-gates-is-very-wrong/

above diagram is explained in this video


Professor Somerville dubbed this the ski slope diagram with the 2011 line the bunny slope, 2015 the intermediate and 2020 a double black diamond.



more scientific videos at
http://www.thegreatstory.org/climate.html
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:25pm PT


Dr. Marshall Shepherd compared a temperature rise of 2 degrees C for the earth
to
a temperature rise of 2 degrees C for a human.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:50pm PT
the definition of anomaly is not back peddling, you don't know what it is and are very confused... so you make statements based on your confusion which are idiotic.

But lets extend our averaging analysis to the times back to 1896 using the same data set..

Credit: Ed Hartouni

here the blue line is the average of all temperatures... once again, if you look at the number of points above the blue line from 1896 to 1955 you find 21 when you expect 30 (if they were random and independent of time) while as from 1956-2014 you find 36. So we our observation looking at the more recent time from 1975-2014 seems to be the same.

I've drawn on the averages from 1896-1905 in green, from 1895-1935 in red and 1905-1935 in purple, which are the same time periods but on the early side of the graph...

notice that these are all below the average over all the data, and in reverse order as those at the late side of the graph...

it seems that the anomaly is increasing with time, now over roughly 120 years, 4 times the period of the 1975-2014 time period

this is a very simple analysis, anyone who can average can repeat it... all you have to do is down load the data and do the calculations.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
Malemute - Awesome posts!

It's now 4.5 yrs later since that 2010 graph, now we are facing the 2015 curve.
Roger Brown

climber
Oceano, California
Aug 15, 2014 - 01:18pm PT
Just being a lurker and not having too much formal education beyond high school, I just have to rely on what common sense I have. Polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise a little. More water available for evaporation means more cloud cover to hold the earth's heat in, which means more melting which means more evaporation. Kinda a snowballing thing. Is that what is going on or am I dumber than I thought?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 15, 2014 - 01:20pm PT
ok, The Chief can't understand how to extrapolate his linear trend model back into the past...

but we can check his model by looking for a similar trend in the NOAA data, turns out that the time period from 1961-1970 has the same trend... -0.069F/year

Credit: Ed Hartouni

notice that the dashed black lines, which are the linear trend lines for those two subsets, are parallel, which means they are trending down with the same rate.

now The Chief assumes that he can project that into the future 10 or 20 years and that the temperature anomaly so calculated will be what the climate becomes...

using that logic, we can extrapolate the 1961-1970 trend to 2014 and see how well it works:

Credit: Ed Hartouni

somehow, The Chief's assumption is not what the data shows, it is about -3.7F lower than the observed value in 2014.

That's a huge FAIL of his model.

Apparently, his assumption that you can take the 9 year trend and project it into the future didn't work for the period from 1961-1970.

Why would he think it would work doing it with the 2005-2014 data?

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 01:22pm PT
I don't understand?

You have pretty much shown ignorance here, so no, you don't understand your own graph that plots ... wait for it...

the weather.

(Well actually just a small part of the weather, it just plots temperature.)




Then you state the ....

"Weather"


Indeed. Weather. As in day-to-day weather. Over time, you can call it "climate."

I thought you understood this stuff. What happened?
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 15, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
Just being a lurker and not having too much formal education beyond high school, I just have to rely on what common sense I have. Polar ice caps melt and the oceans rise a little. More water available for evaporation means more cloud cover to hold the earth's heat in, which means more melting which means more evaporation. Kinda a snoballing thing. Is that what is going on or am I dumber than I thought?

No one knows how dumb you are or how dumb you think you are, so we can't help you there. But the "snowballing" thing (or "feedback," to use the more common term) is one of the cruxes of the matter.

All scientists (no quotation marks) agree that increasing CO2 will cause increased temperature due to the "greenhouse effect" (which, interestingly, is not the way actual greenhouses work, but that's a digression). This increase is limited and not necessarily anything to get alarmed about.
The question that remains to be answered is whether there will be positive feedback, or negative feedback, or no significant feedback one way or the other.
Your example of clouds is, as I understand it, a very complicated one, as cloud cover may contribute to either warming or cooling depending on the circumstances.
An obvious example of a negative feedback is that increased CO2 will cause more plant growth, which will in turn absorb more CO2 than would have otherwise been absorbed. (But NASA modelers, while acknowledging that this particular negative feedback mechanism is significant, do not currently believe it will prevent significant climate change.)
There are some good hand-waving arguments to consider that negative feedback (or no especially strong feedback one way or the other) is a far more likely scenario. Consider, for example, that CO2 concentrations have been much higher in the past than they are now, but that didn't cause the Earth to become like Venus.
But the most honest answer is that we just don't really know what will happen; there is probably some risk that current emissions of CO2, if continued, may have a significant effect on the climate, and at least some of these changes will be negative (although not all of course, for example, lands at very high/low latitudes may become arable).

I do not hold myself out as having any particular technical expertise whatsoever, and I'm just trying to help an apparent noob "get his feet wet" in understanding the issues, if not their resolution. If anything I've written is inaccurate, I'll thankfully stand corrected.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 02:15pm PT
No one knows how dumb you are or how dumb you think you are, so we can't help you there.


Hey blahblah, you're speaking to Roger, as in Roger Brown. What's wrong with you, man?
blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Aug 15, 2014 - 02:17pm PT
I don't know who Roger Brown is, or why I should or shouldn't speak to him!

Edit: the first sentence in my previous post was intended as a little humor, I apologize both if it hurt anyone's feelings, and if it wasn't funny! Please remember that I did take some time to compose a serious answer to the question.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
Australopithecus?
Phineas Gage might be a better example.


We basically have three choices: mitigation, adaptation and suffering. Were going to do some of each. The question is what the mix is going to be. The more mitigation we do, the less adaptation will be required and the less suffering there will be.
http://grist.org/climate-change/adapting-to-climate-change-necessary-but-difficult-and-expensive/


The brutal logic of climate change
http://grist.org/climate-change/2011-12-05-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change/

The brutal logic of climate change mitigation
http://grist.org/climate-policy/2011-12-08-the-brutal-logic-of-climate-change-mitigation/
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 03:01pm PT

http://sites.uci.edu/energyobserver/2013/02/08/climate-change-suffering-adaptation-and-mitigation-and-their-funding/
TLP

climber
Aug 15, 2014 - 03:38pm PT
Though b2 is right, there is no reason anyone should necessarily know of Roger Brown, and that totally wouldn't matter for how you respond, it happens that lots of us do know of Roger and never miss an opportunity to post up: Thanks, dude!

But back on topic, clouds are one of many different feedbacks, negative and positive, from energy input to the climate system. Even just the one thing, clouds, is complex itself: they do indeed trap some re-radiated heat, but they are white, so they reflect some energy too. The water molecules are a "greenhouse gas" themselves. Climate is without a doubt the most complex system humankind has ever tried seriously to figure out, and we're only part way there.

A few thoughts on some of the bits b2 mentioned: it is true that some plants photosynthesize more if you hold everything constant but just increase the CO2 concentration, but this is not going to matter much for several reasons. One is that we are clearing so much vegetation (resulting in both a lot of carbon release from decomposition and burning) and this is not slowing down any time soon. Another is that other parameters won't just stay the same. As temperature rises, water stress rises, which indirectly reduces photosynthesis. Plus, some plants just have a temperature optimum and photosynthesis starts going down as it is exceeded, even with plenty of water and CO2. So, the idea that the plants will just take care of everything is wrong.

It's really tiresome and useless to keep seeing these posts about CO2 being much higher in the past and Earth didn't turn into Venus. In fact, there WERE giant disruptions of global ecology at those times, which if they were repeated today would be absolutely cataclysmic for human society. There are billions of people living in the tropics. If these became significantly less suitable to support agriculture, they'd be wanting to move to the temperate zone and far north, right away. Take the current stink about a few tens of thousands of kids, OK, even say we're talking about the mere 12 million or something illegal but actually present foreigners in the U.S., now multiply that up to be a couple of billion, and you can imagine that it would be a really really big problem for growing zones to shift. Whatever the Earth's climate was doing prior to, say, the last Ice Age, and maybe even just the past 1000 years, is just plain irrelevant to the whole discussion.

One also sees statements that it's all a matter of solar radiation. Bottom line is, using the exact same scientific review articles, with hundreds of references cited, that have been linked on this very thread by the folks making these statements (thanks for the link, Rick), the only rational scientific conclusion is that solar variation is not that big of a deal to the present situation.

The part of the system that is way less understood than we'd like is oceanic circulation (up and down, not just the swirling around) and the ocean-atmosphere interactions. There are thousands of posts here about the temporary flatness in the global surface temperature (which, it isn't actually that flat if ALL global data are considered, but let's not go there right now). But I haven't seen a single post contesting the clear upward trend in heat content of the oceans, continuing uninterrupted right to the present year. And it's a HUGE amount of heat energy. How it manages to be getting there, and why the ocean and lower atmosphere don't track closely, isn't well understood. But the oceans are the major part of planet Earth, so the ocean data definitively prove that global warming is occurring. Period. Anyway, as someone who provisionally believes the current crop of climate models are mostly right, I'd say the ocean part of the system still needs a lot of 'splaining.

Hope that's at least minimally helpful. And again, thanks!

Roger Brown

climber
Oceano, California
Aug 15, 2014 - 06:39pm PT
blahblah,
No offence taken, and thanks for the time spent to compose your answer. You sound like a person that understands the climate change issue.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 07:14pm PT
Yo, blahblah, I know ur comment was toung-in-cheek, so was my response; just a little ribbin'.


But this sh#t here from TLP:


Though b2 is right, there is no reason anyone should necessarily know of Roger Brown ...

Man, oh man, that's just not gonna stand!



You're curious about a fellow bro, go ahead and click on his name, then look up the posts the cat has made to the forum. Then bow down,
because our Roger Brown is as crusher as they come. And the work that he does, it's for our climbing community, man, and for the most part
it's a thankless task. You should feel lucky to be able to stand next to him at all.

See here, just a few nuggets:

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=2168012&msg=2168012#msg2168012

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=1850876&msg=1850876#msg1850876

http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=416368&msg=1980183#msg1980183

Nice to see ya posting here Roger.
:- Kelly
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 15, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
Now aren't you the slippery rascal Ed. It appears you went to Bill Clintons school of is ism, so maybe a political career is on your cards post scientific career.

However, you can't have it all to your satisfaction at the expense of bending or even breaking the intent of your little comical graphics. Of course the individual time series, since they are an average of themselves zero out , no contention there. But your intent was to compare the time series to each other as measured against your mysterious baseline to claim a trend for warming in the 2000-2013 series instead of plotting the Chiefs requested linear trend for the 2005-2014 time frame. There is baseline you are comparing it to to claim a trend, and once you identify that baseline that is from NOAA ,or not, each series exceeding 30 years is a trend of long term weather temps better known as climate. What is your baseline? I also find It disingenous to the scale of your typical politicians practice to claim that the Chiefs linear projection of the so far short temp trends fail when all GCM's and climate scientists predictions also fail. Take your hero James "the kilt" Hansen for instance; your claim that his scenario C closely tracks the "altered" contemporary temp history is complete b.s. since he was projecting that temp for the lowest CO2 emission scenario which we missed by a huge margin, even exceeding the do nothing highest emission scenario by a good margin.

TLP, glad to be of service with the informative link(s) you liked. What convinces you, other than unsubstantiated hearsay, that the oceans are currently gaining a substantial amount of heat. Also, if they are gaining heat during periods of increased atmospheric heat (from increased TSI or whatever) why would this spell trouble? Is there never to be a cooling again, during which time the oceans cool?




Messages 15341 - 15360 of total 20087 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