Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 16101 - 16120 of total 20122 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

SF bay area
Sep 13, 2014 - 09:47am PT
Sketch doesn't like to look at the big picture.

Sketch likes to look at smaller intervals and twit.

That way, Sketch doesn't have to explain the huge jump between his trend lines.


SF bay area
Sep 13, 2014 - 10:02am PT
It's a lot bigger than cutting that period into two pieces.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 13, 2014 - 10:47am PT
And I've read your posts, where you're trying to "put me in my place". You write in a much more technical, scientific manner. The arrogant nuclear physicist really shines through.

an interesting reaction that you think I am personally attacking you. Sounds to me like you are defensive about your knowledge and lack of education. This makes you vulnerable and uncertain about your arguments. When your arguments turn out to be trivially irrelevant and easily shown to be erroneous, you counter by saying that you were being intentionally provocative.

an example is the 2 plots you made above. In one plot you show the increasing CO2 concentrations along with a linear trend line for a time period between 1979 to 1998. It is traditional to also plot the data from which the trend line is calculated, particularly when you do not include the quantitive uncertainties for the parameters of that line.

In your next plot, the time period is moved to 1998 to the present, the same two lines are drawn, and the trend has no uncertainty estimate, and the data it is derived from is also absent.

Given you have plotted these without any explanation, I'll take that at face value and conclude you have no reason for making those plots. They are a part of your trolling and really do not require any further comment.

Getting back to the issue of "predictions," the climate models are designed to calculate the time evolving state of the climate. The climate is defined as an average over all the physically possible states of the climate system for that particular time.

In so doing, the climate system has to be defined, as well as the averaging procedure, including the time over which the average is taken.

The definitions usually start with a simplified model and the result of the model compared with the system. As the models get better, they reveal differences with observation, the models are refined to include the physical phenomena found to be responsible for those differences, which results in a more accurate model prediction.

Often, the size of the system is increased to include the physical phenomena responsible for the discrepancy. The increased size might include adding a more complex description of the oceans to the general circulation models (this happened long ago) or reducing the size of the spatial grids to include phenomena with better resolution (like clouds, that have physical extent smaller than most model grids).

Averaging out the natural variability is important, especially where the source of the variability is known, as it is for the volcanic aerosol emissions, but not affected by the climate system (climate change does not affect the geological processes of volcanism). These are true inputs to the model. When judging the accuracy of the model one has to provide some means of including the variability of the inputs.

For inputs like the ENSO, there is an expectation that the oscillation is affected by climate, and the possibility that it will become a part of the models. For now, however, the models are not successful in producing a prediction, the oscillation occurs on a time scale that is short compared to the time averaging that defines "climate." That time averaging may also be part of the "increased size" as the accuracy of the models improves.

There are debates on what sets the accuracy limits of the models. There is probably no simple limit set by the climate itself, there may be practical limits set by available computation cycles, file storage sizes and access time to that stored information. In the limit that we define climate as weather, we have very good empirical evidence for the accuracy of our forecasts, and even some physical explanation for those limits.

The bottom line is that the models contain all of our best understanding of the climate, and that they do a very good job predicting the climate. The measure of the goodness of the job includes a comparison of the models with the observations including the variability of the observations, and the uncertainties of the models.

Drawing a simple line on a plot doesn't capture all of these important features, our understanding goes far beyond that.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 13, 2014 - 11:04am PT
Your understanding is near nil. Hubris doesn't allow you to see the multiple failures in the multi billion dollar toy model runs. Your contorted defense of this religion of climatology will hit a brick wall within five years. Id love to see your squirming then.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
Sep 13, 2014 - 11:08am PT
this thread does prove that some things never change.

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 13, 2014 - 04:48pm PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 13, 2014 - 05:33pm PT
Am I wrong.

yes, I don't even know who you are, how can I take anything personal from an anonymous source, and how could that anonymous source take anything personally. That's the whole point of anonymity, isn't it? The fact that a person is not willing to reveal who they are is an indication of how serious they are, in my opinion. And that they are not willing to be personally associated with what they post an indication that they have no conviction.

Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Sep 13, 2014 - 06:50pm PT
Ed...seems Sketch is confusing getting schooled to you not liking him.

As the taco turns.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 13, 2014 - 07:06pm PT
well you see there Sketch, that's a big difference,
you can find out all about me on the web, you can read all my papers, etc...

I am a scientist, no quotes about it...
and the stuff I post can be read by everyone, my colleagues included, my mother if she were alive... and that's the way I choose to conduct myself here. My convictions are written right out there, and people can call me out, in person, about what I post.

You? you're an anonymous avatar, you can post anything you like and no one knows who you are, you don't have to deal with someone you know questioning you.

It is your choice... cheap shot? just calling it like it is.

I'll edit my post, too....

you've personalized this particular thread as if I cared what you thought. I do care about the science, so I when I find something that would be interesting to post about it might very well be in response to something you've reblogged from somewhere else.

In all the time you've been posting, you have presented very little of your own, and a lot of what other sites are posting, or you've dredged stuff up from the past and posted it as if it were new.

If you didn't post that stuff, some other anonymous avatar would probably post it... it hardly makes any difference to me who, among the anonymous, posts, if I find something interesting to respond to, I will.

I was posting to this thread before you appeared here, I'll probably be posting to this thread after you get bored with it and move on... it really won't matter to me, you're anonymous.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
Sep 13, 2014 - 07:14pm PT
3 out of four is very impressive.

The psychologist Theodore Millon has proposed four subtypes of 'negativist' ('passive-aggressive').

Any individual negativist may exhibit the following:

Vacillating Emotions fluctuate in bewildering, perplexing, and enigmatic ways; difficult to fathom or comprehend own capricious and mystifying moods; wavers, in flux, and irresolute both subjectively and intrapsychically.

Discontented Grumbling, petty, testy, cranky, embittered, complaining, fretful, vexed, and moody; gripes behind pretense; avoids confrontation; uses legitimate but trivial complaints.

Circuitous Opposition displayed in a roundabout, labyrinthine, and ambiguous manner, e.g., procrastination, dawdling, forgetfulness, inefficiency, neglect, stubbornness, indirect and devious in venting resentment and resistant behaviors.

Abrasive Contentious, intransigent, fractious, and quarrelsome; irritable, caustic, debasing, corrosive, and acrimonious, contradicts and derogates; few qualms and little conscience or remorse.


Sep 13, 2014 - 07:18pm PT
You're an anonymous avatar, you can post anything you like and no one knows who you are,

That's right Sketch you're a coward.

There's no way around it ......
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 14, 2014 - 01:10am PT
how much did they "fail" by?

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Sep 14, 2014 - 07:39am PT
Ed - Say what you will.

And that makes you my bitch.

Well you've reached your high point sketch. Well done. Ypou made Ed Hartouni your bitch. Perhaps you can make neebs your Gimp for the win.

Wade Icey

Trad climber
Sep 14, 2014 - 08:03am PT
And that makes you my bitch.

Abrasive Contentious, intransigent, fractious, and quarrelsome; irritable, caustic, debasing, corrosive, and acrimonious, contradicts and derogates; few qualms and little conscience or remorse.


Credit: Wade Icey
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 14, 2014 - 09:28am PT
You AGW proponents have a major problem in locating the missing excess energy you just know is accumulating due to your erroneous depictions of earths energy budget. It seems the favored location is to rathole it in the ocean depths, sub 2000 meters. The reason you propose there to be excess energy is due to the absorbtion qualities of the rising quantities of the trace gas CO2 which is presented to be well mixed in the atmosphere. I assume this to mean in relatively equal proportions , although less density with height, of the mix of atmospheric gases present in the column from sea level to stratosphere.Now CO2 absorbs and emits long wave radiation of a certain range of wavelength whether it encounters this radiation at 0 or 10, 000 meters. The radiation causes the molecule to vibrate and move (kinetic energy) and/ or emit the absorbed photon at a slightly less energetic state of longer wavelength. So you have several things happening here. 1. A portion of IR is absorbed and reemited high in the atmosphere (in random directions which could just as likely be up towards space as down towards earth) at slightly longer and less energetic wavelength because of the "work" of kinetics and/or absorbtion and emission. 2. There is a finite number of absorbtions/emissions before the photon is of unsuitable wavelength for absorbtion by the mythical molecule and the photon joins others in the ghg poor regions of the upper atmosphere where it escapes to space. 3. That portion of IR reaching the ocean surface is absorbed by H2O in the first few inches of water which absorbs radiation of a wider range of wavelengths, including IR, more readily than CO2. This top most layer dispenses it energy not only by reemission of radiation , but also by evaporation then convection upwards into cloud formation and upon reaching the dew point rain which cools the atmosphete and sea surface below.4. Assuming, afterthe hydrological cycle and repeated absotbtions and reemisions of LW radiation there is still an excess of energy and some of that energy reaches the depths because of salinity changes or mechanical transport from phenomenon like those oceanic mega whirlpools where it mixes with the near zero degree waters of the unimaginably vast quantities of the ocean depths and raises the temperature hundreths of degrees over periods of decades, how does this still cold water reemerge and cause any warming at the surface?

No yoy guys are on the wrong track. Look to the variation in the spectrum of solar radiation for the slight imbalance of the late 20th century

Wade Icey

Trad climber
Sep 14, 2014 - 09:57am PT
Credit: Cheesegraphs
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Sep 14, 2014 - 10:03am PT
You're right. The same could be said for nearly all of the other regulars in this thread.

but not for me, and not for Chiloe... the two posters to the thread you seem to have a particular problem with, since we both are "scientists" (actually, there are other scientists who post here too).

Part of my interest is riffing off this interaction and injecting some science in at various times...
you can always provoke me to post on science issues... especially by getting them very wrong (which you have no problem doing).

Knowing that doesn't make you a genius.

Trad climber
Bay Area
Sep 14, 2014 - 10:50am PT
Does anyone else see the irony of the most accomplished scientists on this forum being slandered by the least educated and most obstinate?

Dear Ed
Haven't you got something better to do than waste your breath debating against the most closed minded and pigheaded drivel I've read in ages? You can lead a deaf, dumb and blind horse to water 10,000 times but you can never make him drink. You can never convince the deniers that they are wrong because in their hearts they know they are right.
Best regards

Lets go climbing with Linda

Consider who really has the "agenda" here.
Scientists, who by their profession, question the factual and theoretical basis of every hypothesis? Who openly publish their ideas and results for scrutiny? Who correct errors when found. Who know that whatever truth is knowable today may be altered by subsequent discovery and analysis? Who spend their years of education and career exploring, collaborating, questioning? Who know there are No Absolutes?

Or the agenda of the intellectual midgets of Faux News? Fossil fuel funded so-called "think tanks"? Koch Bros whose fortunes are dependent upon consumption of fossil fuels? Pseudo science funded by oil, petrochemical and coal companies? Paranoia of Big Government fear mongers? Religious zealots who believe God created the Earth 6000 years ago?

So which "side" of this so called "debate" has been brainwashed? Given they are brainwashed, what is the point in wasting any more logic, fact or breath trying to bring them to sanity?

hasta la vista to those who have been suckered into believing the lies, half truths, pig swill and self-serving propaganda of the fossil fuel dependent global warming deniers.

and OUT

The best example of completely mis understanding the Scientific Method. Even if you assume the statement is true.
1988 Hansen AGW ideology (who's model/s failed with the latest science admission)
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Sep 14, 2014 - 12:18pm PT
It is fun to watch Ed & Larry hand them their asses in a so highly educated way.


Grey Matter
Sep 14, 2014 - 01:06pm PT
Actually what the NCAR+CAWCR hindcast does is the opposite of proving the models failed. Basically they just show how the models could be improved in the short run if we knew how to predict short term influences like IPO, that affects SST patterns, El Nino/ La Nina:
"The common factor linking the ensemble members that forecast the pause is that they feature a cooling of the Pacific Ocean sea surface temperatures; a negative phase of the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO) a long term 15 to 30 year cycle in sea surface temperatures affecting both the north and south Pacific. This contrasts with the overall average of the larger total set of all ensemble members that shows mostly warming in the tropical Pacific. In simple terms, if climate models are set up with an assumption that the IPO is in a negative phase then they can replicate the pause."

Those patterns mainly affect short term mixing of the continued increasing heat imbalance. The planet continues to gain heat, even if surface temperatures lag. And the excess heat cannot just continue to melt ice and warm the deep oceans. Surface temperatures will rise. Obviously. What law of physics says the heat will hide away where it won't affect us?
93% of the added heat goes to the oceans. 2% atmosphere, 2% continents, 2% ice melting.
The atmosphere doesn't have much heat capacity, and is not the best indicator of climate change at this point.

Even if models could be improved short term as they did with these hindcasts, that doesn't change the long term general warming.

Messages 16101 - 16120 of total 20122 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