Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 16501 - 16520 of total 26688 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 19, 2013 - 04:03pm PT
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 19, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
You don't even know what you are showing, just regurgitation steven goddard's vomit. hahahahaaaa....
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 19, 2013 - 04:21pm PT
Of course PhD boy.



http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/fig1x.gif
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.D.gif




By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

What's happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s "Dust Bowl" that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.

How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 19, 2013 - 04:44pm PT
You know that urban heat island you deniers thought was the answer to all your prayers? Before ya'll desperately latched onto sun spots, before any of you had even heard of Milankovitch cycles, and before your main emphasis turned to the presumed "failure" of model predictions. Kinda backfired on your stupid asses, now didn't it?

(1) incorporation of corrections for time-of-observation bias and station history adjustments in the United States based on Easterling et al. [1996a], (2) reclassification of rural, small-town, and urban stations in the United States, southern Canada, and northern Mexico based on satellite measurements of night light intensity [Imhoff et al., 1997], and (3) a more flexible urban adjustment than that employed by Hansen et al. [1999], including reliance on only unlit stations in the United States and rural stations in the rest of the world for determining long-term trends.

Knock yourself out, fuking idiot.

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2001/2001_Hansen_etal.pdf

(p.s. I know everything there is to know about submarines because I saw a picture once... derp!)
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 19, 2013 - 04:47pm PT
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 19, 2013 - 04:50pm PT
Nice job of deflecting. Your time spent in your last year of PhDism Academy sure did teach you well.


Let's get back to this and see how you address the undeniable fact of how Hansen and his GISS boys do their manipulation magical act three years after writing and then publishing this.

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Jay Glascoe and Makiko Sato — August 1999

What's happening to our climate? Was the heat wave and drought in the Eastern United States in 1999 a sign of global warming?

Empirical evidence does not lend much support to the notion that climate is headed precipitately toward more extreme heat and drought. The drought of 1999 covered a smaller area than the 1988 drought, when the Mississippi almost dried up. And 1988 was a temporary inconvenience as compared with repeated droughts during the 1930s "Dust Bowl" that caused an exodus from the prairies, as chronicled in Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath.

How can the absence of clear climate change in the United States be reconciled with continued reports of record global temperature? Part of the "answer" is that U.S. climate has been following a different course than global climate, at least so far. Figure 1 compares the temperature history in the U.S. and the world for the past 120 years. The U.S. has warmed during the past century, but the warming hardly exceeds year-to-year variability. Indeed, in the U.S. the warmest decade was the 1930s and the warmest year was 1934. Global temperature, in contrast, had passed 1930s values by 1980 and the world has warmed at a remarkable rate over the last 25 years.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/hansen_07/




mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 19, 2013 - 04:56pm PT
dumbest fuk 3v4r
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 19, 2013 - 04:56pm PT
ICET and FORT.


The Taco's PHOTOSHOPPING Kings.


Something they of course are definitely proud of.... right ICEYT?



Then you got clowns that POSE as PhD's on here, like WESKRISPY, that reply as they do when getting their asses handed to him on a .... paper plate.

Deflect, Deflect, we must Deflect....Losers!

mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 19, 2013 - 05:03pm PT
OMG, data was reanalyzed to reduce sampling artifacts using clearly disclosed methods? Good god! Chuff is a fuking idiot.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 19, 2013 - 05:04pm PT
data was reanalyzed to reduce sampling artifacts using clearly disclosed methods?

The historical recorded temps up until 1999 had not changed for over 90 years.

All of sudden, in 2002, the temps during the supposedly warmist period in recorded history, 1937 (per Hansen's NASA 1999 report as posted), are conveniently reanalyzed and found to be no where near where they were for all them 90 some years. They then get dropped some 20%.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight!












Now... let's see how EDH answers Rick's last post.




rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Oct 19, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
Well Edward, first off CO2 should be taken off the pollutant list since it's efficacy as an atmospheric trap for IR doesn't work nearly as neatly as in the lab considering the multitudes of negative feedbacks, considered, unconsidered, unknown, that affect the real world. Earth is not Venus, nor could ever become in time scales less than geologic, since we are not subject to 60-70 % more solar radiation, have no where near the level of volcanism, have a very active water cycle that scrubs the atmosphere unlike Venus which never had oceans, have a major satellite, have a rapid rotation rate with a variable axial tilt which provides seasons, don't have a day length approaching year length, and because of all the above will never have an atmosphere of the density of Venus ( 92 X earth pressure). Atmospheric density, proximity to Sol, and extent of a water cycle have a much higher role in greenhouse conditions than the content of it's chemistry. So let's take this extreme scenario off the table along with anything else other than the reality of observation that points to a total rise of no more than 2 degrees. Along with this, let's get rid of your short sighted carbon tax as a remedy for an imagined problem that simply does not exist.

The above being said, let's get into the real problem of rampant consumerism psyche. The carrot of a consumption tax coupled with elimination of the punitive income tax is the most effective way to promote conservation. By conservation I am not talking about the extreme green vision but more in line with that espoused by Teddy Roosevelt. A very broad based consumption tax (sales tax)would encourage savings and responsibility for ones old age rather than borrowing from tomorrow to expend today, both monies and raw resources. Your carbon tax would only invite consumption bubbles in other realms you have not even imagined yet. And what is the reason for it anyway? Do you imagine that scientists that helped implement it through the CAGW farce would get a continuing and expanding cut of the pie in perpetuity? If so you are sadly mistaken. Science will never be allowed a coequal seat at the big government table, it is just a means to it's self serving ends and when the means becomes an inconvenience rather than a resource to be used for gaining more power would be shuffled to the sidelines if not defunded altogether.

Housing space heating and cooling efficiency, lighting, and appliance energy use has come a long ways in the last quarter century. Most states have adopted energy efficiency standards (BEE's) as the technologies have matured. The average home of today uses 60% less energy per Sq. Ft. than 25 years ago by some estimates. This adds up to a lot of consumption deferred since residential use is about 25% of the total usage. Up here in the great white north we pay great attention to sealing the buildings interior air/vapor barrier to as close as possible air tightness then mechanically ventilate via heat/air exchangers in balance to achieve the proscribed air changes per hour. We also superinsulate compared to the standard of the lower 48.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 19, 2013 - 05:18pm PT
I can only speak for myself but. yeah...pretty proud.

Of course you are ICET. Of course you are.


But you should not be publicly posting photo's of your blow up doll on which you duct tape them photoshoped shots of that blondie in the cave and then...


You know, allow the hand to do the talking.


Now quit being a dickcheese and let EDH answer Rick's post.


rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Oct 19, 2013 - 12:50pm PT
Well Edward, first off CO2 should be taken off the pollutant list since it's efficacy as an atmospheric trap for IR doesn't work nearly as neatly as in the lab considering the multitudes of negative feedbacks, considered, unconsidered, unknown, that affect the real world. Earth is not Venus, nor could ever become in time scales less than geologic, since we are not subject to 60-70 % more solar radiation, have no where near the level of volcanism, have a very active water cycle that scrubs the atmosphere unlike Venus which never had oceans, have a major satellite, have a rapid rotation rate with a variable axial tilt which provides seasons, don't have a day length approaching year length, and because of all the above will never have an atmosphere of the density of Venus ( 92 X earth pressure). Atmospheric density, proximity to Sol, and extent of a water cycle have a much higher role in greenhouse conditions than the content of it's chemistry. So let's take this extreme scenario off the table along with anything else other than the reality of observation that points to a total rise of no more than 2 degrees. Along with this, let's get rid of your short sighted carbon tax as a remedy for an imagined problem that simply does not exist.

The above being said, let's get into the real problem of rampant consumerism psyche. The carrot of a consumption tax coupled with elimination of the punitive income tax is the most effective way to promote conservation. By conservation I am not talking about the extreme green vision but more in line with that espoused by Teddy Roosevelt. A very broad based consumption tax (sales tax)would encourage savings and responsibility for ones old age rather than borrowing from tomorrow to expend today, both monies and raw resources. Your carbon tax would only invite consumption bubbles in other realms you have not even imagined yet. And what is the reason for it anyway? Do you imagine that scientists that helped implement it through the CAGW farce would get a continuing and expanding cut of the pie in perpetuity? If so you are sadly mistaken. Science will never be allowed a coequal seat at the big government table, it is just a means to it's self serving ends and when the means becomes an inconvenience rather than a resource to be used for gaining more power would be shuffled to the sidelines if not defunded altogether.

Housing space heating and cooling efficiency, lighting, and appliance energy use has come a long ways in the last quarter century. Most states have adopted energy efficiency standards (BEE's) as the technologies have matured. The average home of today uses 60% less energy per Sq. Ft. than 25 years ago by some estimates. This adds up to a lot of consumption deferred since residential use is about 25% of the total usage. Up here in the great white north we pay great attention to sealing the buildings interior air/vapor barrier to as close as possible air tightness then mechanically ventilate via heat/air exchangers in balance to achieve the proscribed air changes per hour. We also superinsulate compared to the standard of the lower 48.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 19, 2013 - 06:12pm PT
Well, how about the science of reading comprehension Ed. The very thing you consistently accuse me of- lack of reading and comprehension- you ably exhibit in the first sentence of your last post. You are just as biased as me. I said; in anything less than geologic time scale, in reference to the amount of time we need not fear runaway greenhouse effect. And why is this Ed, well let's see, what happens as that little yellow ball of Sol progresses through it fusion cycle burning heavier and heavier elements. Shock of shocks, it expands and radiates ever brighter towards the end of its stellar cycle and consumption of the system around it. The fact that we will go through a relatively short greenhouse period en route to incineration is of little importance to human scale time. We will have long since passed into extinction, just like every other species to have inhabited mother Earth in the billion of billions (Carl Sagans favorite quote) of years of Sol's life cycle, or adapted, evolved, expanded. Mar's colonization is a good idea, not because of need from shetting our present nest, but because it provides a frontier for human expansion. While exercising our "manifest destiny" on the first steps of a cosmological scale excursion ,we'll not only be furthering the concept of individual achievement and ambition without limits, but begin to provide unlimited resources on the way to burying this "green sustainability" joke of a philosophy in a well deserved unmarked grave. Get some optimism Ed, read more sci-fi. So far Earth is unique, as evidenced by self aware beings capable of discovering it's secrets and manipulating it's resource of materials through ever more complex technology. Why should we fear a self imposed end?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 19, 2013 - 06:24pm PT
All of sudden, in 2002, the temps during the supposedly warmist period in recorded history, 1937 (per Hansen's NASA 1999 report as posted), are conveniently reanalyzed and found to be no where near where they were for all them 90 some years. They then get dropped some 20%.

No you stupid ass fuktard.

1) It was reanalyzed in 2001, not 2002.

2) ALL the data was reanalyzed using the same methods, which are clearly discussed in Hansen et al 2001, which you STILL haven't read and will never understand, despite posting their graphs over and over and over (http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abs/ha02300a.html);

3) They weren't "conveniently reanalyzed." They were reanalyzed because it became apparent (likely through discussions with other scientists) that the urban heat island effect had not been properly addressed.

4) 20% is about right for the urban heat island effect.

5) You are a fuking idiot.


how about the science of reading comprehension Ed

Does it hurt to be that fuking stupid?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 19, 2013 - 07:54pm PT
There would be no "Climate Science" without an economic base robust enough to support it. The recommendations this voodoo science advances would be sufficient to destroy said economic base, therefore delivering the end to the science and a good portion of humanity that depends on the present naturally evolving energy technologies that powers industry and agriculture at a scale sufficient to feed these masses. This cannot be done with greenery of the likes of wind and solar. Climate Science's imagined problems could be solved by a manhattan scale program of solving the fusion containment problem then deploying this along with latest generation nuclear fission, replacement of coal with Ng, increased hydro and hydrothermal, and developing viable storage for the intermittent wind and solar. This amount of funding would necessitate the defunding of the science, once again resulting in its demise. I see no clear path for continued advancement of the voodoo science short of the widespread imposition of the carbon taxes you champion, which are extremely unlikely to be tolerated by a fed up public. Have you ever thought of Sun's as giant transmutation machines , or for that matter the whole cosmos as a machine the purpose of which we could not presently imagine?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Oct 19, 2013 - 07:58pm PT
Oh I have read Hansen's bullshet reason that he and his GISS boys came up with in 2001. There have been several studies that have reputed his "reanalyzed" UE work in 2001.

The main disputing factor is:


What heat urban effect in 1937?

A convenient adjustment, the "urban heat" island effect was less than 30%, if that, in 1937 than that of 2001. The recorded data for that period should not reflect a decrees. It should have remained where it was.

Ironically, Hansen deceased 1937 and increased the 1999-2001 temps 20% to reflect the UE.



Nice.


Fall Colors from my front yard in the Ubber Conservative Compound I reside in... n'joy!


That is ^^ MT. MORRISON ^^ & MCGEE, bitw.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 19, 2013 - 08:08pm PT
A convenient adjustment, the "heat urban" effect was less than 30%, if that, in 1937 than that of 2001.

Wow, can't argue with that... mostly because it makes no sense whatsoever. Why do you put quotes around "heat urban," a phrase nobody else has ever used?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Oct 19, 2013 - 08:33pm PT
Holy crow I think Rick sumners is really going off the deep end. Anybody else following his latest? He's now projecting everything from Karl Marx to Issac Asimov to Manifest destiny.... I wonder if he's thinking of running for Congress or something? He's already got his campaign slogan...

Get some optimism Ed, read more sci-fi.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 19, 2013 - 09:21pm PT
Just casting about Bruce, different lures and presentations to prompt response. You learn more about the quarry this way than using the same old, same old.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Oct 19, 2013 - 09:31pm PT
14:10, compare to "authoritarian personality"

FRUMY

Trad climber
Bishop,CA
Oct 20, 2013 - 12:51am PT
I don't worry about anything cause I know nothing going to be alright.
Messages 16501 - 16520 of total 26688 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