Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 16501 - 16520 of total 21618 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 9, 2014 - 02:31pm PT
There goes the neighborhood.

Chief, can you imagine having s bunch of self rightous, overly concerned, rabid enviro's infesting your neighborhood?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Aug 9, 2014 - 03:24pm PT
There's already too many self-righteous LEO's and Navy retirees feeding at the public trough down there...What's a few more rabid enviros going to hurt...?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Aug 9, 2014 - 04:39pm PT
The Chief....Good news...I just save 10% on my car insurance....rj
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Aug 9, 2014 - 08:54pm PT
The Chief....Everyone knows you were banned in Mammoth for the x-rated lap dances you were performing at Lakanuki and given a severance package by the Mammoth Town council to relocate to White Supremacist Estates near the Nevada border...I think you're the jealous one..? rj
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Aug 10, 2014 - 08:50am PT
. Death Valley Sets New Temperature Record — for Coolness

Death Valley, Calif., which holds the world record for the highest temperature ever recorded, hit a high of just 89 degrees on Sunday, Aug. 3 — the coolest high temperature on record for the date.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Aug 10, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
Sorry The Chief..it was for pole dancing...rj
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 10, 2014 - 08:57pm PT
66½ lbs chinook
66½ lbs chinook
Credit: Malemute

BC salmon may not survive the warming of their spawning streams.

KabalaArch

Trad climber
Starlite, California
Aug 10, 2014 - 09:30pm PT
^^^ 66 1/2 lbs!? ^^^

I call bs on the lbs, Malemute - isn't B.C. metric and all?
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 10, 2014 - 09:46pm PT
You are most correct.

Snazzy duds, eh?
AndyMan

Sport climber
CA
Aug 11, 2014 - 01:11am PT
A recent study posted in Science magazine has shown that global warming has increased the number of idiots in the community.
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Aug 11, 2014 - 06:59am PT
Holes in the head, holes in the Earth




http://robertscribbler.wordpress.com/2014/07/30/the-arctic-methane-monster-exhales-third-tundra-crater-found/
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2014 - 11:36am PT
Stop worrying about shet you have absolutely no control over but think, in your utopian fantasy ideological screwed up mind, that you do. Because you don't. Nor do any of your so called climate scientific experts. Not one of em.


The Chief, who controls the coal-burning power plants? Who controls the transportation system? Does anybody control our energy grid, or were they put in place by mysterious sources?


These are obviously rhetorical questions--I'm not asking because I'm looking for an answer; I already know the answers to these. I'm also pretty sure The Chief does too.

At least I hope he does.
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Aug 11, 2014 - 01:17pm PT
Well The, you must have misunderstood the article. Might be time to give it a re-read.



The prominent theory for the holes’ formation is a catastrophic destabilization of sub-surface methane under thawing tundra.


The most likely culprit? Catastrophic destabilization of Arctic methane stores due to human-caused warming.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 11, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
For a mere $40.00 (US), you can purchase this paper:

Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies. Previous attempts to use the recent climate record have concentrated on “fingerprinting” or otherwise comparing the record with GCM outputs. By using CO2 radiative forcings as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic effects we estimate the total anthropogenic warming and (effective) climate sensitivity finding: ΔTanth = 0.87 ± 0.11 K, .

These are close the IPPC AR5 values ΔTanth = 0.85 ± 0.20 K and (equilibrium) climate sensitivity and are independent of GCM models, radiative transfer calculations and emission histories. We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %.

This is the study identified earlier as saying the chances of natural climate changes are "slim to none."

In reality, the paper is rather more circumscribed. It merely is using empirical data, and a much simpler method of analysis, to see if the results are consistent with the more complex climate models. It finds the results consistent.

If I'm about to give away a trade secret, too bad, but I do something similar with my forecasts. I use techniques such as time series analysis, and certain other proprietary non-linear forecasting techniques as a check on the results of my more complicated eocnometric models. The simplified techniques have little true statistical predictive value, but if their predictions divererge substantially from those of my econometric models, more often than not my models have a significant flaw.

Put in simpler terms regarding the climate study above, its finding of consistency with the more complex (and complete) climate models doesn't prove anything by itself, but the absence of inconsistency gives me more confidence in the models.

Of course almost every point forecast will be wrong, but we aren't using these models so much for point forecasts as we are for ranges. On that score, the allegations of gross inaccuracy of the models don't hold up.

John
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 11, 2014 - 01:25pm PT

The most likely culprit? Catastrophic destabilization of Arctic methane stores due to human-caused warming.

^^^Wew Sounds scary!

Do you think it was our farting that could have caused this?
zBrown

Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
Aug 11, 2014 - 02:46pm PT
The

First:

Were you there? How do you know this happened?

Second:

Whether it happened in the past is not relevant to why it is happening now.

Third:

It certainly appears that you're saying that we are just now coming out of an ice age.

Go get yourself a snowcone. We'll all chip in to cover the costs.
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Aug 11, 2014 - 03:04pm PT
Then why use the models at all? Are you saying that despite the flaws, your models have utility?

Models without significant flaws obviously have utility. Even deeply flawed models can be better than their alternatives.

What I'm really saying is that if my checks confirm my models' predictions, I will rely on their forecasts and expected range of predictions. If the checks fail to confirm those predictions, I do more work on the model.

Econometric and climate models both necessarily rely on non-experimental data. For that reason, model building requires what my mentor, Ed Leamer, calls a "specification search," i.e. trying to specify the variables whose values we need to estimate. Doing a specification search properly requires the researcher to modify the predicted statistics of fit to account for the increased uncertainty caused by the uncertain specification of the model.

All of this simply broadens the confidence intervals, but as I pointed out earlier, the uncertainty goes in both directions. We may be exaggerating the extent of anthropogenic climate effects, but we may just as likely be understating those effects. We are, quite simply, going into uncharted territory. Since I live in that uncharted territory, I have a certain aversion to risking its destruction.

John
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 11, 2014 - 03:21pm PT
What is the utility of thr models if the empirical evidence they are compared to for validity are continually "maladjusted"?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 11, 2014 - 03:46pm PT
Your only utility here is msking sure you collect my five canucks from Raymond Fool once he comes out on the losing end of our arctic ice extent bet. Okay Bruce? Other thsn that keep your ignorant commie piehole shut.
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 11, 2014 - 03:52pm PT
Uh O. Has Bruce finally lost faith in the models? If only they
had predicted the chilly summer of 2014 all would be well
in warmistville.

Messages 16501 - 16520 of total 21618 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews