Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 16521 - 16540 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2014 - 04:23pm PT
Petty answers deserve criticism.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Sep 24, 2014 - 04:32pm PT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 24, 2014 - 04:39pm PT


The debate about climate change has been going on for so long,
and the arguments against climate change have been repeated so many times,
they've been given numbers.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 24, 2014 - 05:24pm PT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 24, 2014 - 05:41pm PT
“The minimum you should demand of yourself is to be scientifically literate.”

“Better yet, scientifically literate and mathematically literate.”

Neil deGrasse Tyson

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2011/05/13/obrien.degrasse.tyson.jobs.cnn.html
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 24, 2014 - 05:44pm PT
A mistake often made on this thread is expecting to have either a reasonable or rational discussion with someone who does not share that goal.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 24, 2014 - 05:46pm PT
The odd and troubling thing about this stance is not just that it prevents action. It’s also profoundly unconservative. If there was ever a radical project, monkeying with the climate would surely qualify. Had the Soviet Union built secret factories to pour carbon dioxide into the atmosphere and threatened to raise the sea level and subvert the Grain Belt, the prevailing conservative response would have been: Bomb them. Bomb them back to the Holocene—to the 10,000-year period of climatic stability now unraveling, the period that underwrote the rise of human civilization that conservatism has taken as its duty to protect. Conservatism has always stressed stability and continuity; since Burke, the watchwords have been tradition, authority, heritage. The globally averaged temperature of the planet has been 57 degrees, give or take, for most of human history; we know that works, that it allows the world we have enjoyed. Now, the finest minds, using the finest equipment, tell us that it’s headed toward 61 or 62 or 63 degrees unless we rapidly leave fossil fuel behind, and that, in the words of NASA scientists, this new world won’t be “similar to that on which civilization developed and to which life on earth is adapted.” Conservatives should be leading the desperate fight to preserve the earth we were born on.
http://peterdaou.com/2011/05/the-ugly-truth-about-climate-denial/




A mistake often made on this thread is expecting to have either a reasonable or rational discussion with someone who does not share that goal.
I have ZERO expectation of seeing a reasonable or rational discussion from the unreasonable and the irrational ... the deniers.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 24, 2014 - 06:37pm PT
I myself have learned a lot on this thread, so I am only talking about someone who intentionally is consistently uninterested in that. Of course
provocations stir up emotion and response, but here it often seems to foul up and sidetrack too much of the whole thread, focusing on outlying issues.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 24, 2014 - 06:42pm PT
crankster

Trad climber
Sep 24, 2014 - 06:55pm PT
Better
http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8q3nmm/burn-noticed
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2014 - 06:56pm PT
wilbeer, this is a really cool, well-produced, and funny skit. The trend line between two points is appropriate, as is the sunglasses remark:

Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 24, 2014 - 07:52pm PT
TGT, do you have specific evidence that 13 misconceptions youtube skit is wrong?

or is it just then when you have a question like "what is the capital of Italy?" you ignore geographers, and have Jay Leno do a selected survey of people on the streets as in "Jaywalking"
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 24, 2014 - 07:54pm PT
I'm leaving you with some better questions to stir the pot.
(not that anyone should demand an answer, you can always try to look up yourself)

A summary of the main inputs to forecasts are graphs like these:
Malemute Sep 2 2014 http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2478953#msg2478953
The forcings of course are simplified to average out typical oscillations and durations. Solar variation is very small.
Notice that the net imbalance has a big uncertainty (.2 to 1.0 W/m2)
What year is that imbalance for? And compared to when (what baseline)?
What is the timeframe and baseline of that net imbalance?
How much does it change in the long term with more GHGs? - what will it be in 40 years?
And what is the likelihood of the outer uncertainty bands, in both the short term and long term?

Aug 31 Ed posted a pic of the overall energy balance that gives a net of 1.6 w/m2 (.6 to 2.4)
http://www.supertopo.com/inc/photo_zoom.php?dpid=Ojg8OzgjKCYhLQ,,
What is the year that is calculated for, and against what baseline year?
What will it be in the long run with more GHGs?

And there's a different figure here, baseline of 1750, Net imbalance shown for 1950, 1980, and 2011.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx
Page 12

Now go to pages 14-21 of that summary.
A question for the skeptics.
Notice that regardless of what has happened so far, the biggest changes show up mainly after 2040.
Even in the rosiest scenario, sea level rises .42 meter, surface temps another 1 degree C, compared to year 2000.
That scenario requires action now.
The less rosy scenarios get worse - temperature rise of additional 2-4 degrees C (3.5 to 7 degrees F),
sea level rises .5 to .75 meter. (Shows the delayed effect of how long melting takes).
Do you have particular disputes with this,
or you just don't like hearing it?

one more
Look at figure 3 of http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
What is the general slope of the Blue section for 2014 to 2018?
Slightly upwards or significantly upwards?
Why are they so focused on the short run - the next 4 years?
Most importantly, What does that slope change to in the longer run with more GHG's?
What is the likelihood of the uncertainty, versus the average slope?
Is their model different than the IPCC consensus, or is it similar but short term?


rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 24, 2014 - 08:44pm PT
Judith Curry and Nic Lewis have a newly published paper on TCR and ECS up at Climate Etc. Using observational data from AR5 they come up with significantly lower numbers than the GCM generated numbers from AR5. Worth a look since these values agree better with recent (climate or weather, argue as you will) 21st century trends.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 24, 2014 - 09:16pm PT
deniers are Liars

http://www.circleofblue.org/waternews/2011/world/peter-gleick-misrepresenting-climate-science-cherry-picking-data-for-political-purposes/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/misrepresenting-climate-s_b_819367.html

full size image at http://images.huffingtonpost.com/2011-02-07-Arcticgateimages1A.jpg
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 25, 2014 - 12:00am PT
Curry & Lewis paper and model is simply one of many in building a consensus among scientists. Certain blogs of course latch onto lower temperature forecasts not because they understand any of it, but simply because it confirms what they want to hear.
It seems far more reasonable to consider the whole range of estimates before figuring out the best summary, which is what the IPCC does.

http://www.climatedialogue.org/climate-sensitivity-and-transient-climate-response/
read the Guest blog John Fasullo

http://skepticalscience.com/gwpf-lewis-crock-climate-sensitivity-optimism-ill-founded.html

http://skepticalscience.com/wsj-downplays-global-warming-risks-again.html
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 25, 2014 - 06:58am PT
Don't be so coy, Sketch.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/09/25/new-research-finds-earth-even-less-sensitive-to-co2-than-previously-thought/
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Sep 25, 2014 - 07:08am PT
Don't be so coy, Sketch.

SSDD
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 25, 2014 - 07:12am PT
And Sketch, it's not CO2 'forcing', it's CO2 'sensitivity'.

Here's a gold star for you for effort in the 'trying to sound smart' category.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 25, 2014 - 07:52am PT
Latest fudge of climate numbers shows continued scam

What, no source? I see why.

Because when folks post stuff that's not from a scientific journal, The Chief knocks it down with a line similar to the following, "Now you're quoting blogs as if they were from a scientific journal," or, "so-and-so isn't a scientist."


And The Chief would never post something that isn't from a scientific paper because if he did, he'd be a hypocrite.


And then Sketch, who also jumps on folks when they post quotes from blogs, would have to jump on his cohort, which could lead to ugly things.
Messages 16521 - 16540 of total 20343 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