Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 17001 - 17020 of total 20264 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 15, 2014 - 08:27am PT
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2014/10/14/3579338/pentagon-global-warming-national-security/
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 15, 2014 - 08:31am PT
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/10/14/water-temperature-of-the-great-lakes-is-over-6-degrees-colder-than-normal/
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2014 - 08:34am PT
k-man, disprove the plot.

I posted the RSS data. Go ahead, plot it.

Hell, I'm no scientist, I don't even know what the heck Rē signifies.

While I could take the time to find the data and load it up into Excel, I'd need to spend a considerable amount time figuring out how to calculate anything meaningful with the data.

Instead, I leave that to the experts. And when Ed says, The Chief, your plot is altered in some way, that trend line cannot have an Rē=0 as indicated, I believe him. Why? Because it's obvious that Ed knows what he's talking about. (You, on the other hand...)

In my daily life, I leave lots of things to experts. And one BIG thing I leave to experts is scientific discovery. And when thousands of international climate scientists publish papers on the state of affairs with the Earth's climate, I listen to what they've concluded. (And apparently, so do the folks in the Pentagon, at insurance agencies, in planning departments, and so on.)

But The Chief, because you are so full of yourself, please show us the Rē trend line that you've calculated. After all, you couldn't berate me for not being able to do it if you couldn't do it yourself, because then you'd be a hypocrite.

Dollars to doughnuts you're full of it and can't plot Rē.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 15, 2014 - 09:08am PT
A final thing you got right was your prior exit and self erasure once it became apparent to all, including yourself, that your ideological taint trumped your definition of scientific truth.

no, I erased because the of the change in tone, and the irrelevance of past posts... as they got buried in the invective posting that the majority of the thread has become. and finally, it was clear that they really didn't matter.

"ideological taint" is an interesting accusation which is easy for you make... given your ideology. And science is not your strong suit in any manner, including the discussion of "truth."

Your main play on this thread is entirely ideological, with little or no science to back it up, as has been demonstrated time and again. And your major source of information misinforms you on the significance of various publications. For instance, you can't read the abstract from the paper of Curry and look at the AR5 graph and compare them.

As for the quote regarding the smallness of the climate change signal, unlike the natural variability, the climate change signal builds up year after year, and after 100 years dominates over the variability as the climate has changed. The natural variability averages out over time, as I've pointed out in many posts, and what's left is the climate change signal, as expected given the GHG increases.

You seemed to have left that part out of your quote of my statement.

Back to the paper, apparently you are now a fan of the peer review process, and a support of the scientific literature... for the moment at least.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 15, 2014 - 09:21am PT
a yearly The Chief winter forecast for California...

once again demonstrating his cluelessness...
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2014 - 09:38am PT
At least you are honest ...

Yes, I am.


But is this your way of saying that you cannot plot the data? This sure looks like an elaborate dodge.

Can you also be honest, for once?


@Sketch, with your That's some impressive hypocrisy remark.

Please show me how this is hypocritical. I never said I was a scientists.
Never once posted a plot (as you have done). Never once claimed I knew what they even meant, as you have done.

But, I do ask you to explain the relevance of the plots you post. Never have you been successful in doing so.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 15, 2014 - 09:58am PT


TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 15, 2014 - 10:16am PT
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-10-14/new-york-gets-frigid-winter-warning-from-siberia-snowfall.html
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Oct 15, 2014 - 10:21am PT
The chuff likes to project his worst traits onto others. Must make him feel good/secure.

k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 15, 2014 - 12:21pm PT
From:

At least you are honest ...

Yes, I am.


To:


At least you are honest in your true intent... HYPOCRITE!

Yes, I am.


Dishonesty at its finest.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 15, 2014 - 02:25pm PT
Judging from this thread, chuff revels in shit shovelling.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 15, 2014 - 06:29pm PT
Speaking of overly stuffed shirts expounding on their expertise: who among you has not had to endure old Frostyback The Snowman (aka Bruce K) bloviate about his vast world class knowledge of avalanche conditions and mitigation measures gleaned in his seasonal employ as a snow shoveler working alongside other low wage undocumented imports. I can see him now, showing the new recruits his true expertise by shoveling a menacing buildup with one hand and not spilling the ever present bottle in the other.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 15, 2014 - 06:38pm PT
zzzzz...
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Oct 15, 2014 - 07:43pm PT
Wake up dirtbag. Rick was talking about your mancrush BruceK.

Remember there is no global warming.

For too long the western world has been misled by alarmist claims
that a tiny trace of CO2 gas in the air will

cause big time global warming. The ongoing drama of
natural climate change, global temperatures are the result
of far greater forces. Climate research should focus

more on the cycles of the sun and solar system
and their effect on global climate and on

the periodic eruptions along our vast
sub-marine volcanic belts.

These control the ebb and
flow of ice ages and most of the many
extinction events that Earth has suffered.

Viv Forbes,
Rosewood Qld Australia

http://carbon-sense.com

Extinction of Warmists stupidity will be a welcome event.
dirtbag

climber
Oct 15, 2014 - 07:57pm PT
^^^^zzzzzzz...
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 15, 2014 - 09:08pm PT
Who is the next wackadoodle, Frosty The Snowman? Not a chance, hell would freezeover first.

Now Kelly is another matter, and with him all the loonies posting here. One can hope.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 15, 2014 - 09:57pm PT
Per Chief's post with the graphs of temperature discrepancies:

The problem is that there are NO good measurements of the polar areas, so ALL of the methods use various statistical fills for those areas, which explains the difference in slope/trend for these 2:
Gistemp and HadCrut4(kriged by Cowtan & Way) use different methods to try to try to reconstruct the Arctic area. You might not like it, but all the other methods are no better and likely worse accuracy.
Ocean temp and sea level are likely better indicators of the heat imbalance, since that is where 95% of the heat ends up.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2013/11/global-warming-since-1997-underestimated-by-half/

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/01/global-temperature-2013/

Furthermore, some of the methods use different baseline periods, so they are offset by a certain amount, which needs to be subtracted, as explained
http://www.woodfortrees.org/notes#wti


And per the chart on Sea Level Rise,
obviously 18000 years ago an ice age was ending,
so that has no relevance to recent sea level rise acceleration.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 15, 2014 - 10:31pm PT
You could always use the gistemp version that I believe is mostly used. The one that also use the sst instead of the one that doesn't.
raymond phule

climber
Oct 15, 2014 - 10:39pm PT
I guess that the high sea level rise in your graph might have something to do with the last ice age...
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 15, 2014 - 10:53pm PT
If you read about the other methods, you will find that NONE have good direct measurements for the Arctic, as I already said.

On sea level, look it up yourself before proclaiming your supreme instant homespun wisdom.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/gornitz_09/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Current_sea_level_rise#mediaviewer/File:Post-Glacial_Sea_Level.png

It took ~12 thousand years to make up most of the sea level recovery from the last ice age.

also that plot you keep posting is for the RATE of rise not the actual level. It says that three times - Rate, Rate, /kyr.
Messages 17001 - 17020 of total 20264 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