Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 18201 - 18220 of total 21491 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 10:36am PT
Did you ever learn the definition of many?

Are you talking about this:

Think coral reefs — many of them are thriving, some of them are not ...


Why yes, many is more than "some," a concept you fail to grasp.

Are you going to break out your gums now?
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 10:53am PT
Speaking of corals:

Venn, A. A., Tambutté, E., Holcomb, M., Laurent, J., Allemand, D., & Tambutté, S. (2013). Impact of seawater acidification on pH at the tissue–skeleton interface and calcification in reef corals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(5), 1634-1639:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1634.short

"Overall, our findings suggest that reef corals may mitigate the effects of seawater acidification by regulating pH in the SCM [tissue–skeleton interface (subcalicoblastic medium)]"
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 13, 2014 - 11:52am PT
Speaking of trolls,
that silliness about "global dimming" was already debunked in 2007.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Schmidt_etal_2.pdf
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 12:04pm PT
Many - more than some.

Priceless.

How telling that Sketch cuts out the context.
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:05pm PT
Really?


Román, R., Bilbao, J., & de Miguel, A. (2014). Reconstruction of six decades of daily total solar shortwave irradiation in the Iberian Peninsula using sunshine duration records. Atmospheric Environment:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014007456

Highlights

• A method to reconstruct shortwave irradiation is developed.
Dimming and brightening periods are observed.
• Uncertainty in series can affect temporal trends.

Abstract

Total global solar shortwave (G) irradiation and sunshine duration were recorded at nine Spanish stations located in the Iberian Peninsula. G irradiation under cloudless conditions was simulated by means of a radiative transfer model using satellite data as input. A method based on these cloudless simulations and sunshine duration records was developed to reconstruct G series. This model was validated against experimental data, providing a good agreement for cloudless skies (mean bias error of 0.4% and root mean square error of 5.8%). Monthly averages of modelled and measured G irradiation presented a mean bias error of 0.5% and a root mean square error of 3%. Differences between modelled and measured G irradiation were in agreement within the model uncertainties. The reconstruction model was applied to sunshine duration measurements, giving long-term G series at the nine locations. Monthly, seasonal, and annual G anomalies were calculated and analysed. Averaged series (using the nine locations) showed a statistically significant decrease in annual G from 1950 to the mid 1980s (−1.7%dc−1) together with a significant increase from the mid 1980s to 2011 (1.6%dc−1). The effect of uncertainty in the reconstructed series on statistically significant trends was studied.
Hardly Visible

Social climber
Llatikcuf WA
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:06pm PT
I normally avoid jumping into the fray, but this seems to belong here.
Ok I'm outa here

The confidence of the dumb
There’s also that immutable problem known as “human nature.” It has a name now: it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says, in sum, that the dumber you are, the more confident you are that you’re not actually dumb. And when you get invested in being aggressively dumb…well, the last thing you want to encounter are experts who disagree with you, and so you dismiss them in order to maintain your unreasonably high opinion of yourself. (There’s a lot of that loose on social media, especially.)



http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
I was just about to say that the Dunning-Kruger effect fits perfectly on the description of the alarmist ecomaniacs. Save the polar bears...

Btw. I work at Stanford University as a researcher in geoscience.
What do you do for a living?
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
>>Speaking of trolls,
>>that silliness about "global dimming" was already debunked in 2007.
>>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Schmidt_etal_2.pdf

Really?

Yes, really.
Do you read anything that doesn't support your denialist opinion?
You only throw that article out like a pop up mole because you are on a hunt for anything that supports your preconceived opinion, just like you brought up cosmic rayguns. But this study of "dimming" does Nothing to make a significant impact. At this point, as in 2007, it remains an obfuscation latched onto by denialists.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
Why we need the 2 degree C climate upper limit.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/limiting-global-warming-to-2-c-why-victor-and-kennel-are-wrong/#more-17538
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
Lets recap.

The cause of solar dimming and brightening at the Earth's surface during the last half century: Evidence from measurements of sunshine duration:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021308/abstract

Abstract
Analysis of the Angstrom-Prescott relationship between normalized values of global radiation and sunshine duration measured during the last 50 years made at five sites with a wide range of climate and aerosol emissions showed few significant differences in atmospheric transmissivity under clear or cloud-covered skies between years when global dimming occurred and years when global brightening was measured, nor in most cases were there any significant changes in the parameters or in their relationships to annual rates of fossil fuel combustion in the surrounding 1° cells. It is concluded that at the sites studied changes in cloud cover rather than anthropogenic aerosols emissions played the major role in determining solar dimming and brightening during the last half century and that there are reasons to suppose that these findings may have wider relevance.

_


Decadal variations in estimated surface solar radiation over Switzerland since the late 19th century:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/8635/2012/acp-12-8635-2012.html

Abstract.
Our knowledge on trends in surface solar radiation (SSR) involves uncertainties due to the scarcity of long-term time series of SSR, especially with records before the second half of the 20th century. Here we study the trends of all-sky SSR from 1885 to 2010 in Switzerland, which have been estimated using a homogenous dataset of sunshine duration series. This variable is shown to be a useful proxy data of all-sky SSR, which can help to solve some of the current open issues in the dimming/brightening phenomenon. All-sky SSR has been fairly stable with little variations in the first half of the 20th century, unlike the second half of the 20th century that is characterized also in Switzerland by a dimming from the 1950s to the 1980s and a subsequent brightening. Cloud cover changes seem to explain the major part of the decadal variability observed in all-sky SSR, at least from 1885 to the 1970s; at this point, a discrepancy in the sign of the trend is visible in the all-sky SSR and cloud cover series from the 1970s to the present. Finally, an attempt to estimate SSR series for clear-sky conditions, based also on sunshine duration records since the 1930s, has been made for the first time. The mean clear-sky SSR series shows no relevant changes between the 1930s to the 1950s, then a decrease, smaller than the observed in the all-sky SSR, from the 1960s to 1970s, and ends with a strong increase from the 1980s up to the present. During the three decades from 1981 to 2010 the estimated clear-sky SSR trends reported in this study are in line with previous findings over Switzerland based on direct radiative flux measurements. Moreover, the signal of the El Chichón and Pinatubo volcanic eruption visible in the estimated clear-sky SSR records further demonstrates the potential to infer aerosol-induced radiation changes from sunshine duration observations.
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
Regarding the 2-degree target it would interesting for you to read this work that has just been published:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#more-17038
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:58pm PT
Having equal rights does not mean having equal talents, equal abilities, or equal knowledge. It assuredly does not mean that “everyone’s opinion about anything is as good as anyone else’s.” And yet, this is now enshrined as the credo of a fair number of people despite being obvious nonsense.
http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/

the opinions of science & math morons are worthless

Critics might dismiss all this by saying that everyone has a right to participate in the public sphere. That’s true. But every discussion must take place within limits and above a certain baseline of competence. And competence is sorely lacking in the public arena.
ibid

the deniers on this thread have zero competence

Thus, at least some of the people who reject expertise are not really, as they often claim, showing their independence of thought. They are instead rejecting anything that might stir a gnawing insecurity that their own opinion might not be worth all that much.
ibid

science opinions without scientific evidence are the mark of the moron,
which is what the deniers on this thread are

But when citizens forgo their basic obligation to learn enough to actually govern themselves, and instead remain stubbornly imprisoned by their fragile egos and caged by their own sense of entitlement, experts will end up running things by default. That’s a terrible outcome for everyone.
ibid

The deniers on this thread are emotional uneducated idiots. No intelligent person would give any weight to their opinions.




Expertise is necessary, and it’s not going away. Unless we return it to a healthy role in public policy, we’re going to have stupider and less productive arguments every day. So here, presented without modesty or political sensitivity, are some things to think about when engaging with experts in their area of specialization.

We can all stipulate: the expert isn’t always right.
But an expert is far more likely to be right than you are. On a question of factual interpretation or evaluation, it shouldn’t engender insecurity or anxiety to think that an expert’s view is likely to be better-informed than yours. (Because, likely, it is.)
Experts come in many flavors. Education enables it, but practitioners in a field acquire expertise through experience; usually the combination of the two is the mark of a true expert in a field. But if you have neither education nor experience, you might want to consider exactly what it is you’re bringing to the argument.
In any discussion, you have a positive obligation to learn at least enough to make the conversation possible. The University of Google doesn’t count. Remember: having a strong opinion about something isn’t the same as knowing something.
And yes, your political opinions have value. Of course they do: you’re a member of a democracy and what you want is as important as what any other voter wants. As a layman, however, your political analysis, has far less value, and probably isn’t — indeed, almost certainly isn’t — as good as you think it is.
ibid
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 01:12pm PT
I'm certainly not an expert, but I do critical thinking for a living and I see a LOT of things that simply do not add up in the climate debate.

You have to remember that we are not discussion whether or not there is climate change or if there is a greenhouse effect.
The whole discussion concerns whether or not we will face a catastrophic scenario in the very near future and if trying to cut CO2 has any significant effect.

I would argue from the most recent estimates on the climate sensitivity that we are not facing a crisis and even if we were then adapting to those changes would be the only way forward. Look at where China and India are going in terms of energy production.

In the geological perspective we are in a very cold period and we currently have an extremely low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. So much so that we should be worrying about that instead of both increasing.

Climate changes and always has. We managed just fine during the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming with primitive technology, so surely we can manage whatever comes next.

Lets deal with real world problems rather than wasting any more sleep over computer-generated simulations of the future!

Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 13, 2014 - 01:33pm PT
http://washingtonexaminer.com/hagel-climate-change-a-threat-multiplier/article/2554733
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
Yes.
I have spent more than 10 years at various universities studying geoscience and have published a dozen peer-reviewed papers in this field.
I know what is up and down in this debate.

Did you even check where the papers I cite were published?
PNAS, Science, Nature etc.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 13, 2014 - 02:02pm PT
I'm certainly not an expert, but I do critical thinking for a living

If that's true and you're not just another political sock puppet on ST, as you've been acting so far -- can you apply some real thinking skills here?

The whole discussion concerns whether or not we will face a catastrophic scenario in the very near future and if trying to cut CO2 has any significant effect.

No, that is not "the whole discussion" or even a large part of it in the science literature. Nor on this Supertopo thread. So who told you that it is?

I would argue from the most recent estimates on the climate sensitivity that we are not facing a crisis and even if we were then adapting to those changes would be the only way forward. Look at where China and India are going in terms of energy production.

CO2 is not increasing, or if it is it's not anthropogenic, or if it is the sensitivity is low, or if it's high there's nothing we can do because India and China ... and so forth. Many arguments and fall-back declarations read like rhetorical paint jobs that can change easily (Look! There's a Pause!) or be stacked into the same sentence as you just did, but all justifying the same steel imperative: U.S. should not reduce fossil fuel use.

Regarding sensitivity, paleoclimate studies lean toward higher numbers -- otherwise it's hard to get big climate swings based on small solar and orbital variations. Studies based on the modern instrumental records work with much shorter time scales, so the meaning of "equilibrium" isn't clear. The recent Lewis & Curry piece, beloved by denialist bloggers, got especially low numbers in part because they used HadCRUT's incomplete geography to represent the globe, although two less biased records (BEST and CW14) were available to cover the same years.

In the geological perspective we are in a very cold period and we currently have an extremely low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. So much so that we should be worrying about that instead of both increasing.

Nope, you totally jumped the shark there. Repeating stuff straight from a denialist blog? Think for yourself -- How was civilization doing back when we didn't live in such a very cold period, and we didn't have such extremely low CO2? What about this is "so much so" that you think we should be losing sleep over it?
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 02:03pm PT
I'll be spending the rest of the week on the side of El Cap, so don't hold your breath, but I can't wait to be educated about how close we are to the apocalypse when I get back...
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 13, 2014 - 02:06pm PT
I have spent more than 10 years at various universities studying geoscience and have published a dozen peer-reviewed papers in this field.

Examples?

I know what is up and down in this debate.

Your posts so far suggest otherwise but I'm happy to be convinced. As ATTP blogged, "We need a better class of skeptics," but I'm not sure that you're it.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 13, 2014 - 02:09pm PT
"let's recap"

Where did you summarize the significance of these studies?
Oh that's right you didn't. How much is Heartland paying you for each of these trolls?
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Schmidt_etal_2.pdf

re: Judith Curry editorial in the WSJ, the biggest denier media site in the world. She's an outlier. There will always be outliers.
The consensus already includes those like her who lowball warming.

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

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

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

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 13, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
"In the geological perspective we are in a very cold period and we currently have an extremely low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. So much so that we should be worrying about that instead of both increasing."

100% troll

"Climate changes and always has. We managed just fine during the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming with primitive technology, so surely we can manage whatever comes next."

100% troll

"Lets deal with real world problems rather than wasting any more sleep over computer-generated simulations of the future!"

100% troll
Messages 18201 - 18220 of total 21491 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