Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 18781 - 18800 of total 29712 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:42am PT
I know ED, there is far far more involved than this simple truth. The 25,000 plus Climate Science research peer reviewed papers say so.

It just can not be....




http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cag/time-series/global


The hairs on your pinky's..... the whole lot of ya.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 11, 2014 - 03:08am PT
Where are the values for the x axis in your upper graph Ed?
[Detailed description of why weights are irrelevant in the graph.]

...

here's the link to the weights:
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/weighting_functions


rick, I think Ed just tore you a new ozone hole.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jan 11, 2014 - 10:18am PT
yep... pretty simple there The Chief... the anomaly goes up just like the CO₂ concentration...
three more posts and you've got another 30 post day on this thread alone!

Those "adjusted" temperature graphs are a perfect illustration of the dishonesty of the alarmist warmer crowd.

"Oh no! Global temps have stopped increasing! Where's the warming we predicted???"

"I have an idea. Let's thrown in a bunch of variables no one gave a sh!t about back when we were actually experiencing warming. Yeah. That's the ticket."

"Brilliant. Now it looks like "the warming" has continued."

"It beats the hell out admitting we completely messed up forecasting the hiatus."
dirtbag

climber
Jan 11, 2014 - 10:37am PT
Illiterate^^^
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 11, 2014 - 10:53am PT
We are soooooooooooooooooooooo FUKED!!!







You people are so stooooooooooooopid, you don't even know how to "adjust" and distort the graph's to make it all appear more disastrous.



Remember, all them millions of uneducated "FOX NEWS JESUS LOVING" people out there are complete foooking idiots. They will never know the difference.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 11:14am PT
all them millions of uneducated "FOX NEWS JESUS LOVING" people out there are complete foooking idiots. They will never know the difference.


But not you huh Chuff? You are uniquely impervious to the garden path eh?


Now tell me ..... how does one avoid the traps your jesus lovers fall for? Is it your mystic intuitive sense? Or your amazing capacity to self edu-makate?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 11, 2014 - 11:33am PT
My BAD BRUCEE KY.


MSNBC for you and your likes.


Nothing but the truth from them folks............ Got it.








We are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo FUKED!!!!!

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 11:36am PT
Yes yes I know.... I as well am stooooopid as hell. We know that. That was not my question.

Please enlighten your flock as to the precise path of knowlrdge and Intuitive power you hold above all others with the possible exception of Jesus Christ.

You know what I mean. Describe using your demonstrated powers of articulation.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
I hoped you guys all enjoyed my replication of the CAGW crowds patterns of reality denial i demonstrated over Ed's graphs depicting multiple measurements of decadal trends in tropospheric and stratospheric temp changes. Here is the pattern- 1. Deny the reality of what is shown. 2. When forced to acknowledge change the parameters ( in this case pick an atmospheric level sympathetic to your interpretation) then claim statistical insignificance of contrary evidence while highlighting evidence supporting your position. 3. The final step in the process is to completely discount all the information as being from as biased from an unreliable source.

Getting to the truth though, the graphs don't show anywhere near the higher rate of of the mid troposphere warming predicted in GCM's.

Okay Ed, i read Santer et al.. What am i supposed to get out of this other than he detects serious overestimations in the values used for the main forcing agents (presumably GHG's) and the resulting projections of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling are outside the 5-95 certainty range of CMIP 5 models. He did identify human influence on climate as the major cause of the warming (ending i might add 15 years ago) by his fingerprint methods while excluding solar, volcanic or any KNOWN modes of internal variability.

EDIT: Ed where the hell are the volcano's Chiloe uses? Last time i checked there were a number of low level eruptions but the sum total dont add up to anywhere near a Pinatubo. And wasn't Pinatubo's effects short lived-2 to 3 years?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
That is a scientific habit.



That is also an ethic Rick. One you do not possess.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 11, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
Wow, The Chief. That InfoWars clip is sure eye opening for me, to see how they use spin to entice anger.

For example, the whole clip paints the Maddow segment as opposing veteran's rights. In fact, that whole segment was about how the Republicans and Tea Party were holding the gov't hostage using the threat of a shutdown in an attempt to get what they wanted.

InfoWars twists the basic focus of what Maddow is showing, and thus makes a straw-man argument, which they use to bash Maddow.


You have to understand who is writing what and why are they trying to influence one way or another. A skill not easy for the uncrafted.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:57pm PT
OK Ed. how about this from the same conclusion- "On average, the CMIP-5 models underestimate the observed cooling of the lower stratosphere and overestimate the warming of the troposphere. Biases are largest over the tropics and the southern hemisphere. Results presented here and elsewhere(40-42) suggest that forcing errors make an important contribution to such biases. These results point to the need for a more systematic exploration of the impact of forcing uncertainties on simulations of historical climate change". Looks to me like your exhibiting steps 1 and 2.

Okay they are asking for " more realistic treatment of stratospheric ozone depletion and volcanic aerosol forcing", in the abstract, which brings me again to the question of is their significant volcanic forcing currently or recent enough in the past to have an effect in Chiloes analysis. Last time i checked there has been no recent major eruptions and the combined total of all active volcanoes would be a small percentage of that from Pinatubo from 23 years ago?

EDIT: And can you please tell me what is wrong with the skeptical blog sites? They seem to be a wonderful resource, understandable to laymen, with guest articles from scientists identifying new mechanisms of climate change,and serious questioning of the IPCC conclusions. Is dissent not to be tolerated?

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:44pm PT
And can you please tell me what is wrong with the skeptical blog sites? They seem to be a wonderful resource, understandable to laymen, with guest articles from scientists identifying new mechanisms of climate change,and serious questioning of the IPCC conclusions. Is dissent not to be tolerated?


Brilliant question! I would suggest that there is a problem when their opinions are not substantiated and verifiable. In other words to the layman it is tempting to trust them based on how "plausible it sounds". One only has to understand how stockbrokers, car salesmen, and crack dealers work to know that this benchmark of trust is fraught with peril.

Problem is - how does a layman verify? problem is, they can't. It is way too technical a subject. Expert opinion is your only low risk option. "Confidence of your own council" is high to extreme risk in this situation. Confidence of your own council is low risk for swinging a hammer, even for the layman.

This leads to the one single glaring question that you could answer to justify your position:

What evidence do you have that your experts are worthy of trust and the vast consensus of experts are not?

Evidence please, not rhetoric.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
I am concluding that you exhibit at least step 1 in the process of denial i listed above by cherry picking out what reinforces your beliefs while denying the reality of the whole, especially deficiencies noted in GCM's as well as Santer's admission of unknowns. I did the same thing amigo-cherry picking what i liked. On the whole the paper seems a balanced attempt at honest science.

I don't see why you fear and hate the skeptical blogs so. After all isn't science and the learning of it supposed to include a healthy dose of skepticism. The blogs level the playing field so average people, that will be affected by adverse impacts from either CC or the crippling and economically devastating suggested responses to it, can make informed judgements from both sldes of the debate.Isn't this the way it should be in a modern free society?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 11, 2014 - 03:36pm PT
Who in the hell doesn't include human influence Ed? We are the dominate species on planet Earth and possibly overpopulated, we are not outside of nature on planet Earth. It is impossible for humans to not have an effect on the climate. The extent compared to natural variability is the question.CAGW science will not be refuted by the blogs, it will be refuted by nature deviating from the GCM script to a degree that it is impossible for it's promoters to continue to deny. The blogs only highlight the ongoing deviation while providing a platform for alternative explanations such as provided by the likes of Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, Roger Pielke,Bob Tisdale, Willis eschenbach, the Idso family and many more- serious scientists all. They also cite reference material, analyse the sama data, conduct experiments, just like the AGW scientists. I might add, they are also immediately reviewed and in many instances criticised by their audience.

I am not a scientist Ed and therefore unable to produce anything but the crudest of reports of the hypothesis i may have. I'm too old to start now.

Does the above answer your questions Bruce. If you doubt me take a serious look for yourself

EDIT: Larry has shown that Bob Tisdale crossed himself off the above list. But that still leaves hundreds if not thousands in opposition. It's good that Larry feels the freedom to critically evaluate some of the material produced on Skeptics blogs, but for him to fear return criticism coming from that quarter only serves to show his confusion that the true enemy of his cherished beliefs is not critics but instead his inability to compensate for the shortcomings of AGW science as compared to observational reality.

Bruce, get it straight in your scattered brain- is it stupidity or ethics.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 11, 2014 - 03:39pm PT
The problem with denialist blogs is that they tend to be polemical, not scientific. Often they publish pseudoscience, to gullible readers like Rick who can't tell the difference but are eager to believe sciency-sounding words that fit their politics. For example, Rick wrote this about one such blog post a while back:
Even if i was a statistician, why bother Ed, Bob Tisdale did an extraordinary job of deconstructing Rahmstorf and Larry over on WUWT sometime ago. A true professional, his grasp of the full range of mechanisms, values as forcing or moderating agents, and their complex interactions was beyond argument.
I asked Rick what field he thought Tisdale was "a true professional" in, but he could not answer.

Since Rick claimed that Tisdale was somehow deconstructing me I went back to look this thing up, and learned it was a fiasco. As far as I can tell, Tisdale had not even a beginner's grasp of multiple regression at the time he wrote that piece, in which he tried (and Rick believed him) to discredit a refereed paper by a professional statistician. In his blog post Tisdale made basic errors that were obvious even to a few blog readers right away -- he did not grasp what a "trend" means in multiple regression! Most WUWT readers don't either, so Tisdale argued against those who pointed out that all his calculations, on which he based his whole attack, were not just statistically wrong but physically impossible. Tisdale did not understand their point at the time. But he was so badly wrong, in such beginner ways, that eventually he was persuaded to write this "update" to his failed attack.
UPDATE 3 (January 14, 2012): I displayed my very limited understanding of statistics in this post. This was pointed out to me a great number times by many different people in numerous comments received in the WattsUpWithThat cross post.The errors in that initial portion of the post were so many and so great that they detracted from the bulk of the post, which was about the El Niņo-Southern Oscillation. Please disregard this post and the WUWT cross post, and any other cross posts that may exist.
Well at least he admitted it you might think, but since then he's gone on to make many other attacks likewise based on his "very limited understanding of statistics." While true believers like Rick give him attaboys every time.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 03:48pm PT
No it dosn't you incredibly stupid person! You are verifying where you have no business verifying. You are not competent. Why in christ name would you decide Lindzen is more credible than Mann?

You can't dumbshit! It is beyond you. you certainly are right that "The extent compared to natural variability is the question" but answering that question is the role of science as best represented by the institution of science, which is not you nor is it your selected "experts", it is the process that is proven effective that is the authority.

But no you didn't even approach answering my question. Actually I don't really think you are stupid, simply unethical.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 11, 2014 - 03:51pm PT
Tisdale with his "very limited understanding of statistics" (basically, he had recently learned that Excel has a multiple regression function), was attacking the time series analysis of professional statistician Grant Foster, of Foster & Rahmstorf (2011), who also has written papers on "Wavelets for period analysis of unevenly sampled time series (209 citations according to Google Scholar), "The cleanest Fourier spectrum" (189 citations), "Time series analysis by projection" (76 citations) and much else.

It's the content, not the credentials, that make Tisdale's blog post embarrassing nonsense while Foster's work is widely respected by experts. But Rick embraced Tisdale because what he wrote fit Rick's politics, with no comprehension of content or credentials.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 05:43pm PT
Bruce, get it straight in your scattered brain- is it stupidity or ethics.


excellent question again Rick. This is why I don't think you are stupid - you keep revealing something of relevance, even if unconsciously unintentional.

The problem is that I can't decide with certainty. You keep displaying stupidity, but for All I know that is strategic not an error of cognitive ability. I would like to know and I can even think of ways to test it, but you always avoid being positioned to be tested, again suggesting intelligence.

But such behavior suggests also poor ethics, so that is where I am leaning.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 11, 2014 - 06:04pm PT
You can understand the tactics of the skeptics better if you assume that they want today's young people to have a miserable life.
Messages 18781 - 18800 of total 29712 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews