Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 18781 - 18800 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 07:11pm PT
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/70/GlobalTemperaturesSince1991.png

That's not a 'source', dumbass. That's just the url for the image.

Here is the source(your definition) for my graph.

http://claymckelvy.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/graph_sm.jpg

Does that help any?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Dec 11, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
Not at all kid... the source for all them other propaganda "trend" picture/graphs you keep proliferating?







A blog correct.


Got it.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 07:38pm PT
Propaganda, lol.

You can create a similar graph right here, Chief.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:2012.8/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:1997.7/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1997.8/to:2012.8/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:2012.8/trend

photo not found
Missing photo ID#334697

Now that I've shown you how to create a similar graph, you can now go and debunk it.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Dec 11, 2013 - 07:46pm PT
Hmmmm....






And let's add some other "sources"... no "lines" required. It is pretty obvious that the "Global" temps have flattened.





The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Dec 11, 2013 - 07:52pm PT
Here they are ALL combined.... flatter than your ass since 99', Mono.


monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 07:53pm PT
Still no trend lines, Chief.

You want us to just eyeball it?

Looks like a reasonable trend to 2005. Is the 'pause' only 8 years now?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Dec 11, 2013 - 07:59pm PT
Here's a reasonable trend to 2007. Is the 'pause' only 6 years long?

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:2012.8/mean:6/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1975.8/to:2007/trend

photo not found
Missing photo ID#334721
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 08:48pm PT
DMT smells bullshet emanating from the country, apparently he's not sniffing in the big city where it really reeks. Bullshet like the Earths energy imbalance estimates which i asked Ed about reek to high hell.

Below is an abstract and discussion of the uncertainties and unknowns ( what i called margin of error) in said estimates. It seems the uncertainty range is exponentially larger than the estimated imbalance. Now what does that mean about the value of the estimate?

http://judithcurry.com/2012/11/05/uncertainty-in-observations-of-the-earths-energy-balance/
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Dec 11, 2013 - 09:32pm PT

Investors demand oil, coal and power companies assess climate change risks
Regulatory, market and societal forces are changing the global landscape. Fossil fuel companies cannot expect business as usual for much longer.
70 global investors with collective assets totalling $3tn (1.85tn) made the first ever joint request to the world's 45 largest oil, coal and power companies including Exxon, BP and Arch Coal to assess the financial risks that climate change and these other trends pose to your business plans. The investors, co-ordinated by Ceres and the Carbon Tracker Initiative, sent letters to the companies this fall requesting detailed responses by early next year.

"We would like to understand (the company's) reserve exposure to the risks associated with current and probable future policies for reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 80% by 2050," the investors wrote in their letter to oil and gas companies. "We would also like to understand what options there are for (the company) to manage these risks by, for example, reducing the carbon intensity of its assets, divesting its most carbon intensive assets, diversifying its business by investing in low-carbon energy sources or returning capital to shareholders."

http://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/investors-fossil-fuel-climate-change
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Dec 11, 2013 - 09:40pm PT
Kinda like the cheifs mongol warrior reincarination - BULLSH#T.

Odd. It was Brutus that buried that concept into my head. And he was serious. Now, you DMT are not now going to state that he was, "Bullshet", are you? Don't believe me, ask EM.



Did not think so.....



But please do carry on with your Bullshet, DMT.



The things people these days will say and do in order to be part of the tribe.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:33pm PT
Another filling day at the AGU smorgasbord. Personal favorite among talks I saw was the Shoemaker Lecture by Michael Carr, "Geological exploration of the planets: A personal retrospective of the first 50 years." Carr gave a rich first-hand account of planetary exploration from the Mariner probes through Voyager, Galileo and the Mars landers -- an era that filled in what had been totally blank (or wrong) maps, from the surface of Mars to the Jovian moons. He ended up by calling the Jet Propulsion Laboratory "a national treasure" (rightly, I think) and noting with excitement that New Horizons is now on its way toward Pluto.

Jim Hansen was the climate headliner, filling an auditorium for the Frontiers in Geophysics lecture on "Minimizing irreversible impacts of human-made climate change." The irreversible impacts he noted were sea level rise, species extinction, and extreme weather regimes (more droughts, severe storms etc.). I expected his presentation to be rousing but instead saw a man visibly struggling with the enormity of what he sees, and the difficulties of averting disaster. He was particularly poignant on the topic of species extinction, and particularly conflicted on nuclear power development -- which he reluctantly sees as necessary.

Among his economic ideas is a carbon fee, levied on fossil fuel producers and importers (of course passed along in energy prices). Of this fee he said "not one cent" should go to government, all of it should be divided equally among all legal residents of the country. Anyone who used less than an average amount of fossil fuels (about 60% of the population, he reckoned) would come out richer under this scheme, a further incentive to use less.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Dec 11, 2013 - 10:55pm PT
Non-headliner talks were interesting as well. A session on "Climate literacy: Impacts, evidence and best practices from research and evaluation" included a fascinating presentation showing what happens when students or (non-climate) scientists are asked to draw diagrams to illustrate what "greenhouse effect" means. There were lots of good and bad example diagrams from students struggling to express what they thought this meant, which started me wondering -- how many of those opining on this thread could sketch out such a diagram? Really, (there won't be a test), how accurately could *you* do it, by the standards of a high school science course?

Late in the day I caught part of a session on "Understanding and monitoring abrupt climate change and its impacts." Jim White, lead author of the new NAS report, gave a good intro explaining the concepts of thresholds and abrupt change. Richard Alley followed with a characteristically lively, energized and analogy-filled account of why the ice sheets will decide how fast sea level rises, and we really don't know what they will do. He noted Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica as one with particular potential to surprise us, controlling up to 3 meters of sea level. The next talk was an interesting but much drier statistical piece; after that unfortunately I had to leave to give my own talk at a side meeting before the abrupt-change program was finished.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 11, 2013 - 11:03pm PT
Yes i read "the models agree better with the Stephens et al analysis than previous estimates". This brings me to the question of which of the many analyses are superior? The Wild et al analysis you posted and kindly re-posted seems to say " Table 4 illustrates there is no clear tendency towards reduced over estimations in the newer CMIP 5 models", in reference to incoming solar radiation. What gives Ed, after many billions of dollars are spent in studying and modeling, with estimations and values all over the board, there is no agreement. If the incoming radiation in the models are overestimated, as Wild et al claims, what does that say about the other values entered into the models and the results coming from the runs. Bloviating i may be, but their are also legions of climate scientists bloviating all across the spectrum. The public deserves better after tens of billions of their hard earned tax money is spent.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Dec 12, 2013 - 12:07am PT
And that with the complex models, rick, which you declared up thread couldn't possibly be predictive of "the real world." Yet here they are agreeing to no worse than 5%. Doubtful that you come that close on anything you do.

Well if you keep him well supplied with caulk .....because that is all that he actually does
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Dec 12, 2013 - 04:37am PT
Thanks for that,Chiloe.Cheers Wilbeer.
Sketch

Trad climber
Langley, VA
Dec 12, 2013 - 05:34am PT
Chiloe,

Has anyone proposed a survey of AGU attendees for their views on anthropogenic forcings?

Simply ask how much anthropogenic forcings have contributed to warming over the last 60 years.

0-20%, 20-40%... etc.

Or

Little, some, about half, most or nearly all.

It would be nice to see a survey that addressed this issue in a clear, straightforward manner.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Dec 12, 2013 - 06:19am PT
Jim Hansen was the climate headliner, filling an auditorium for the Frontiers in Geophysics lecture on "Minimizing irreversible impacts of human-made climate change." The irreversible impacts he noted were sea level rise, species extinction, and extreme weather regimes (more droughts, severe storms etc.). I expected his presentation to be rousing but instead saw a man visibly struggling with the enormity of what he sees, and the difficulties of averting disaster.

Pretty amazing what happens when you fill your head with self imposed misperceptions of fear and doom.

But then that has been a consistent tactic for centuries on how to proliferate the control over others issue.

Exaggerate the FEAR aspect and expound on the "Only we know how to protect you" concept.

Right on cue James....


BTW, how much did ole James get paid to deliver that message of fear?



Can't wait to read what ole Al Gore has to say.


He noted Thwaites Glacier in Antarctica as one with particular potential to surprise us, controlling up to 3 meters of sea level.

Hell, why stop there with the "surprises". Go big and tell us that the entire polar ice sheet is gonna go. That is good for at least 20 meters.

"Surprises". The new AGW cover your ass catch all verbiage.


And the hits just keep on coming.....



You should be ashamed of invoking him so, The Chief, in your petty rants here.

Ah... nope. He and I had/have a very special and unique relationship EDH. One that no one but he and I (& EM) know about. It exists to this day. This very moment.

As far as the "teacher" goes, well, that too you have absolutely no clue about. Let's just say it was something along the lines of the "The shining bright light at the end of the long and very dark tunnel".


Another perfect example of how in many cases today, perceptions of others are all completely fabricated bullshet concepts. Especially on this entity known as internet.


You and the others can chew on that one for the day....
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Dec 12, 2013 - 06:53am PT
My god man, with a 5% margin of error i would have been out of business years ago. With a 5% error rate my homes would have been unsaleable. If you were a mechanic and finished an engine rebuild and had 5% of the parts remaining from the original you'd be laughed out of the shop. What is 5% of of 40 billion dollars ( an amount likely to have been spent in CAGW research over the last decade alone), let's see -S200,000,000.00 dollars, and all for an uncertainty that far out weighs the value of the hyped effect. Can we please get an adult to supervise these climate disaster kids.The whole affair is pretty shameful Ed.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Dec 12, 2013 - 07:13am PT
My god man, with a 5% margin of error i would have been out of business years ago. With a 5% error rate my homes would have been unsaleable. If you were a mechanic and finished an engine rebuild and had 5% of the parts remaining from the original you'd be laughed out of the shop. What is 5% of of 40 billion dollars ( an amount likely to have been spent in CAGW research over the last decade alone), let's see -S200,000,000.00 dollars, and all for an uncertainty that far out weighs the value of the hyped effect. Can we please get an adult to supervise these climate disaster kids.The whole affair is pretty shameful Ed.

Calm DOWN Rick.... woooooooo... throttle back now!!!!

It's called modern science. It exists in whole different dimension than the rest of reality that us common folks live by daily.

It does what it wants to and claims itself to be superior because it does so.

Get it?


Hey Rick, you ever been to one of them Palm Readers that can be found on several corners up there in downtown Reno? The one's you give a $100 bucks to and then they pretty much fill your head with a bunch of bullshet. Everything you want to hear and you leave the joint smiling in a deep fog.


Talk about correlation....
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Dec 12, 2013 - 08:43am PT
jesus christ what a bunch of hill billies....

I'm sure your profit margins are pretty slim rick no matter how much MDF you breath or out of work taxidermists you hire. You know - or at least you should - as well as anybody that the factors that put you in the black or red have a range of uncertainty that can destroy even the expert in a few short months. And that is a business that you know intimately and actually have the capacity to learn from through trial and error.

Now if you truly think you can understand climate science, nuclear science or even taxidermy by extrapolating your experiences in siding application, think of it this way. You the seasoned scientist know your business of carbon dating, fluid dynamics, statistical analysis and all that other black magic brainiac sh#t. So your pretty smart eh? Maybe even so outrageously impressed with your own achievements that you figure you can do anything.... you know, supreme confidence in your own council.... such as plow your way through a few how to build houses books, reject most of it as unintelligible communist propaganda, then create your own theories, forget about testing and apprenticing, mortgage everything you got and go into business in Florida banging up sh#t boxes for the masses.

What do you suppose your margin of error is likely to be? I'm sure you have actually witnessed prime examples of exactly that - far less extreme in demonstrated incompetence and hubris, but with an error in forecasting none the less that is beyond anything survivable.

Now if that scientist had the humility and sense to go embark on a process of mentored testing, he might have a chance to wrestle those margins to within some thing manageable and profitable... maybe even 5% for all he knows, which he dosn't.

Hubris and incompetence is your middle name Rick.
Messages 18781 - 18800 of total 25079 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