Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 18921 - 18940 of total 20059 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 28, 2015 - 03:54pm PT
Why are you conversing with idiots?

Fair question, mostly I try to avoid it. In this case one person had made a false accusation about me so obsessively -- about 18 unanswered consecutive posts in a few hours -- that another person, no brighter, took it for true. So I laid out what really happened in a single clean post. You'd answer back too if that happened to you, don't you think?

Yes I'd rather move on. Had some fun times in the snow the last couple of days, and evenings read the latest issue of Eos -- very interesting piece about urbanization and air pollution, comparing what's happened in Los Angeles and Beijing. Also a note about Jessica Tierney winning a well deserved award for her paleoclimate studies in Africa. Just to see how it works I replicated Tamino's It's the Trend, Stupid analysis; he did it with GISTEMP, I used HadCRUT4 since that's the flavor of the day, and found that Tamino's analysis works equally well with either. (Still waiting for the last shoe to drop: Cowtan and Way to update.) So there's all that, plus some new research I've been working on, that could make interesting posts here.

But as the last days have shown all would get read through bizarro goggles too.

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Jan 28, 2015 - 05:35pm PT
He never said the met office said that.

Call it BC or whatever you want,he did the calcs and you cannot prove him wrong.

I think this is your shirt
Credit: wilbeer

Do you know how averages are raised?

Sorry DMT,I had to.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:03pm PT
Well that was a long winded way of coming somewhat clean Chiloe. I believe the controversy between KMan and The Chief was over whether your statement represented what the Met office actually stated in their Hadcrut yearly temp anomaly release. It didn't, it was your interpretation offered up in a manner that didn't clearly distinguish it was your opinion, KMan was wrong. Might fool moron avatars like Ricky, but not anyone paying attention.

Hey, Vlad has got a slush fund being doled out to those aiding in attempts to cripple domestic U.S. oil and gas production, got any?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:14pm PT
wow, The Chief won't let it go...
Chiloe can do the analysis, you cannot...I haven't gotten around to reproducing the original paper on it (the one from which I posted the table above).

The data is out there and is available for analysis. If you can't do the analysis you shouldn't dump on those that can... you should just admit you're clueless and move on...

and The Chief, you're clueless.

Grey Matter
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:21pm PT
I actually took a look at your quote and found more articles by mark Z Jacobson on the path to sustainable energy, plus
Global and U.S. Roadmaps for converting from fossil fuels.

14 different talks

Wind + battery powered vehicles were most promising, even with the old technology from 2008.

One lessor section of your quote said:
"Public dollars also need to go to the equally important, though less glamorous projects and services that will help us prepare for the coming heavy weather. That includes things like hiring more firefighters and improving storm barriers. And it means coming up with new, nonprofit disaster insurance programs so that people who have lost everything to a hurricane or a forest fire are not left at the mercy of a private insurance industry"

I actually think this is can be a wrong approach. The government can only afford certain things that benefit everyone, and can not afford to do things like subsidizing those who live in a floodplain, who simply rebuild in the same risky spot, like we did after Katrina and Sandy. Local groups will have to solve their issues. Big government should only encourage good response, not pay for it.

Grey Matter
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:25pm PT
Those of you with brains,
please do not feed the simpletons and trolls.
It is not possible to have a rational discussion with someone who is incapable of that goal.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:36pm PT
The Chief
More like your bullshet interpretation and distortion. The UK MET folks stated that 2014 was not the Warmest after all their analysis of their own data, HadCRTU4.

they did an analysis, can you point to a paper?

and anyway, there are many independent analyses as I posted above, they tend to agree...
when that happens it's a good thing.

by the way, the possible fact that 2014 was the warmest year does not contradict the statement that it was among the 10 warmest years, that's pretty simple logic, and if you don't understand that then you really are a wanker.

wank away...

SF bay area
Jan 28, 2015 - 06:54pm PT
We can say with confidence that 2014 is one of ten warmest years in the series and that it adds to the set of near-record temperatures we have seen over the last two decades."

Not surprising since 2014 has the highest anomaly in their dataset, and thus is the warmest in the dataset, just like Chiloe has been saying.

Ice climber
great white north
Jan 28, 2015 - 08:11pm PT
World Can Cut Carbon Emissions and Live Well, Says UK Government Global Calculator

♦ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ♦
    Climate Change Deniers are Liars - Google
♦ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ♦
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 28, 2015 - 08:33pm PT
you mistake a press release for a scientific paper, The Chief, which is about what I would expect... you can't tell the difference.

and even that press release does not say the 2014 was not the warmest year... it says that it was one of the 10 warmest... which leaves open the possibility that it was the warmest...

but somehow that logic escapes you.


SF bay area
Jan 28, 2015 - 08:34pm PT
What part of 2014 is NOT the warmest that they've seen according to UK MET OFFICE and their final analysis of their own data HadCRUT4 don't you, EDH, Chiloe and the rest not understand.

From your link, Chief:

Nominally this ranks 2014 as the joint warmest year in the record, tied with 2010, but the uncertainty ranges mean it's not possible to definitively say which of several recent years was the warmest.

Jan 28, 2015 - 08:43pm PT
That's all word jugglery.

It's always used when they don't totally want to commit.

It's a well known method in all the circles to "play it safe" .....

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 28, 2015 - 08:48pm PT
rick writes:
Let's talk about a real world , but unintended ,experiment Ed. On Sunday we were both outdoors in very similar atmospheric conditions of clear skies, low particulate levels, low humidity, relatively still air. In the direct sw of sunlight all objects, our bodies, the rock, the equipment, absorbed radiation rapidly and diffused it slightly less rapidly which caused the sensation of warmth. It was downright toasty. In my case at the top of pitch three we were on the edge of a rounded buttress, though not up against the face of the rock which absorbed the direct sunlight as a black (or probably more precisely a grey) body. On the ledge, the sensation of warmth seemed less, probably ten degrees or more less. Stepping to the left around the buttress and out of the sunlight it suddenly seemed thirty degrees or so less warm. Granted the RH was low, but considering the the claims of LW radiation absorbtion and downwelling attributed to well mixed atmospheric CO2 one wouldn't expect such a degree of variation in temps. The LW radiation emmitted from the grey bodies were escaping the lowest troposhere largely unimpeded. What gives? Where is the effect ascribed to the mythical molecule?

only 30F?

the Moon has the identical incident solar irradiance as the Earth, it's albedo is a bit lower, it's black body temperature is higher (does rick actually know what "black body temperature" means?)

The Moon's atmosphere is tenuous,
the difference between being in the Sun and in the shade is +250F to -250F,

The Earth has a huge atmosphere in comparison, with a well characterized composition and with radiative properties of the constituents well known. In that atmosphere, you felt a 30F difference in and out of the Sun.

The daytime to night time temperature may have been as much as 40F in the Valley this weekend... an order of magnitude smaller than if the Earth had no atmosphere...

CO2 played a huge role in that, just what the physics says it should do, physics that was well known in 1896.

I think you might try a little less rhetoric, rick and learn a bit more about being quantitative, stuff that sounds good to you doesn't have to be real, and you can actually demonstrate that with some elementary calculations. But as long as you have been posting, you've never done or attempted to do a calculation. I can understand why you are afraid to do it, you might find that you've been wrong all these years.

Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 28, 2015 - 09:02pm PT
Splatter, nice find on the links, I which I had time to visit the 14 talks.

It's true, the Gov't cannot provide the structure for everything. But it's interesting to note the services that are not so easily provided for by private industry, in it's own interest.

The puzzle is a complex one, and I think it's going to involve many pieces coming together if we're to solve it.

SF bay area
Jan 28, 2015 - 09:26pm PT
They did state it the warmest year in the record. The joint warmest.

No year is warmer, in the record

joint warmest year in the record
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 28, 2015 - 09:31pm PT
EDH, just like the NOAA's and NASA press releases that stated 2014 is the warmest according to their data. Neither was a peer rev'd scientific paper yet you and others here jumped right on it.

that's why I looked up the paper, and posted the reference on this thread...

if you actually read what's on the webpage, and follow the links, you come to this page:

which has a reference to the paper that describes the methodology of how the probabilities are calculated and the rankings made... the paper that I referred to up thread.

It's a peer reviewed paper... it does not have 2014 data in it since it was written in 2013, but the methodology used in the paper was used to rank the 2014 data once it was available.

Why don't you read the paper, and reproduce the analysis for HadCRUT4 and see if you agree with Chiloe.

Oh, you can't.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:16pm PT
The moon's atmospheric content and therefore pressure is essentially zero. No atmosphere means no parcels of gases heating and expanding as they slow radiations escape , therefore no difference in pressures to create circulation. So of course the exposures recieving the full 1368wm2 versus those recieving no direct radiation would differ so much. My scenario was different in that i was in virtually the same well mixed parcel of terrestrial air (only a matter of a few feet away and in less than 5mph wind) so I was surprised by the 40f difference ( 10 between the rock face with near right angle sun exposure and the large flat ledge and 30 more between sunlight on the ledge and shade) . So the radiative effect of downwelling LW from 400ppm of CO2 seemed nil. While on the toasty rock face I was not only recieving direct solar radiation, but also heat conducted from the directly radiated rock face , and warmed air convecting upwards. No need to resort to ghg theory to explain it if you accept that atmospheric density and gravity on a rotating sphere with a shielding magnetic field equals its temperature gradient. After all, don't all atmospheric molecules that are moved/vibrated by conduction or excitation by an escaping photon meet the definition of heat.

On Venus, which has an atmospheric density 90 times that of earth, and a side in darkness as long as its year the entire globe has a uniform surface temperature. Why? It has a much thicker cloud layer and therefore higher albedo translating into much less visible light reaching the surface but at the same time virtually no protective magnetic field allowing more energetic portions of the solar spectrum to reach and heat the surface. With one side in a year long day and the other in a year long night isn't the extremely dense atmosphere

and resulting high rate of conductive heat transfer a better explanation of its uniformity of temps than from downwelling LW from molecules recieving no solar radiation to reemit radiation on the dark side?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:17pm PT

Trad climber
Western America
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:21pm PT
Axiom is defined as a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without

Axiom: Earths climate is better now with more CO2. Evidence: record world
food crop harvests.

Axiom: Chiloe is a climate denier. Chiloe suggests the greening of the
Earth is climate disaster. His evidence: A pet theory unsupported by

Well documented evidence shows that concurrently with the increased CO2
levels, extensive, large, and continuing increase in biomass is taking
place globally reducing deserts, turning grasslands to savannas,
savannas to forests, and expanding existing forests."

Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Jan 28, 2015 - 11:24pm PT
and resulting high rate of conductive heat transfer a better explanation of its uniformity of temps than from downwelling LW from molecules recieving no solar radiation to reemit radiation on the dark side?

no, and it demonstrates that you have no idea of radiation transport... the dark side?

Messages 18921 - 18940 of total 20059 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

Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews