Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 19361 - 19380 of total 28493 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 18, 2014 - 06:00pm PT
Physics is a human concept. An interpretation by man of what is "assumed" to be. Or, what could be.


Not of the Tao.

Again, it appears that you have yet to accept the Tao as it is to be.

You are attempting to incorporate human "thinking" into it.


It doesn't work that way.


Lao Tzu established that at the very beginning...

The Tao that can be told, is not the eternal Tao.
Chpt 1 (Tao) Lao Tzu (Very first sentence.)
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jan 18, 2014 - 06:05pm PT
The Tao is a human concept!! Everything that we think is a concept about reality!

"The map is not the terrain."
~Abraham Maslow
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 18, 2014 - 06:09pm PT
The Tao is not a human concept.



Humans are a concept of the Tao.


Big difference, Mark.


Accepting that reality is the fundamental premise of the Tao and the Ying/Yang.

Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Jan 18, 2014 - 06:14pm PT
Chief, It has become quite clear that you are evangelical in your positions and don't want to let any facts or ideas get in your way. Conversation and debate are fun, but this isn't. I'm signing off.

PS I still recommend Ralph Alan Dale's translation of the Tao Te Ching! And, The Tao of Pooh is wonderful, too!
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 18, 2014 - 06:16pm PT
I have them all. Mark.


Man is a concept of the Tao.


Not vise a versa.


Accepting that is the most difficult stepping stone of living in the Tao.


The Tao that can be told, is not the eternal Tao.
Chpt 1 (Tao) Lao Tzu (Very first sentence.)


Ignore time.

Relinquish human ideas and concepts.

Embrace the Oneness of the Master.

This is the Integral Way.
Chpt 50 Hua Hu Ching, Lao Tzu







don't figure we have all the answers, figure that other people have some of the answers that we don't have.

Based on that, we are to accept what they somewhat think they know and then change the entire way we ALL do business and live our lives in general?

The current Climate Science claims are that it is as they say and there are no questions as to what they said is. We then must believe it and go forward with what they say needs to be done in order to save mankind.

All this also based on the concept of the "consensus" and that only THEY the Climate Scientist know the science involved and that we must trust that they indeed know what is truly going on and how to "properly" mitigate and possibly even change/alter the climate to reverse the current situation.

Here is an example of that "assuming" without actual real time observed data other than some vague and sparse temp obs.



It was an "experiment" that only gives a possible scenario based on the vague/sparse data inputs.

None of which include any REAL TIME C02 measurements nor human emission levels to create the "models".

Since the model includes no forcing from interdecadal variations of volcanic emissions or solar irradiance, this suggests that the observed early 20th century warming could have resulted from a combination of human-induced increases of atmospheric GHG and sulfate aerosols, along with internal variability of the ocean-atmosphere system.




However, the warming in the early part of the century has not been well simulated using these two climate forcings alone. Factors which could contribute to the early 20th century warming include increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, changing solar and volcanic activity, and internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system.

The relative importance of each of these factors is not well known.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/early-20th-century-global-warming

Again, absolutely NO LEVEL OF CERTAINTY was given in the summary of this experiment. None! Just the repeated verbiage of "could" and more importantly, this statement "The relative importance of each of these factors is not well known.".

They ultimately DO NOT REALLY KNOW what caused that 1910-1945 impressive temp spike that is equal to the most recent one. Regardless if the "models" conceived and are a result of this experiment jive or not.





BTW: Those changes that they state are required deal mainly with drastic economic and social behavioral changes. Most of which are NOT viable nor realistic in today's way of doing things, globally. Many would want us to regress and not progress. Cave man style.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 18, 2014 - 08:25pm PT
Its always amazing when one guy can come along and explain it perfectly in one post

We all need to consider that our suppositions about reality need to have some standard of validation that is external for them to pass the threshold of legitimacy deserving respect. We all deserve the clarity that comes from reading more, listening more, not believing everything we think, always being critical of data and its' meaning, but realizing the preponderance of evidence prevails. also, we can keep observing, keep learning, keep open, don't figure we have all the answers, figure that other people have some of the answers that we don't have. It's all about getting as close to reality as possible. That's where the "magic" is happening! Making random sh#t up and sheltering your ideas in bombast just doesn't have the same juice. We can bathe ourselves in the breadth and depth and beauty and "magic" of reality!

Or, we can do this...

A man wrapped up in himself makes a very small parcel.
~John Ruskin

Rick Sumner - if you haven't fled us in a sulk - how do you regard this assessment?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 18, 2014 - 08:54pm PT
Its always amazing when one guy can come along and explain it perfectly in one post

ONLY!


When you AGREE with him and it of course goes along with your mode of thinking.

Obviously.

Your Brain at full strength and output on that obvious deduction of yours, BRUCEE KY?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 18, 2014 - 09:19pm PT
Yes I do agree with him. So you think that that fact automatically negates the validity of his words?

You are a bizarre fully fuked in the head individual. Its not just your complete lack of ethics, it is your comprehension. It appears - certainly to us layman observers - that you fail to comprehend even that which you hold most dear to your heart, the understanding of Tao. Which leads us to your other defects - your complete lack of skill in communications and persuasion. The fact is, if you ever hope or care to persuade us to your understanding ( doubtful that you do, considering your ethics) then you are forever shackled by your incompetence. Wether Mark is right or you are, he at least is capable of communication.

As for my "agreement" it has to do with my belief in process, not predetermined ideology. The process Mark Force describes I agree with which really places the value of scientific process in context with the human condition. I am also gladdened that it appears at least by some interpretation that Tao and Lao Tzu is not just some Aryan Nation Chuffian Darwinism. I don't care wether the guys name is Lick Balls or Lao Tzu, I just care that his ethics are admirable rather than not.
briham89

Big Wall climber
san jose and south lake tahoe, ca
Jan 18, 2014 - 09:20pm PT
I miss the snow :,(

That's all...carry on
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Jan 18, 2014 - 09:23pm PT
Then you'd like it here today.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
Jan 18, 2014 - 11:21pm PT
This seems a good juncture to express appreciation to everyone who has posted links to actual publications, and anything objective about the actual science. I have learned a lot! Having had a professor in college present, in all seriousness, a couple of lectures to the effect that the "theory" that the continents have moved around all over the place was not proven, while at the same time in another class we were getting the geomagnetic data showing the actual rates of Atlantic sea floor spreading, I learned long ago not to take any expert pronouncements as definitive unless I could read the actual papers it was based on, look at the graphs, be sure they fit data that is reviewable, and so on. So this thread has been very useful to me.

That is a classic story, and the same happened to me in a litho stratigraphy class. It was a graduate class, and unfortunately the really good stratigraphy professor was on sabbatical that year. The old fart who taught it probably hadn't read a paper in decades.

So we were taught geosynclinal theory, which is an incredibly weird way to explain tectonic features. It is now a totally discarded theory. You can google geosynclinal theory on wiki and read about 1960's geology.

I was taking a clastic facies class at the same time, and that professor would give us reading assignments that were cutting edge.

So when I had a test in the bogus class, I would give the answer taught in class, but write the real answers in the margins and stuff on the test. That professor was old and not engaged in the science.

Plate tectonics explains the planet's major tectonic features very well. It has stood up to zillions of papers which use it, and is an incredibly simple and beautiful theory. Much like Evolution is for biologists.

I see that you are still insulting people like it actually means something, Napoleon. In a real debate, people would walk out of the lecture hall. Unfortunately, Napoleon has a captive audience. This is an interesting topic, but to be tied down with dogma only reveals the shaky ground would fall away.

Those who use the ad hominen attack, which relies on insults rather than rational dialogue, is more or less choosing to live an intellectually inferior life.

Just saying the way I see it.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 19, 2014 - 01:12am PT
Odd EDH.

Your above "model" does not even indicate the temp reality that occurred from 1910-1945!

The temp C02 "plot" comes from MONO that is superimposed onto the NOAA/NCDC historical records graph.






Maybe you EDH can have a go and tell us what was the forcing mechanism that initiated the temperature spike from 1910-1945 that is equivalent to the current occurrence.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 19, 2014 - 01:22am PT
Ah, EDH, the C02 levels do not follow the temp spike from 1910-1945.




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


What caused that incident?

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 19, 2014 - 01:30am PT
Really....Your graph does not even indicate that 1910-1945 temp spike event that is equal in quantity as the latest event.








According to the study that MONO posted there is not one mention of C02 as a primary driver. None.


Since the model includes no forcing from interdecadal variations of volcanic emissions or solar irradiance, this suggests that the observed early 20th century warming could have resulted from a combination of human-induced increases of atmospheric GHG and sulfate aerosols, along with internal variability of the ocean-atmosphere system.




However, the warming in the early part of the century has not been well simulated using these two climate forcings alone. Factors which could contribute to the early 20th century warming include increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, changing solar and volcanic activity, and internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system.

The relative importance of each of these factors is not well known.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/early-20th-century-global-warming.


The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 19, 2014 - 01:40am PT
That event was not just a "bump or a wiggle" EDH.

You nor the current models have any idea what was the forcing involved. It was as significant and impressive in temperature quantity as the one we currently experienced.


Another example of your back peddling EDH. Another example of how the "models", even in the summary that MONO posted, states, they do not know.

Since the model includes no forcing from interdecadal variations of volcanic emissions or solar irradiance, this suggests that the observed early 20th century warming could have resulted from a combination of human-induced increases of atmospheric GHG and sulfate aerosols, along with internal variability of the ocean-atmosphere system.




However, the warming in the early part of the century has not been well simulated using these two climate forcings alone. Factors which could contribute to the early 20th century warming include increasing greenhouse gas concentrations, changing solar and volcanic activity, and internal variability of the coupled ocean-atmosphere system.

The relative importance of each of these factors is not well known.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/early-20th-century-global-warming



TLP

climber
Jan 19, 2014 - 02:16am PT
The Chief: The "simple answer please" that you requested was provided pages and pages ago but you conveniently ignored it. In a word (acronym, actually): ENSO. If you have to have a simple answer (one factor), for the time period you are asking about, that's the one that will best correlate with the few-to-ten-year swings in temperature in your graph which you have posted maybe 20 or more times. I posted a plot which you can compare with the temperature line. Temperature upswings with El Nino; downswings with La Nina conditions. You can easily find places where the SOI or ENSO graph doesn't match the temps, but that's because, as Rick Sumner has frequently pointed out, it is not a simple system and other factors do have effects.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Jan 19, 2014 - 06:32am PT
"Most scenarios that meet the 2-degree Celsius (3.6-degree Fahrenheit) cap on global warming endorsed by world leaders require a 40 percent to 70 percent reduction in heat-trapping gases by 2050 from 2010 levels, according to the third installment of the UNs biggest-ever study of climate change."

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-16/climate-protection-may-cost-4-of-world-gdp-by-2030.html

so, when are all you climate change prophets going to condemn the un for continuing to push global warming? that theory is so...1998; we're into climate change now:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2541599/Is-mini-ice-age-way-Scientists-warn-Sun-gone-sleep-say-cause-temperatures-plunge.html?ITO=1490&ns_mchannel=rss&ns_campaign=1490
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 19, 2014 - 09:56am PT
The "MODELS" EDH are full of shet.

You are dodging EDH.

The one you keep posting does not even indicate the 1910-1945 event. Blows right over it.


Please do show where your "Models" indicate that particular event and what was the forcing mechanism.



Now the model you keep posting that clearly shows NO evidence of that 1910-1945 temp spike event!

Where is it EDH??

dirtbag

climber
Jan 19, 2014 - 10:03am PT
The "MODELS" EDH are full of shet.

You are dodging EDH.

The one you keep posting does not even indicate the 1910-1945 event. Blows right over it.


Please do show where your "Models" indicate that particular event and what was the forcing mechanism.


Chief Number One: utterly incapable of S-ingTFU.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 19, 2014 - 10:15am PT
The "simple answer please" that you requested was provided pages and pages ago but you conveniently ignored it. In a word (acronym, actually): ENSO. If you have to have a simple answer (one factor), for the time period you are asking about.....

In the world of avalanche hazard, among the worst possible things a person can do is pick a single factor / indicator and ascribe meaning and significance to it all out of proportion to its true value, then ignore the values of all other factors. If you storm off into the mountains and then build your decisions based on one or even a few snow pits and a judicious study of the layers and the shear tests, you would be a fool to have confidence.

I would assume a similar situation here. Particularly problematic is the ability to weight factors, even if you have the luxury of a wide smorgasbord of factors to weigh. This is where expertise starts to punch way over its weight. "Weighting", the ability to ascribe value, takes knowledge, skill and above all experience. This expertise is available to us externally via the public avalanche Bulletins. If a person is deficient in that expertise as most non professionals are, they can proceed but their confidence in varying or modifying their actions from the advisory should be low.

This is why we know Chuff, Rick and the entire Red States of America is deficient in their judgement. They have supreme confidence in the certainty of their judgement in an environment where they are about as inexpert as a so- called educated person can be. First, their bias is off the charts - the most important element of their decision making is their hatred and mistrust of "environmentalism". This drives them to cherry pick single factors that suit their objective. Then they ascribe value to those factors (and / or minimize value to others) that is beyond their capacity for comprehension.

Whenever you encounter people like this in the mountains, if you are smart you avoid them like the plague or at least cut them completely out of the decision making process. If you don't your risk sky rockets.

"Confidence in your own council" has serious limits. Chuff could care less but what interests me is Rick Sumner. If he still claims to care the slightest about humanities future or the process of science he needs to explain - in detail and persuasively - his "confidence of his own council" and his ability to weigh factors.

I don't think he will. He will sulk in passive aggressive butt hurt. besides, then he would also need to define intuition, his moral principles, understanding of ethics, loyalty to process.....

all of which he has avoided at all cost to date.

Messages 19361 - 19380 of total 28493 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