Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 19841 - 19860 of total 28014 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:17pm PT
So what.


The BLOG you jacked it from

http://www.climatecentral.org/




is owned by SOROS.



You call 8" a Blizzard?







This is a fking Blizzard....

8.2 FEET in four days with up to 15-20' drifts.

TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:24pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2014/01/10/if-all-you-see-1006/
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:31pm PT
Do you understand what these " " mean?

It is NOAA data.

The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:38pm PT
I understand what this means....



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




It means the Land and Ocean Temps for the past 16 years has been... Pretty FLAT!


Compared to the previous 16 years....


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


Then the previous 11 years...









Thus the manipulative "AVGING" verbiage of "+.61 Per Decade" is a bunch of Soros paid for bullshet propaganda.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:46pm PT
I like the tone this new professor TLP is sounding. I like it even more that in his judgement, as a newcomer and as a luke warmer, he thinks the wannabe two bit CAGW emperors are freezing in the cold without clothes.

He asks a question of what we believe. I believe we just exited a period of natural global warming that was enhanced by anthropogenic contribution to the tune of about 25% or, .2c. The anthropogenic contribution, i believe, was a result of land use, i.e large scale deforestation, urbanization and polutant release that changed the albedo of the reflective surfaces as much as the 3% anthropogenic contribution of the total 120ppm increase of atmospheric CO2. I don't think we have much to worry about from the CAGW theory of runaway global warming. I also believe we should transition, as economics allow, away from the dirtier FF's like coal to transitioning into expanded NG and new generation nuclear power. The money spent studying doomsday CC scenarios would be much better spent in developing nuclear fusion and cost effective energy storage systems for intermittent power from wind and solar. I have no problem with alternative energy unless it breaks the bank and sends us into a self created dark age.

Larry, Ht, Phule- the troposhere depth varies from 8 to 16 KM. It is deepest in the tropics from thermal expansion and shallowest at the pole due to less thermal expansion. The mid troposhere at the tropics begins at approx. 350hpa, in the extra tropics at about 580hpa. None of the graphs show anything but cooling from these altitudes to the tropospheres top, excecpt the raobcore data set. Furthermore all the graphs show warming in the statosphere 12-50 km but at which level i am unsure.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:52pm PT
Not one of these AGW Zealots here has been honest as to their true underlying "belief" and quest via this insane madness of an ideology.

Hey idiot - If you want to know, why don't you ask? Thats how it works. It dosn't work by the process of you yelling us what our beliefs are, dipsh#t. Even without you asking, I have in fact explained my "true underlying belief" about a variety of things, and I seem to recall others doing the same thing.

Could it be that your skull is full of cement?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 10, 2014 - 09:04pm PT
You did?

When....

Filtering through your 6700 long winded ideological political posts concerning this issue, is definitely one for the books.


Please do again.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 10, 2014 - 09:06pm PT
please do what again doorknob?

Here, maybe this will help;


ar·tic·u·la·tion
ärˌtikyəˈlāSHən/
noun
1.
the action of putting into words an idea or feeling of a specified type.

Think you can handle that?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 10, 2014 - 09:07pm PT
Apparently you can't as you have to look it up then post it to remind yourself how it is done.

Nice.


Now. Post your bullshet ideological reason (verb) you are here in the first place.



BRUCEE KY'd.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 10, 2014 - 09:12pm PT
Tell you what. If you can actually form a coherent and concise question that dosn't sound like it comes out of the mouth of some Beavis and Butthead character I 'll give it some thought....

but you need to give me something to think about
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 10, 2014 - 09:14pm PT
Your here cus you habitually watch Beavis and Butthead and smoke far too much shet weed?


WTF??




Good reason Brucee KY.


On par with FUKEDINTHEHEADMENTAL.

Excellent.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 10, 2014 - 09:34pm PT
Now now Chief, as our new friend and professor TLP says; the insult hurling is ineffectual at solving this climate puzzle. Old Bruce is a man of above average intelligence that justs feels a bit disaffected with the system. Obviously he equates authority with what he deems to be right wing ideology and he is unsatisfied with his standing in this world, which he blames on authority figures. The CAGW industry, in desperation for lack of predictives matching reality, has labeled anyone denying their twisted version of truth as right wing authoratarian denialists. They prey on the disaffected as easy marks for enlistment. So we have Bruce in constant attack.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 10, 2014 - 10:16pm PT
Why Rick! Was that your very first attempt at psychoanalysis? It must be, or perhaps you are as limited with that as any other science. Still, at least you can construct a sentence, even if it is still worthless once the dust settles. Go back and study authoritarianism again. The other side of authoritarianism is not exclusively anti authoritarian. I and most people have no problem with authority at all - so long as it earns it and can keep it on moral and factual terms. This is where the authoritarian personality differs. they don't care how their chosen authority earned it or how it keeps it. Their only ethic is loyalty, as blind as a bat.

So if Chuff were not as thick as he is, he could deduce by that statement my "ideology" that compels me to be here. But he is thick, so he will instead conclude that I have just stated an allegience to communism.

Come to think of it Rick, you probably will as well

The other thing you apparently don't seem to grasp is the fact that I am of average intelligence. That is measured, not speculated (which I would leave up to you). The fact that you wrongly conclude as you do may have more to do with your own intelligence level perhaps. But regardless of intelligence the defining difference between me and you is one of ethics. You get the shitty end of the stick there as well and yes that has been measured and proven, not speculated.

TLP

climber
Jan 10, 2014 - 10:32pm PT
Well, damn! It sure clears the air a bit (ha ha) when you find out what people believe in; sometimes you find you don't disagree nearly as much as it had sounded like. Agreeing that there's some amount of warming from CO2, but believing that it's less than what the current set of models say, is a long way from "the science is total BS" that we have seen in many posts (and which I think is just an incorrect position to take). I'm not sure I agree with all of the other anthropogenic contributors, for example I would have thought that deforestation increases albedo, not decreases it; that should reduce warming, not enhance it. But at least that's an objective discussion one could have. If the graphs posted a page or three back are correct, the models seem to be pretty close on the magnitude of change, but I'd love to see ones that have a similarly objective basis and show that it's going to be less.

I'd say I agree entirely with Rick's opinion on what we ought to do, and also that there is unlikely to be "runaway" (however big that has to be) warming in the span of a decade or three. I look at all the graphs people have posted and see trends that can be dealt with without enormous changes over that timeline. Additively, over 100 years, maybe we diverge a bit, I think it could get pretty bad by then in specific places (like densely inhabited lands that are just barely above sea level now). But I'm outta here by then. It's probably prudent to be discussing, now, what maneuvers we should try to make with the global battleship and see whether the costs make sense in comparison with the costs of climate effects. The big wild card is that when you see these gradual creeping temperature or sea level graphs, what if some of those represent really big changes in patterns; which they probably do. Superimposed on natural variations that we know occur, the arid West for one region could be really screwed. Unquestionably, anything that might happen about GHG emissions will only steer the ship the slightest bit in these few decades. What's the plan to deal with the likely huge reduction in water supply everywhere west of Kansas and south of Wyoming? Just call everyone else names? In my view, planning for some of the climate changes that are modeled is pretty much the same as planning for dealing with the known range of natural variation, in that part of the country. It won't matter whether the models turn out to be right, or off a little, or off by a lot. We'll want to have done something anyway.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 10, 2014 - 11:07pm PT
Well TLP. i'm glad your so agreeable, but i differ with your asessment that this global warming phase we have just passed will continue with adverse consequences decades down the road. Regardless of that small difference that shouldn't deflect us, and the decision makers that actually matter, from wanting to divert most of the huge sums dedicated to overblown scenarios of doom towards development and deployment of new technologies that actually work and have the side benefit of reducing the release of plant food (CO2) into the atmosphere. That includes only a small percentage of the overcostly and underperforming current generation of wind and solar, but does include embrace of Ng and latest generation nuclear. I also disagree with you about deforestation's albedo changes. Fallow soil absorbs significantly more solar radiation than allowed through forest canopy onto vegatated soil. But minor differences.

Bruce, i've been the boss and authority figure for going on 35 years now in my career. I may be massaging your chipped shoulder here, but if you had worked for me, on any of my jobs of the past, i'm afraid i would have quickly terminated your employ. On strictly ethical grounds mind you, since the rebellion you like to sew would be bad for morale and dangerous to the crew in the non democratic organization of my operation.
Ricky

climber
Sometimes LA
Jan 10, 2014 - 11:30pm PT

This thread is uniquely disappointing.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 12:02am PT
but if you had worked for me, on any of my jobs of the past, i'm afraid i would have quickly terminated your employ.

Sure thing Rick. I am aware of how most construction sites work. Sometimes it even makes sense such as when there is no time for anything but do as I say, or in the case of emergency when again time is the critical element. However, the most efficient use of labor is to get the labor to actually appreciate being there, and the best way to do that is to respect their challenge to your authority, whereby you preserve their respect for you by demonstrating that you deserve it.

What you are describing is rule by fear, a common misunderstanding of respect. They may fear you but you may have noticed that really they do not respect you - why should they? you do not respect them.... possibly you even fear them.

Ya sure you probably would fire me, under your style of governance you better because before long I most certainly would subvert your authority but it wouldn't be my co workers morale at threat - it would be yours. Of course if you were really worth your title, you wouldn't be frightened by superior skills anyway. you'd say welcome aboard and thanks for bringing your superior skills. Thats what you call a healthy relationship... no surprise you've never heard of it.

But seeing howz we're talking science anyway, you should know that the authority isn't Ed or you and it sure as hell isn't the Chuff. It is whatever the best quality science concludes. Whoever can demonstrate it and successfuly defend it may get the glory but it ain't happening without the well substantiated theory.

Nor are the mechanics of running a lab any different than a construction site. the best working environment keeps the hierarchy of authority well balanced with mutual respect, not fear.

On strictly ethical grounds mind you, since the rebellion you like to sew would be bad for morale and dangerous to the crew in the non democratic organization of my operation.

And like I said, your ethics suck.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:01am PT
Where are the values for the x axis in your upper graph Ed? You know, if you were a climate scientist and i was in one of your classes in the past you would have flunked me faster than i would have fired Bruce from one of my jobs.

Bruce, i ran a small operation, but i still had many direct employees that worked for me for over a decade and one that worked for me for 26 years, just completing a job for my sons last month. I've had numerous sub contractors that worked for me for over 15 years and my electrician is the third generation of his family that has done our wiring. You my friend have no conception of legitamate respect, ethics, or mastery of craft, be it professional or personal. Some of this duration of employment is loyalty working both ways, although i would characterize the majority as mutual appreciation of ethics, skill levels, and moral character.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:12am PT
Brucee Boy...

Love the way you THINK you have me and the others here all figured out.


Reality is that you are as clueless as are the rest of all them CC scientist in respect to what is truly going on. But they are doing a fab job pretending that they are on top of it. Just as you are.


Irony is, Rick, Sketch and myself etal, well, we have you and rest of your buds here, including old EDH, pegged right down to the number of hairs on your left hand pinky. You and your Bros are as obvious as a gaggle of Taliban in the middle of the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders.
raymond phule

climber
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:14am PT

350hpa, in the extra tropics at about 580hpa. None of the graphs show anything but cooling from these altitudes to the tropospheres top, excecpt the raobcore data set. Furthermore all the graphs show warming in the statosphere 12-50 km but at which level i am unsure.

Are you blind or just stupid? The graphs definitely do not show what you think they do.
Messages 19841 - 19860 of total 28014 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