Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 19861 - 19880 of total 25917 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:17am PT
how so very impressive. I suppose you think yourself unique. Actually if I am to take your original post at face value which rather contradicts your most recent assertions, then you are not terribly unique at all. Anybody who has broad experience in the construction trades will know that a considerable proportion of the businesses are run by neanderthals, generally in constant fear for their economic survival which they then project toward their employees.

Not all fortunately. Also fortunate is that most scientists do not operate with similar ethics and environment. you can be forgiven for thinking that they do, as no doubt you have no experience there. no Rick you and your style, which for some bizarre reason you consider the epitome of "mutual respect" and honor, is unique to you and yours.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:28am PT
I would ask the same of you Phule, but i suppose that the graphed trend 0f between .00 to .02 per decade for the LT is significant compared to the margin of error to you even though it isn't the mid to upper troposphere.
raymond phule

climber
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:36am PT

I would ask the same of you Phule, but i suppose that the graphed trend 0f between .00 to .02 per decade for the LT is significant compared to the margin of error to you even though it isn't the mid to upper troposphere.

What are you talking about?

Can you please tell me the trend in the middle troposphere in the extra-northern hemisphere? Just so I know in what way you manage to interpret a simple graph.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:56am PT
Them hairs on your left hand pinky Brucee Boy. Here they are.





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

climber
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:57am PT
Not actually agreeable at all, more like an argumentative a%hole, but that too is not relevant. It would be good to spend collective resources on useful things rather than making and criticizing predictions. No question that both "sides" are spending a lot of unnecessary money in that kind of activity. But I doubt if very much of the money that is spent on climate science is devoted to making alarming predictions. I bet the vast majority of the cost is in collecting the basic data. It's really expensive to get this info. And the more vociferous the criticism, the more need there is to collect millions of times more data. Take the blog you linked a bit ago, which said the models aren't using a fine enough grid to do accurate modeling. Well, fine, that just means that there needs to be many times more data collection devices and that much more high-cost scientist time to collect and work up the data, and computing power and time to do the analysis he recommends. How about if the entities that are so critical of the science chip in and collaborate to get the needed data and crunch numbers and refine models according to any points on which there's agreement? What about oceans? We have a so-so understanding, better than nothing, at present, but need hugely more basic data to resolve it more finely. That's expensive. So, I agree that the science should be improved - like every science - but it's hypocritical for skeptics to turn around and criticize the cost and the motivation. Better to figure out any basic points of agreement, specify the disagreements, and figure out how to resolve them one way or the other.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:05am PT
The tropospheric depth lessens the nearer the poles you go, from an average of 16 km at the equator to an average of 8 km at the poles. The extra tropics are defined as anything greater than 20 degrees north or south. So giving a generous decrease to 13 km at 20n that would correspond on my chart to approx 120hpa for top of trosphere and approx 450 hpa at mid troposphere. The MT in the NH at the lower altitude is clearly below .02 and at the TT clearly well below -.01.This is a decreasing rate of increase,mean value near .00, statistically insignificant against margin of error. So i read it as decrease since it is a product of a highly AGW biased organization regarless of there claim of independent origin.

Well TLP, i don't think anyone would be disagreeable if science provided new FF free energy technology at a cost anywhere near competitive to FF. So this is what puts the big lie to the whole affair in my mind. Why, if there is a consensus, is the majority of the CC studies money not going to solutions of the 95% certainty of a problem. You can claim it is to counter criticisms tell the cows come home, but it doesn't wash. The trend for proposed solutions always goes to reaching deeper into our pockets for "necessarily skyrocketing energy costs", carbon taxation, and limits to our mobility and freedom. I believe you are naive if you think that even a small portion of this increase of power and plunder they want to extract from the populace will go to actual solutions.

EDIT: Bruce- All hail The Chief. He's top dog in this pony show.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:16am PT
Rick you're a riot! You sound just like Chuff spouting off about his tricycles. the tbr, then ya got yer CBJ, a few Y chromosomes, and don't forget the n.

damn you sound impressive!
raymond phule

climber
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:30am PT

So giving a generous decrease to 13 km at 20n that would correspond on my chart to approx 120hpa for top of trosphere and approx 450 hpa at mid troposphere. The MT in the NH at the lower altitude is clearly below .02 and at the TT clearly well below -.01. This is a decreasing rate of increase,mean value near .00,

Please, put on a pair of glasses and look at the figure until you realize that what you write are incorrect. The trend is actually .2 degrees, 120 hPa (about 16000 m) is also a very high estimate for the height of the troposphere outside of the tropics and the mean calculation is way of (much more data close to .2 than -.1.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 02:35am PT
EDIT: Bruce- All hail The Chief. He's top dog in this pony show.

Oh yeah if you like pony shows then you'll love Chuffs tricycle show, Ricks Science show and Sarahs economy show....

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."
Messages 19861 - 19880 of total 25917 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