Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 19861 - 19880 of total 27869 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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."
dirtbag

climber
Jan 11, 2014 - 10:37am PT
Illiterate^^^
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 11, 2014 - 10:53am PT
We are soooooooooooooooooooooo FUKED!!!







You people are so stooooooooooooopid, you don't even know how to "adjust" and distort the graph's to make it all appear more disastrous.



Remember, all them millions of uneducated "FOX NEWS JESUS LOVING" people out there are complete foooking idiots. They will never know the difference.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 11:14am PT
all them millions of uneducated "FOX NEWS JESUS LOVING" people out there are complete foooking idiots. They will never know the difference.


But not you huh Chuff? You are uniquely impervious to the garden path eh?


Now tell me ..... how does one avoid the traps your jesus lovers fall for? Is it your mystic intuitive sense? Or your amazing capacity to self edu-makate?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Jan 11, 2014 - 11:33am PT
My BAD BRUCEE KY.


MSNBC for you and your likes.


Nothing but the truth from them folks............ Got it.








We are soooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo FUKED!!!!!

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 11:36am PT
Yes yes I know.... I as well am stooooopid as hell. We know that. That was not my question.

Please enlighten your flock as to the precise path of knowlrdge and Intuitive power you hold above all others with the possible exception of Jesus Christ.

You know what I mean. Describe using your demonstrated powers of articulation.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:03pm PT
I hoped you guys all enjoyed my replication of the CAGW crowds patterns of reality denial i demonstrated over Ed's graphs depicting multiple measurements of decadal trends in tropospheric and stratospheric temp changes. Here is the pattern- 1. Deny the reality of what is shown. 2. When forced to acknowledge change the parameters ( in this case pick an atmospheric level sympathetic to your interpretation) then claim statistical insignificance of contrary evidence while highlighting evidence supporting your position. 3. The final step in the process is to completely discount all the information as being from as biased from an unreliable source.

Getting to the truth though, the graphs don't show anywhere near the higher rate of of the mid troposphere warming predicted in GCM's.

Okay Ed, i read Santer et al.. What am i supposed to get out of this other than he detects serious overestimations in the values used for the main forcing agents (presumably GHG's) and the resulting projections of tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling are outside the 5-95 certainty range of CMIP 5 models. He did identify human influence on climate as the major cause of the warming (ending i might add 15 years ago) by his fingerprint methods while excluding solar, volcanic or any KNOWN modes of internal variability.

EDIT: Ed where the hell are the volcano's Chiloe uses? Last time i checked there were a number of low level eruptions but the sum total dont add up to anywhere near a Pinatubo. And wasn't Pinatubo's effects short lived-2 to 3 years?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jan 11, 2014 - 01:47pm PT
That is a scientific habit.



That is also an ethic Rick. One you do not possess.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 11, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
Wow, The Chief. That InfoWars clip is sure eye opening for me, to see how they use spin to entice anger.

For example, the whole clip paints the Maddow segment as opposing veteran's rights. In fact, that whole segment was about how the Republicans and Tea Party were holding the gov't hostage using the threat of a shutdown in an attempt to get what they wanted.

InfoWars twists the basic focus of what Maddow is showing, and thus makes a straw-man argument, which they use to bash Maddow.


You have to understand who is writing what and why are they trying to influence one way or another. A skill not easy for the uncrafted.
Messages 19861 - 19880 of total 27869 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews