Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 24421 - 24440 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 11, 2014 - 11:12pm PT
blahblah, that's not a correct analogy.


It's more like saying the Broncos will go 10 and 6 next year, with a variance of 2 either way. When they go 9 and 7, the prediction was correct.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Mar 11, 2014 - 11:12pm PT
That is according to you, ICEY.


And you are... Nobody.


No one of any bilge importance. Just another teat sucker that is part of the herd sucking on the AGW trough.


MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! That's you in the middle ICEY. Nobody.






That seems a fair summation of your arguments, Chief. With that in mind I would be little inclined to argue with Ed.

Nope. Only when people such as EDh distort the reality to their likings in order to proliferate the agenda. I am not the only one here that can see that. But then the return fire from the AGW croanies on this thread is consistently as Blue posted earlier..

"You are not skilled nor educated enough to understand. Thus you have no room to disagree. You are incapable of arguing against anyone with a PhD."

With that said, according to the zealots, one has no choice but to shake their heads in agreement.


NOT!


BTW Reilly, I have presented the question of what was the forcing mech during the first warming spike from 1910-1945 to EDH and the other experts here. Not one can clarify with any viable ref or peer rev'd paper what it was.

Clear indication that the consensus is a sham. Only attuning itself to what it can manipulate to it's direction and then proliferate it to the herd in the feeding trough pictured above.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Mar 11, 2014 - 11:22pm PT
Chef, I'm totally open to your anti-scientism magic engineering. Please submit your sources/references for peer review.

blahblah

Gym climber
Boulder
Mar 11, 2014 - 11:34pm PT
so blahblah, how do you decide if a prediction is correct, quantitatively?
I don't know--I suppose that depends on the prediction.
But we don't need to reduce it to a number--we can look at Hansen's predictions and see that he failed to predict the phenomenon that the world calls the "hiatus," even though we don't all agree that it means the same thing or that it even exists.
I suppose it's possible that Hansen's predictions were OK in some other way, but I'd like to see if he did better than just looking at the trends as the time he made his predictions and using them.


blahblah, that's not a correct analogy.


It's more like saying the Broncos will go 10 and 6 next year, with a variance of 2 either way. When they go 9 and 7, the prediction was correct.
It's hard to say--the lines are jumping around so much it's hard to make heads or tales of them. (The "lines" being the actual temperature (and there's still debate about that that really is!) and Hansen's predictions during the time frame we're talking about--mid 80s to present.

But here's the explanation of my analogy, right or wrong: there was a huge spike in temperatures before the "hiatus," then we've been having a "hiatus" since then. I think the prediction was more of a steady increase. You may get to the same place in terms of temperature, but it's hard to have much confidence that the model is actually working.
raymond phule

climber
Mar 12, 2014 - 01:01am PT

But here's the explanation of my analogy, right or wrong: there was a huge spike in temperatures before the "hiatus," then we've been having a "hiatus" since then. I think the prediction was more of a steady increase. You may get to the same place in terms of temperature, but it's hard to have much confidence that the model is actually working.

The climate signal has a quite large natural variability (noise). The predictor usually tries to predict the underlying signal (because it cant predict the noise). What we see in the climate and the climate models are that there are variability that we cant predict but that the underlying signal is relatively well predicted.
bookworm

Social climber
Falls Church, VA
Mar 12, 2014 - 03:51am PT
weather is NOT climate, and we'll viciously attack anyone who makes that claim because they're complete idio...huh? who said that?

er...weather is not climate...um...except when it's bad weather...uh...and sometimes when it's good weather...and...well...only we know the difference so...uh...you're all RACISTS!!!


http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/harry-reid-climate-change-deniersbecoming-less-credible-bad-weather_784618.html

Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 12, 2014 - 05:28am PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area

Mar 11, 2014 - 08:47pm PT
defined as the reduction in GMST trend

Wow, Chief, you are amazingly stupid.



And of course they are referring only to GMST, not ocean heat content.

Well Dayum, Mono. you were a busy boy, yesterday.

But still no answer to my simple questions about one of your favorite graphs. What's the deal? Are the questions too tough? Or perhaps the answers are not helpful to "the cause".

Hmm.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Mar 12, 2014 - 06:45am PT
EDH, WES anyone, still NO answer with an absolute reference of ANY peer rev'd paper as to what was the forcing mechanism/s that initiated the 1910-1945 warming spike (that is nearly identical in increase as the 2nd more recent spike) which is clearly indicated below in the GISSTEMP graph.

Amazing how every one of you keeps dodging this. Even the former co-founder of Greenpeace that has turned against your ideology has presented this question to more elite CC Scientist AND the IPCC. He also has yet to receive any viable answer from any of those experts.

I wonder why??? Could it be that there was NO anthro feedback during that event that can be verified. From the papers that have been presented, that is the case and the current Anthro CC research community is avoiding that recent warming event like the plague.



http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 12, 2014 - 06:46am PT
What Has BC's Carbon Tax Shift Done?
Six years in, measuring the results in five charts.

http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2014/03/12/BCs-Carbon-Tax-Shift/

1. Pricing carbon has reduced carbon pollution.
2. The carbon tax shift has not hurt the economy.
3. Pricing carbon has not caused inflation.
4. The carbon tax shift has been revenue neutral.
5. BC's carbon tax shift is not perfect.

B.C.'s carbon pricing system is not perfect, but it remains the best in North America and probably the world. To the south, in California, a limited one-year-old carbon pricing system -- a cap -- is taking shape and expanding its coverage of the economy. In Oregon and Washington, political momentum is building to emulate California and their northern neighbour in Canada. If all goes well, before too much longer the province will no longer be a lonely beacon of carbon pricing. It'll be the northern anchor of a West Coast bloc that is leading the world to a prosperous, low-carbon future.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
Mar 12, 2014 - 06:52am PT
Credit: wilbeer

I will say it again,look at that obvious HIATUS.


Malemute,Great article man.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 12, 2014 - 06:55am PT
Finally, a source of climate info that the Chaff can comprehend!

The Cartoon Introduction to Climate Change (draft 5)
standupeconomist.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/131125-trimmed-2pp.pdf
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 12, 2014 - 08:09am PT
Long-term warming likely to be significant despite recent slowdown
NASA/Goddard Space Flight Center

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140311184706.htm
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Mar 12, 2014 - 08:12am PT
ever wonder why the arctic is warming more than the antarctic?

One reason for the disproportionate influence of the Northern Hemisphere, particularly as it pertains to the impact of aerosols, is that most human-made aerosols are released from the more industrialized regions north of the equator. Also, the vast majority of Earth's landmasses are in the Northern Hemisphere. This furthers the effect of the Northern Hemisphere because land, snow and ice adjust to atmospheric changes more quickly than the oceans of the world.
ibid
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 12, 2014 - 08:14am PT
Discussing climate models with the scientifically illiterate is like discussing a poem about sunsets with Helen Keller without holding her hand.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Mar 12, 2014 - 08:19am PT
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven

Mar 12, 2014 - 08:14am PT
Discussing climate models with the scientifically illiterate is like discussing a poem about sunsets with Helen Keller without holding her hand.

Almost as bad as dealing with assh0les who favor lies, diversions and ad homs.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
Mar 12, 2014 - 08:31am PT
Hey, did you ever figure out why the IPCC concluded what they concluded about the model fit? It must suck not being able to comprehend the report you (claim to have) referenced. You should just stick to wattsupwithat... they put things in terms morans can understand... even if it is taken out of context and mostly wrong.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Mar 12, 2014 - 08:32am PT
No answer... just the insistent ad homs as Sketch posts.


Alleged "hiatus".




Love the denying and distortion protocol that you all stick to.

However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.
Chpt 9 WG1AR5 IPCC

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Mar 12, 2014 - 08:57am PT
Can't answer the question either eh FUKEDMENTAL??


Keep dodging AND denying son.



However, there is low confidence in quantifying the role of forcing trend in causing the hiatus, because of uncertainty in the magnitude of the volcanic forcing trend and low confidence in the aerosol forcing trend.
Chpt 9 WG1AR5 IPCC

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/report/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Mar 12, 2014 - 08:57am PT
Credit: leo
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Mar 12, 2014 - 09:00am PT
the conclusion from that would be the surface temperatures are consistent with the forcings in the models, including the human activities emitting GHGs into the atmosphere.

Cite a peer rev'd ref for your conclusion that indicates any human feedback during that specific event.


That does not answer what was the forcing MECHANISM of the first warming event that occurred from 1910-1945, ED HARTOUNI.

Just indicates it as do all your other crayon scribbling graphs.


Can you answer the question with a ref citation of any peer rev'd paper/study without dodging?


Does not appear you can, ED HARTOUNI.
Messages 24421 - 24440 of total 25079 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