Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25121 - 25140 of total 28597 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:28am PT
or go abuse some sardines
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 08:38am PT
You asked about the underlying factors contributing to a single line... factors that were unnecessary for understanding the graph. You asked about one thing and then accused me on not knowing about something different.


Don't be coy Sketch. I asked specifically what was the cause of the increase in the Antarctic sea ice. Nothing about "underlying factors contributing to a single line" or any other such nonsense. My question was direct and straight forward.

There's this thing called cause and effect. The effect is what your graph showed--a year-over-year increase in the amount of sea ice. I asked if you knew the cause of that increase. Without knowing the cause, the fact that the sea ice as increasing a miniscule amount doesn't really have much meaning. It's just a bland fact.

It's like saying "We continue to break heat records." Without knowing why, it's just a bland fact. To make it worthwhile, we find the cause. And that is what this whole thread is about--what we have found to be the cause of the heat records.

You posted a graph, I assume in order to make a point. I asked, if you could make a point about your graph. You couldn't, so in essence you're posting a graph without having any point.

Don't blame me if you post stuff without knowing the meaning of what you're posting.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 08:46am PT
Yet the temps have remained steady for the past 15 or so years.


Yes, steadily being the hottest years on record.

The Chief said he does not think that 2014 will be in the top ten hottest years.

I suppose we'll see.



Localized short termed "weather/drought" events DO NOT constitute any viable reason for this claim Werner.

The Chief, you are right; "short termed weather/drought events" don't constitute climate (even though you continue to post up about the weather events). However, over years, the form a trend, and that trend can then be construed as //climate."

But you knew that--it's just that you pretend you don't.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:02am PT
I believe The Chief is right. A different manifestation of El Nino has been affecting the Western U.S.seaboard and parts of the north pacific for months now. The oceans are giving up built up energy from the late 20th century ( from increased portions of the solar spectrum that can actually penetrate the seas surface in contrast to IR which only affects the surface layer of ocean and atmosphere) that is giving up heat into a cooling lower troposhere. The moisture is bypassing the coast so far and dropping as abundant rains in the southwest. Anybody notice the drought is over in the southwest and Texas, New Mexico, Arizona are greened up nicely. Certainly not old Forty who never gets past jerking off over his computers keyboard while watching illegal porn and creating voluminous quantities of cartoons.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 09:07am PT
It's odd that you seem to think a 610,000 sq km increase over last year's record is minuscule.

It's an increase between 1 & 2%, year-over-year (according to the article). But go ahead, debate my semantics while you ignore the real point.

Standard fair from you.



Question: How much ice have we lost in the Arctic, year over year?



Allow me to help with your answer:

Whether or not 2014 will be a record low sea ice year is uncertain. 2012, which set a record for lowest Arctic sea ice extent on record, saw an incredible, rapid drop in sea ice beginning in the late summer, despite that year being cooler and cloudier than the previous record low year. 49 percent of the ice cap went missing that year, and sea ice extent dropped to an astounding 18 percent below the previous record year of 2007.


This is from the Washington Post:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/capital-weather-gang/wp/2014/07/30/giant-waves-found-in-arctic-ocean-could-be-accelerating-sea-ice-loss/


So, 1-2% vs. 49%; yeah, I called the first one "miniscule."
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:18am PT
Tell us what's gone on with global temps over the last 15 years

Most datasets (including UAH) show they have gone up.

Since the warming rate during the satellite era is very similar to the pre 'pause' rate, your 'pause' has little meaning.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:33am PT
Its amazing how reality can be distorted by the propaganda campaign of the commie socialist movement. The mouth peice known as Kelly ignores the fact that sea ice extent in the arctic has increased 60% since 2012 lows which were caused by unusually intense arctic cyclones in february and august of that year that pushed (not so much melted) the ice into compacted regions. Globally ice extent is up 350, 000 km2 over the satellite era mean. Enjoy the last hurrah as the enso condition of 2014-2015 gives up a final pulse of energy into a lower troposhere that will distinctly cool over the coming decades as the declining solar activity further deepens. 2019-2020 is going to be downright chilly. You commies will be huddling together for warmth and fighting for food scraps because the nanny state will decrease the dole that bought your soul.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:41am PT
Rick, tell us again about the global wide conspriacy between pliant governments and the giant alternative energy cabal run by ISIS
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 22, 2014 - 10:09am PT
Socialist warmists trash NYC

http://nypost.com/2014/09/22/climate-change-skeptics-call-out-marchers-hypocrisies/

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 22, 2014 - 10:13am PT
Wow, TGT, that looks more like where the posters are turned in and cleaned up.

Surely you've got more convincing evidence than that.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 10:33am PT
Sketch, I'm comparing the amount of Antarctic sea ice gain, year-to-year (1-2%), with the amount of sea ice loss in the Arctic, year-to-year (47%).

Is that what you meant? If so, why is that dumb?
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 10:36am PT
The Chief said he does not think that 2014 will be in the top ten hottest years.

I did? Where did I make such a statement, KaveMAN!!!


Most datasets (including UAH) show they have gone up.

Did I ever state they haven't. No.

But the entities you refer to indicate a temp rise rate less than 10% of that during the prior 20 or so years for the last 15 or so years.

Do I need to repost how both the IPCC and NOAA both outwardly agree the "Hiatus" since 1999 or so exists, MONO!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 22, 2014 - 10:43am PT
Did I say you said that Chief? I was responding to Sketch's question.

And I see how you ignored this Chief.

Since the warming rate during the satellite era is very similar to the pre 'pause' rate, your 'pause' has little meaning.

Good for you, Chief.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 22, 2014 - 10:58am PT
But the entities you refer to indicate a temp rise rate less than 10% of that during the prior 20 or so years for the last 15 or so years.

I think you better work on your math, Chief.

NOAA Trend: 1979-1998 .127C/decade
NOAA Trend: 1998-present .04C/decade

UAH Trend: 1979-1998 .042
UAH Trend: 1998-present .062

And of course, by separating the two periods, you get to ignore the massive amount of warming between sections.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 11:02am PT
Since the warming rate during the satellite era is very similar to the pre 'pause' rate, your 'pause' has little meaning.

Odd... this surely does not indicate that statement as valid as the temps surely do take an upward rise AFTER the sats came online then flat they go in 2000:


http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs_v3/Fig.A.gif


monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 22, 2014 - 11:06am PT
Now you are starting to get it Chief.

Notice how the long term trend increases when you include the 'pause'.

The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 11:09am PT
Nor this one which is the RSS (Sat Data)...

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Sep 22, 2014 - 11:11am PT
Where's the long term trend, Chief? Trying to hide it?

Again, notice how the long term trend increases when you include the 'pause'.





Time to go climbing, I'm outta here.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 11:24am PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area

Sep 22, 2014 - 11:11am PT
Where's the long term trend, Chief? Trying to hide it?


Nice deflection.

Nothing in your original question MONO indicates any inclusion about any "long term trend".. nothing of the fact there.


Typical, when presented with the data that shuts your ass up, off you go.


monolith

climber
SF bay area

Sep 22, 2014 - 10:43am PT


Since the warming rate during the satellite era is very similar to the pre 'pause' rate, your 'pause' has little meaning.

The RSS Satellite data indicates NOTHING Of the sorts...



NASA/GISS. Look at the rise from 1979 to 1999 then the flat trend to current day. Doesn't look like anything of sorts either, MONO!




Runnnnnnnnnnnnnnn MONO, Runnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn!



k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 22, 2014 - 12:21pm PT
Sketch, I'm taking my figures from the article I pointed to and the article you pointed to. Shouldn't be hard to read a little to see the years.
Messages 25121 - 25140 of total 28597 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