Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25341 - 25360 of total 29632 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
BigFeet

Trad climber
Texas
Aug 26, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
Ouch! Once again, fabrication of data...

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-London/2014/08/25/Australian-Bureau-of-Meteorology-accused-of-Criminally-Adjusted-Global-Warming
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
Aug 26, 2014 - 01:54pm PT
now please cite all of the studies where no "data' was falsified, ok?

just so no one gets the idea that False Equivalences" of showing a couple of isolated instances does anything at all to minimize the massive evidence already tested, retested,
and accepted into the record

because that would be, like, ignorant and childish, right?
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin

Aug 25, 2014 - 10:56am PT

you know, so no one believes there is a False Equivalence or anything.......

Norton

Social climber
quitcherbellyachin

Aug 26, 2014 - 01:54pm PT

just so no one gets the idea that False Equivalences

Looks like somebody found himself a new favorite term.

It makes you sound so smart.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:20pm PT
UN panel: Global warming human-caused, dangerous
By SETH BORENSTEIN
From Associated Press
August 26, 2014 1:00 PM EST

WASHINGTON (AP) — A new international draft report says global warming is here, human-caused and can already be considered dangerous. The report warns that it is increasingly likely that climate change could be irreversible.

The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a draft of its final synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group.

The 127-page draft, obtained by The Associated Press, paints a stark warning of what's causing global warming — burning fossil fuels — and what it will do to humans and the environment. It also describes what can be done about it.

The report said the climate changes that have already occurred are widespread and consequential, while the human fingerprints on the problem are clear and unequivocal.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
Everyone agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy.

It could be large

It could be small.

We don’t know.

BigFeet

Trad climber
Texas
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
So, are you saying that false data that is being included in, and contributing to, the world narative does nothing to discredit said theory?

Yeah, I'm not biting. Garbage in = garbage out.

Science is the act of trying to disprove your theory in all ways possible to see if it holds true, not to fabricate data or contort them to fit your needs.

Not saying climate change does not exist just that man is not the cause. Nature, man... it is a wonderful and crazy bitch.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
The 127-page draft, obtained by The Associated Press, paints a stark warning of what's causing global warming — burning fossil fuels — and what it will do to humans and the environment. It also describes what can be done about it.

Of course, the crux of the issue is what will be done about it.

karen roseme

Mountain climber
Bishop
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
Science group says climate change worsening, dangerous
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 5 p.m. EDT August 26, 2014


Human influence on the planet's climate is clear and having "widespread and consequential impacts on human and natural systems," some of which may be irreversible, says a draft report out today from a United Nations science panel.

"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia," the report says. "The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen."

Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been seen in the past six decades or so, including fewer cold temperature extremes and more hot temperature extremes.

The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document is the final part of the group's Fifth Assessment Report, which synthesizes three earlier large reports on various aspects of climate change. There's little in this document not covered in the others, but the language is more stark.

The IPCC is a group of researchers and scientists from around the world who monitor recent climate science and release reports every several years about the latest scientific findings.

The report states that the cause of this climate change is man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, which are "the highest in history" and probably "unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."

The recent uptick in carbon dioxide levels is correlated with a rise in global temperatures of about 1.5 degrees since the early 1800s.

"Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally, " it says.

The report says that if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to be emitted at the current rate, it's likely that by 2050, temperatures will rise by about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, when compared with the temperatures from 1986 to 2005.

By 2100, temperatures could be about 6.7 degrees warmer. Though it wouldn't occur for hundreds of years, the huge sheet of ice over Greenland could melt entirely, leading to as much as a 23-foot rise in world ocean levels, leaving many coastal cities underwater.

This 127-page draft report, obtained by USA TODAY Tuesday, could change before its official release in Copenhagen in October.
TomCochrane

Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:51pm PT
This is amazing a company openly admitting weather modification.


Check out this video on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEQC-jYMjf8&feature=youtube_gdata_player

The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you libo angry ass blinded Sheep
Aug 26, 2014 - 03:35pm PT
BigFeet

Trad climber
Texas

Aug 26, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
So, are you saying that false data that is being included in, and contributing to, the world narative does nothing to discredit said theory?

Yeah, I'm not biting. Garbage in = garbage out.

Science is the act of trying to disprove your theory in all ways possible to see if it holds true, not to fabricate data or contort them to fit your needs.

Not saying climate change does not exist just that man is not the cause. Nature, man... it is a wonderful and crazy bitch.

Bravo and Spot On!


Watch out though for the shet that will be slung your way now.

You heathen you. How dare you go against the consensus of, hmmm, how many actual scientist are on that "consensus" list??
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 26, 2014 - 03:47pm PT
Nevada dry lakes are changing back to their wetter ice-age mode
due to the cooling climate. 2014 has seen above normal
precipitation in Nevada and below normal temps.

2014 BURNING MAN:
Burners locked out on opening day.
The dusty dry lake is a wet muddy mess
because of ice-age like summer rains.


TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Aug 26, 2014 - 05:50pm PT
At least we don’t sacrifice virgins anymore

TOM BURGUM
Staff Columnist
burgum@lbknews.com

It was a belief in some ancient cultures temperature could be altered, draughts ended, the rise of oceans halted, merely by throwing a couple luckless virgins into a volcano. Some would think this makes the Incas and Mayans appear misogynistic but, it’s much more likely they didn’t think the gods were much interested in young boys. As I said, it was an ancient culture.

Before you smirk in condescension because these illiterate savages were not conversant with such natural phenomena as the Pacific decadal oscillation, you might look at today’s human folly where we in the United States propose to sacrifice a good bit of our economy in hopes of appeasing the global warming gods. Oh yes, there is not much difference in the religious fervor of the global warming, climate change or weather disruption crowd today and the Inca priests who thought their pathetic and cruel activities could influence the climate.


You have to look no further than the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new proposed rules which will, according to the United States Chamber of Commerce, cost the American economy $51 billion, as well as 224,000 jobs, every year through 2030. The EPA has much lower estimates but the Government Accountability Office found that the EPA was using a study outdated by 20 years and even when new only took into account four industrial sectors.

According to a study by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), “The United States is already facing the loss of 60 gigawatts of power over the next three years, the result of older coal plants being forced to shut down because they cannot comply with the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxic Standards enacted in 2012.”

At the onset of those rules the EPA, with its usual distain for accuracy, claimed that only four gigawatts of capacity would be lost because of the regulations. Now, even EPA admits, 60 gigawatts of coal-generated electricity will be lost and that is even before the new regulations kick in. The real problem here is that ninety percent of plants slated to close by the new draconian regulations were needed to provide power during the periods of severe weather last winter. Too bad EPA can’t just throw a few virgins down a volcano to hold off the threat of another cold winter.

Forget all that, you say. Our sacrifice will stymie global warming, or whatever it’s called now. Not really. Chip Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, using the EPA developed climate-model emulator, “found that the EPA regulations would barley affect the climate — by eighteen-thousandths of a degree Celsius by 2100.” This is such a small number it cannot even be discussed in practical terms. EPA, of course, didn’t publish that information on their misnamed fact sheet and it’s easy to understand why: It’s hard to get people to agree to seriously damage their economy for no apparent reason.

There now is credible evidence developed by HadCRUT that the earth is not warming. The HadCRUT data on earth’s temperature is the authoritative data set used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The temperature is determined by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the United Kingdom Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.

The latest figures from HadCRUT show that over the last 15 years the globe has cooled with a -0.24C per century trend, not warmed as predicted. Then, earlier this month the IPCC’s own data showed that the global mean temperature has dropped an unprecedented 1 degree C since 1990. Significantly, the vaunted computer models that predicted a hot Armageddon unless we stopped burning coal have been proven wrong.

So much for settled science.

Meanwhile, there are those who believe the earth is headed for a cooling period. Physicist Henrik Svensmark, a professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute, declared, “global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Enjoy global warming while it lasts.”

Habibullo Abdussamatov is a Russian astrophysicist and supervisor of the Astrometrial project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: He heads the Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He has a question: “Has the Obama administration, the EPA or anyone that can read a chart actually looked at what global temperatures are now doing?”

Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warns “global cooling is a slam dunk” for up to 30 years or more” While the Australian Astronomical Society warns of global cooling as the sun’s activity significantly diminishes.

The high priests of global warming ignore all evidence to the contrary and continue to insist on reducing our capacity to produce electric energy. Even though the draconian regulations will not even have a measurable affect on climate they will have a very measurable effect on our economy. The cost can be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars and the hundreds of thousands of jobs with higher electric rates that will impact the manufacturing sector, the poor and middle class. It also poses a real threat to the stability of the electric grid itself.

It is a pretty depressing story overall but, at least we are no longer sacrificing virgins. I guess that is progress of a sort.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Aug 26, 2014 - 05:59pm PT
Everyone agrees that we can’t predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy.

It could be large

It could be small.

We don’t know.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 26, 2014 - 08:05pm PT
... predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy.

you avoided answering this before... how do you define accuracy?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 26, 2014 - 09:24pm PT
wow, quite the amazing line up of opinion from TGT, Chuff, Dave, Sketch and Big foot.

Too bad the combined expertize wouldn't result in a consensus on how to screw in a light bulb. With fire power like this its no wonder America is in a death spiral, considering they are a pretty good representation for half the population. I guess its what carl sagen was talking about in the demon Haunted World.


Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Aug 27, 2014 - 04:18am PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Aug 26, 2014 - 08:05pm PT
... predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy.

you avoided answering this before... how do you define accuracy?

The quality or state of being correct or precise.

What's your point, Ed? Do you think my statement is wrong? Or are you just trying to hang me up on the details?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 27, 2014 - 07:25am PT
The important point is that you can't fathom the environment in which you expect that precise and correct is the benchmark of functional performance, but small wonder when you look to guys like Paul Broun to lead you through the darkness.

Here - mine this to establish your case. Climate is certainly chaotic so by your "understanding" of chaotic systems there is no telling whether we'll be locked in an ice age 30 years from now. Problem is, climate isn't the only chaotic system that humans have a good functional handle on which means practically everything we do has only measurements of probability of outcome, rather than certainty.

But like I said before Sketch, If you ever operated otherwise you wouldn't still be a bumbling spin the bottle and stroke the rosary day trader working out of your mom's basement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 27, 2014 - 07:42am PT
Sketch wrote:
The quality or state of being correct or precise.

What's your point, Ed? Do you think my statement is wrong? Or are you just trying to hang me up on the details?


which is to say, you don't know what a quantitative definition of accuracy is...yet you have made claims about "accuracy."

Used in the manner you have defined above "the quality or state of being correct or precise" I'd say that the climate models are "accurate" in their treatment of CO2 in particular, but in many other ways. Your definition has for possible combinations ("or" is used twice).

I don't actually think you agree with the definition you've stated, and your opinion that the models are not "accurate" comes from people who have a specific quantitative definition in mind. You just don't know enough to understand that.

One tip off in your proposed definition is the statement "precise," which has a different definition (in statistics) than "accurate." You no doubt recall that I might often use the two when describing a prediction as being "accurate and precise," why would I do that?

My point was to find out what you think the definition was, and having done that I would see that you don't actually know. It certainly isn't worth my time to discuss the accuracy and precision of a model, and how you would determine those quantities, with someone who has strong beliefs but no knowledge. Maybe that discussion could happen once you have a better understanding of what it is you are talking about.

And I don't have time to teach you... those are simple enough concepts in statistics that you could learn about them yourself.
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Aug 27, 2014 - 08:06am PT
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA

Aug 27, 2014 - 07:42am PT
Sketch wrote:
The quality or state of being correct or precise.

What's your point, Ed? Do you think my statement is wrong? Or are you just trying to hang me up on the details?

which is to say, you don't know what a quantitative definition of accuracy is...yet you have made claims about "accuracy."

Used in the manner you have defined above "the quality or state of being correct or precise" I'd say that the climate models are "accurate" in their treatment of CO2 in particular, but in many other ways. Your definition has for possible combinations ("or" is used twice).

I don't actually think you agree with the definition you've stated, and your opinion that the models are not "accurate" comes from people who have a specific quantitative definition in mind. You just don't know enough to understand that.

One tip off in your proposed definition is the statement "precise," which has a different definition (in statistics) than "accurate." You no doubt recall that I might often use the two when describing a prediction as being "accurate and precise," why would I do that?

My point was to find out what you think the definition was, and having done that I would see that you don't actually know. It certainly isn't worth my time to discuss the accuracy and precision of a model, and how you would determine those quantities, with someone who has strong beliefs but no knowledge. Maybe that discussion could happen once you have a better understanding of what it is you are talking about.

And I don't have time to teach you... those are simple enough concepts in statistics that you could learn about them yourself.

It's refreshing to get a civil respectful answer.

Thanks for not being a condescending little f*#kwad.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 27, 2014 - 08:12am PT
Thanks for not being a condescending little f*#kwad

Sketch, have you written a single intelligent comment on this thread, one that shows your own comprehension and thinking? I haven't seen it, but then I skip most of what you post. Why not take this space to show I'm wrong, cite a few paragraphs that articulate your thoughts and show a brain actually working.

Ed is right, "accurate" and "precise" have different meanings in science (even, in Stats 101), which he can see you don't know. Instead of thinking for one second by yourself, or looking them up to figure out what he's talking about -- I gather that you can't -- you toss feces, your first, last and middle resort.
Messages 25341 - 25360 of total 29632 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