Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25741 - 25760 of total 28535 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 9, 2014 - 06:41pm PT
Credit: National Climate Assessment 3
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov/report/appendices/climate-science-supplement

National Climate Assessment
http://nca2014.globalchange.gov
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 9, 2014 - 06:58pm PT
Said correlation:
Credit: wilbeer

Great link Ed,thanks.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Oct 9, 2014 - 07:20pm PT


http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_anom.php?ui_set=1&ui_region=namgnld&ui_month=9
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 9, 2014 - 07:37pm PT
The "REPORT" you posted EDH has absolutely NO ACTUAL OBSERVED HUMAN C02 EMISSIONS COLLECTED DATA anywhere in it. Especially in the chapter where the new term that used to "detect and attribute" human emissions to the climate.

It is riddled with nothing but ASSUMPTIONS based on Atmospheric C02 increases since the mid 1850's. The CORRELATION vs. CAUSATION effect.

Certainly appears that Climate Science has thrown the scientific principal of "Correlation does not imply Causation" right out into the shetcan. That it has written it's own rules and principals in order to justify it's suggested results.


I ask you again ED HARTOUNI, or anyone else, please post any ACTUAL OBSERVED/COLLECTED HUMAN C02 EMISSIONS DATA that clearly shows that the CO2 slope increase is NOT natural. Rather HUMAN caused by the actual evidence collected in the atmosphere that consists of, without any doubt, a 100% human signature.

NOT reports that are riddled with the new rule that "Correlation NOW implies Causation" thus it must be in order to justify their theories only to support the agenda of AGW. Regardless who the authors are.

The people are not buying that very bogus fundamental concept of thinking to justify your implied policies, EDH. The latest polls show that. The People are tired of being duped by the gubmament for habitually justifying their policies in that manner. The recent LONGEST and MOST COSTLY WAR in our history is product of that rationale.

Oh.. your consist rhetoric that states that unless you understand the science, you have no place to argue it. Well, that is definitely not flying. It only makes you all look like complete narcissistic zealots. And is only turning the people off more each day.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 9, 2014 - 07:51pm PT
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Read closely .

I know it will be contentious for someone who is

not a denier,
anti U.S.A.government,
thinks it is a hoax,
screams hypocrite,
screams ideologue,
just screams.

When is that organized denier/protest march again?

Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Oct 9, 2014 - 08:10pm PT
Oh.. your consist rhetoric that states that unless you understand the science, you have no place to argue it. Well, that is definitely not flying. It only makes you all look like complete narcissistic zealots. And is only turning the people off more each day.

so says the voice of 'the people.'

Credit: Wade Icey
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 9, 2014 - 08:15pm PT
We don't need an Einstein to figure out that if we keep on burning fossil fuels, and cut/burn down forests, and acidify the ocean impacting on the phytoplankton, not only do we cause global warming, we deplete oxygen from the atmosphere, as well as the sources (plants) that can regenerate it. The result is the steady decline in the atmospheric oxygen concentration in the last 20 years when O2 concentration was globally monitored.


http://homosapienssaveyourearth.blogspot.ca/2012/01/can-you-live-without-oxygen-atmospheric.html

While oxygen depletion sounds intimidating, the reality is that it is only a small fraction of the total atmospheric oxygen and not considered consequential. But it is important. Seeing the oxygen depletion helps confirm the human factor involved in the increase of CO2. Also, any changes in other systems that relate to atmospheric oxygen can be seen in or confirmed by the atmospheric oxygen levels.
http://ossfoundation.us/projects/environment/global-warming/the-keeling-curves
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 9, 2014 - 08:15pm PT
"riddled with assumptions"?
not sure what you're braying about now...

in 1896 Arrhenius estimated the temperature rise due to CO2 emissions from the energy production (mostly coal burning) of the industrial revolution. It was a great estimate given the time.

are you saying that the increases of CO2 are just coincidental?

if you are, do you care to explain where the CO2 is coming from if not from human activity, which matches the increases quite well, when you fold into it our increasing knowledge of the carbon cycle.

And do you care to explain where the CO2 we are emitting is going, if not into the atmosphere?

By the way, correlation is necessary for establishing causation, so it is quite reasonable that the two go together, especially when there is a cause, as there is in this case.

Credit: NCA3 Appendix 3
from http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/prelim_2009_2010_estimates.html

where there are assumptions, there are tests for those assumptions... if you mean by "assumption" a hypothesis, those too are tested.

This is folded into the climate model, which is then checked against many different parameters... we often see the results of the SST predictions plotted with the observations, as in this plot:

Credit: BEST
where the models are doing quite well in predicting the SST averages. Including the CO2 emission history from the ORNL website I posted above.

Perhaps you have a better criticism than it just happens to agree by random chance, or even by some slight of hand... you have the opportunity to look at each step and provide a detailed criticism of it... if you had the skill to do that (which you do not).

So instead of having any technical criticism, you are making some story up about it and proclaiming it "reality", the only reality is a sorry one, that you actually believe that made up story yourself.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 9, 2014 - 08:45pm PT
Why is the sharp rise in temps from 1910-1940 maladjusted downwards in the plot? Why is the plot only going to less than 2010 when it is now almost 2015? Why does the plot templine flatten from 2000 onwards when the GCM's continue upwards? Has Berkeley Earth adopted the phony infills of Cowtan and Way to exaggerate a rise over the last fifteen years when their was none, or so little it is within the range of uncertainty? Why do you Ed still incessantly try to pass off discredited excuses as science? Baffle the herd with bullshet, but please stop the same old song and dance with us.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 9, 2014 - 08:47pm PT
What actual physically collected evidence of HUMAN SIGNATURE EMISSIONS are those pretty graphs based on, EDH?

Please post the actual collected physical data that unequivocally depicts a human signature.


Hey RICK S, you mean like this original, untouched and unmanipulated data below that clearly shows the period you describe and the obvious steep slope of increase in both SURFACE AND SST's that IS NOT depicted in EDH's pretty graph above.

SURFACE





SST's



So instead of having any technical criticism, you are making some story up about it and proclaiming it "reality", the only reality is a sorry one, that you actually believe that made up story yourself.

The four pieces of recorded actual data above EDH are the reality I was referring to.

Are you now going to dispute the above OBSERVED DATA as not real?

My bad EDH etal. I forgot. The authors of the latest climate report have all done their part to "RECONSTRUCT" the past collected observed data which I posted above. The pretty graph you recently posted EDH is a direct result of that ongoing reconstruction process that seems to favor the latest increase in observed SURFACE and STT's more, than any of the others that have occurred in the past 160 years. Of course downplaying any other of those obvious previously recorded observations.



I think they call it SMOOTHING, RICK S. Amazing how the question I asked EDH two months ago regarding what was the forcing mechanism for that period was never clearly answered. Dismissed as a non issue I believe, RICK S.





wilbeer

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,

Oct 9, 2014 - 07:51pm PT
climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Nice Wilbeer, you do your side good....

The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years

Not one piece of unequivocal HUMAN SIGNATURE evidence in your link, WILBEER. Not one. Just the above same old same old persistent statement.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 9, 2014 - 09:26pm PT
Yes that's the graph Chief . Desperation has set in among the ranks, their ideology has hardened, scientific truth has been completely abandoned in the incessant propaganda stream, they sense it is now or never, real global problems of historic proportions will soon drown their agenda. Batten down the hatches and hold onto your hats, its going to be a wild ride over the next decade and global warming will be the very least of the worries.

rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 9, 2014 - 09:46pm PT
I laugh at you all the time Forty. Does that make me mean? I don't think so. Even a brainwashed retard like yourself can have a sense of humor.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 9, 2014 - 09:48pm PT
I laugh at you constantly as well Fartmental. And sadly, you FARTMENTAL have no excuse. You just plain choose to be a STOOOOOOOOOOOPID FKING IDIOT daily.


hAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!


Dumbazz Formula One loving FARTMENTAL.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 9, 2014 - 09:50pm PT
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM

Oct 9, 2014 - 09:49pm PT
Even a brainwashed retard like yourself can have a sense of humor.


True. But at least I know the difference between Area and Volume.



That of course comes from your personal accepted deficiency in the lack of Volume in the Area known as your skull.


The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 9, 2014 - 09:57pm PT
I truly will now consider the lack of VOLUME issue you have in that skull AREA of yours FARTMENTAL when responding to any of your future posts. I do not want to be blamed for any reports of you losing it on your family members or co-workers in violent haste due to that deficiency of yours that has been consistently witnessed here on ST.


I suggest you seriously consider getting that issue looked into asap.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 9, 2014 - 10:00pm PT
You know the difference between area and volume, Forty? I think not. In early 2013 you were on the arctic carastrophic melting bandwagon when I already knew that two unusually intense polar cyclones merely shifted the ice into small geographic locales without much ice mass loss. Looks like the quick arctic recovery proved me right and you wrong.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 9, 2014 - 10:11pm PT
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM

Oct 9, 2014 - 10:03pm PT
Rick Poedtke...

please try to remember how we all tried to get you to understand "slope" as something that wasn't the line that connected the first data point to the very last data point. We all remember that. Why won't you? You fought bravely to defend your pleistocene math concepts until the peals of laughter sent you into a 40 day radio silence.

I guffaw just remembering that.

There's that total lack of any VOLUME issue again.


WE?


Oh, now I get it. You and your Zealot buddy brigade here that claim high value existence based on your self proclaimed superior knowledge of science by copying and pasting all them pretty graphs that have absolutely NO supporting evidence other than their completely distorted and bullshet reconstructed computer based statistical modeling processes that have done nothing more than failed across the boards.

Doesn't do a thing for me. Nor does it do a damn thing for over 68% of the American population that just simply doesn't give a flying fk about your supposed superiority narcissistic AGW ideology.

But obviously does support your ongoing efforts to ballcup one another here.

Fortmula One Boy.



VROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM Speed FORTMULA ONE BOY!



Now do not go beating up on any innocent family member of yours. Or are you posting while on the clock from a company computer again?
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 9, 2014 - 10:35pm PT
Why is the sharp rise in temps from 1910-1940 maladjusted downwards in the plot? Why is the plot only going to less than 2010 when it is now almost 2015? Why does the plot templine flatten from 2000 onwards when the GCM's continue upwards? Has Berkeley Earth adopted the phony infills of Cowtan and Way to exaggerate a rise over the last fifteen years when their was none, or so little it is within the range of uncertainty? Why do you Ed still incessantly try to pass off discredited excuses as science? Baffle the herd with bullshet, but please stop the same old song and dance with us.


maybe you should read their paper, and download the data to reproduce their results... then you could make a technical criticism of what they did.

it isn't discredited, you haven't done that, you've parroted what you have read on other blogs...

phony infills? you should look at what BEST did with their data, rick. Until you do, you really don't have much to offer in this discussion except your tired old complaints that the science doesn't agree with your "intuition."

you've got lousy intuition, and not only that, you don't have the slightest idea how to acquire intuition... let's just say it starts with your realizing you are wrong, and then working back from their.

The Chief, perhaps you should read the BEST methods paper too, I believe you can make the very same plots on that blog you're abusing... if only you knew what it was they were talking about in the plot options... you're like some midshipman on the flight deck in this domain, you don't know what you're talking about, but you're talking... maybe shut up and listen to someone who has a whole lot more experience than you do in these matters.

Only difference, you're not going to be killed or kill anyone else... maybe just your keyboard.
Mark Force

Trad climber
Cave Creek, AZ
Oct 9, 2014 - 10:51pm PT
Chief, I still can't quite figure out your issue.

Do you doubt that global temperature is increasing?

Do you doubt that the rate of change of temperature is out of accord with past climate change patterns?

Do you doubt the methods of extrapolating past temperatures based on tree ring records, paleo-pollen studies, etc? Or, past CO2 concentrations from trapped glacier ice gases?

Do you doubt that increased CO2 emissions are out of accord with historical patterns?

Do you doubt that at least a portion of the increased temperature is caused by human activity?

What is it that you want people to get?

Do you believe that all people who get the climate change issue are just politically motivated?

Do you just have a problem with the term climate change? It is, admittedly, a poor term since climate is always changing and always has.

It is most likely that a portion of the increasing temps represent a natural cycle. There is a lot of room for debate and the debate is legitimate if the members of the debate have enough grasp of the issue to have actual conversation and interchange. The science is not complete and no one who understands the science would say so. When you talk to the real deal non-industrial, pure science researchers who are collecting data in the field, you hear a lot of concern from these non-political academics. There is something goin on that ain't right and that don't fit historical models.

No, correlation is not causation, but it is grounds for further investigation. And, to those here who us reason to make their points, even if I don't agree with them, thank you!
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Oct 9, 2014 - 10:59pm PT
The Chief, perhaps you should read the BEST methods paper too, I believe you can make the very same plots on that blog you're abusing... if only you knew what it was they were talking about in the plot options... you're like some midshipman on the flight deck in this domain, you don't know what you're talking about, but you're talking... maybe shut up and listen to someone who has a whole lot more experience than you do in these matters.

What does any of the above post have to do with the recorded observed data that stands to this day.

Why did it have to be "reconstructed" average in the manner you state that which in the paper your refer to.

Why doesn't the reality of what was actually recorded and put in the log, count. Why does it have to be manipulated in order to make the current increase appear to be far greater?

Your graph below does not correlate nor depict the observed recorded data that is below it.



SURFACE





SST's



And you have you have yet to give any clear manner of forcing for the period from 1910-1940. Not a peep.











No, correlation is not causation, but it is grounds for further investigation.

I concur with your statement 100% Mark Force. But the current ideology does not present it in such a manner. No. They now emphasize with such certainty that it is all now caused by humans. That any further "investigation" is not required. Exemplified by the recent NA Climate Report posted by EDH as his verification ref that it is.

Never once stated I disagree with the current warming Mark. Just the growing persistence in stating it is all caused by humans with NO EMPERICAL ACTUAL evidence that depicts any actual human signature what so ever.




Messages 25741 - 25760 of total 28535 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