Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 25921 - 25940 of total 27972 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jul 27, 2014 - 03:02pm PT
TGT keeps forgetting that the US is less than 2% of the world area.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jul 27, 2014 - 03:11pm PT
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Jul 27, 2014 - 05:59pm PT
The only places global warming exists are some kluge
computer models written by people whose pay checks
hinge on predicting it could be true.

http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/04/major-ipcc-climate-model-software-error-discovered-by-researchers-model-estimates-incorrect-by-facto.html


The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep
Jul 27, 2014 - 07:02pm PT
Ah nope to the dopers.

Quarterly Well check as of last Monday, 101.3%


And there is absolutely no lack of water in the Headwaters @ 11,5k' and above where I have been hanging out most of these days with my buddies the Golden's and Brookies. All of them natural bodies of Headwater lakes are at or above their normal levels for this time of year.

Maybe you all should get off of your city asses, quit whining about how fked up you think things are and come on up to see for yourselves.


Here are three of my frequented 11.5K' or above Eastside Headwater Lakes. All three of them photos were taken in the last ten days. No lack of water there. Plentiful, HA!






See ya...


EDIT: Here's two more to make you all salivate (Both taken in the last week) The past 2 weeks of TS'ers have delivered over 9+ inches of water to Eastside high country. Creeks are flowing like mad and the flowers are on fire blooming. Absolutely No drought up here....



k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 28, 2014 - 07:14am PT
Hehe, The Chief. Nice to see you're OK and are able to respond right on queue. Pretty pictures, you're a lucky one to get out in them thar woods.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 28, 2014 - 07:28am PT
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Jul 26, 2014 - 11:20am PT
Great, Sketch once again posting climate change "debunking." This is a great video of lemmings eating up Heartland Institute gruel.

From wilbeer's post above:

I attended their 2012 conference of the Heartland Institute, an oil and tobacco funded free market think tank that spends a lot of time and effort trying to call bullshit on what is clearly not bullshit the science of climate change.

Sketch, did you post that because you believe what they're saying, or just to troll (again)?


I have to wonder, why do all your posts have the same slant, when you like to pretend that your posts don't actually covey your point of view?

The very first quote from the video you posted is bunk; why do you post such BS:

In the last 18 years, there hasn't been even a slight rise in temperature.


My hunch is that you eat this stuff up like it was top sirloin.

Speaking of responding on "queue".

You're awesome, dude.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jul 28, 2014 - 08:53am PT
My hunch is that you eat this stuff up like it was top sirloin.

more like a sponge; no muscles, no heart, no brain.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jul 28, 2014 - 09:55am PT
TGT- I'm not clear where that graph was sourced from or what it's supposed to represent. Does it exclude days greater than 100 degrees? Also, do you understand what an average is? You can have fewer "hottest" days but if you have far fewer "coldest" days your average will still go up and your environment will change. Looking at the pure number of 90 degree days in one area of the world seems more than a little odd.

Credit: HighDesertDJ

You are a rare breed. While the majority of climate deniers have narrowed their criticism to "there's nothing we can do about it" or "it would be too expensive to do something about it" because the evidence, both in raw data and in observable changes to our environment, is overwhelming and unignorable, you maintain a razor focus on "it's not actually happening." As if the expansion of countless plant and animal species into terrain that was previously too cold for them or the massive reduction in global ice wasn't enough.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 28, 2014 - 10:27am PT
While the majority of climate deniers have narrowed their criticism to "there's nothing we can do about it" or "it would be too expensive to do something about it" because the evidence, both in raw data and in observable changes to our environment, is overwhelming and unignorable,

So it's been narrowed down to those two criticisms?

What's your basis for that assessment?

Seems like two of the biggest issues for many of the well known skeptics are how the problem is constantly overstated.... and how failed predictions are quietly brushed aside or excused.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 28, 2014 - 03:01pm PT
Seems like two of the biggest issues for many of the well known skeptics are how the problem is constantly overstated.... and how failed predictions are quietly brushed aside or excused.


Indeed, that is what non-scientific blogs would have you believe. Oh, and those employed by the non-profit Heartland Institute.



Sponge it up Sketch!
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 28, 2014 - 03:09pm PT
Right on "queue".
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Jul 28, 2014 - 05:23pm PT
Sketch posted
Seems like two of the biggest issues for many of the well known skeptics are how the problem is constantly overstated.... and how failed predictions are quietly brushed aside or excused.

Like what, exactly? Which predictions have failed to come true, considering all the actual scientists are making predictions out to 2040 or 2100. If you've been there and back and have something to share we'd all really appreciate hearing it.

So if the Earth is actually cooling, where is all the ice going, Sketch/TGT? The microclimate over every single glacier in the world just happens to be out of whack? Or is this another "the people trying to help are actually hurting" issue like welfare or affirmative action where the Arctic ice is vanishing because of recycling and whaling prohibition?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 28, 2014 - 07:11pm PT
OK here's one. Global cooling didn't pan out like they said now did it?

Huh? there you go smarty pants

Forget for a moment that it was an entirely unsubstantiated outlier, the fact is some wise ass with a Phd said it, and it didn't work .... in fact quite the opposite. Sketch is hip to this stuff.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 29, 2014 - 04:38am PT
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber

Jul 28, 2014 - 05:23pm PT
Sketch posted
Seems like two of the biggest issues for many of the well known skeptics are how the problem is constantly overstated.... and how failed predictions are quietly brushed aside or excused.

Like what, exactly? Which predictions have failed to come true, considering all the actual scientists are making predictions out to 2040 or 2100. If you've been there and back and have something to share we'd all really appreciate hearing it.

So if the Earth is actually cooling, where is all the ice going, Sketch/TGT? The microclimate over every single glacier in the world just happens to be out of whack? Or is this another "the people trying to help are actually hurting" issue like welfare or affirmative action where the Arctic ice is vanishing because of recycling and whaling prohibition?

I like how you quoted only part of my reply to you, leaving out my questions about your previous post. Nice move.

"Like what", you ask.

How about Hansen's 1988 Congressional testimony, where he forecast warming significantly higher than what we've experienced.

How about the IPCC's first report projected warming of 0.2-0.5 C/decade. Most (if not all) subsequent reports have lowered projections. The latest report lowered projections to 0.10-0.23 C/decade.

How about the lack of warming this century? Go back 15 years. See who correctly forecasted this lack of warming.

Why did you ask me about global cooling? What's that about?

And again, what's the basis for your assessment of denier criticisms?

While the majority of climate deniers have narrowed their criticism to "there's nothing we can do about it" or "it would be too expensive to do something about it" because the evidence, both in raw data and in observable changes to our environment, is overwhelming and unignorable
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 29, 2014 - 05:49am PT
Yea US!

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jul 29, 2014 - 07:46am PT
How about the IPCC's first report projected warming of 0.2-0.5 C/decade.

That was for Scenario A, the highest emission forcing scenario.

Actual emissions have been closer to Scenario D. The best estimate for Scenario D was .17C per decade. Actual temp increase: .16C/decade.

Not bad, wouldn't you agree Sketch?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Jul 29, 2014 - 07:50am PT
This must be the statement That Sketch finds so offensive:

If the current pace of the buildup of these gases continues, the effect is likely to be a warming of 3 to 9 degrees Fahrenheit from the year 2025 to 2050, according to these projections. This rise in temperature is not expected to be uniform around the globe but to be greater in the higher latitudes, reaching as much as 20 degrees, and lower at the Equator.

http://www.nytimes.com/1988/06/24/us/global-warming-has-begun-expert-tells-senate.html


Aside from the fact that we have yet to reach 2015 let alone 2025 or 2050, the most obvious thing to note is that Hansens "predictions" were made in 1988. Unlike Sketch, Sumner, Chuff, Dave, TGT and miscelaneous other self important idiots that make their own predictions based on "gut instinct" the pro's are ethically obliged to make their predictions based on Data and state of the art method. An evolving process of ever increasing utility as it were, completely the opposite of your own " gut instinct".

Your process is a rabbit hole of incompetence and confirmation biasing. You not only are clueless as to the significance of the error range in predicted values, you make judgement regardless. If you can't competently judge, then why do you?

Back in 88 Hansen made no mention of the ocean. Now I think you would find that he does. This is because much has been learned since 1988. The interesting thing about this strange phenomena Sketch is that all this new knowledge and observed data vastly supports his original
hypothesis, not refutes it. His 1988 predictions have so far borne out and how well they will bear out by either 2025 or 2050 is what is known in expert circles as " uncertain ' but by any measure - including the measurable data of the recent so-called hiatus - it is probable. You will note that Hansen had the ethics and humility to preface his predictions with this qualifying statement:

Until now, scientists have been cautious about attributing rising global temperatures of recent years to the predicted global warming caused by pollutants in the atmosphere, known as the ''greenhouse effect.'' But today Dr. James E. Hansen of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration told a Congressional committee that it was 99 percent certain that the warming trend was not a natural variation but was caused by a buildup of carbon dioxide and other artificial gases in the atmosphere.

Dr. Hansen, a leading expert on climate change, said in an interview that there was no ''magic number'' that showed when the greenhouse effect was actually starting to cause changes in climate and weather. But he added, ''It is time to stop waffling so much and say that the evidence is pretty strong that the greenhouse effect is here.''

All so far proving on track.
But really what do you care? Your interest is in what your opinion is, not anyone elses. You should give that ethics thing a try. Stop trying to determine meaning outside of your competent ability and stick to what you know..... which is fuk all. If you had Hansens track record of successful prediction, you wouldn't still be day trading out of your mothers basement at age 50.
Sketch

Trad climber
H-ville
Jul 29, 2014 - 08:14am PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area

Jul 29, 2014 - 07:46am PT

That was for Scenario A, the highest emission forcing scenario.

Actual emissions have been closer to Scenario D. The best estimate for Scenario D was .17C per decade. Actual temp increase: .16C/decade.

Can you back ^this^ up?

Scenario A was described as "business as usual". How was that not the case?
Emissions of greenhouse gases grew 2.2% per year between 2000 and 2010. What was the growth rate for Scenario A?

What is Scenario D?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Jul 29, 2014 - 08:26am PT
If James (the kilt) Hansen had any success in predictions that have come to fruition it is based on fudged data to fit the scriptures of the church of climate modeling and holy weather rollers. It is high time that this psuedo religious babbling of forked tongues cease. No one among the sensory and mind intact is listening anymore.

The world is at the beginning of a distinct cooling trend, one in which the feeble effects of IR impeding, and natural I might add CO2 , greenhouse gases will be overpowered by cascading feedbacks induced by variations in old Sols output. Hansen Shmansen.

Get a new hobby Bruce. Knitting wollen sweaters might be in order and might soothe your surly disposition.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Jul 29, 2014 - 08:27am PT
You made the original claim, Sketch. You prove that we actually experienced Scenario A, business as usual.

Apply the same standards to yourself, that you demand from others, Sketch.

Hint: Did business as usual scenario include the collapse of the Soviet Union, The Kyoto protocol on CFC's, the growth of renewable energy sources, slower economic growth?
Messages 25921 - 25940 of total 27972 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