Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26441 - 26460 of total 28439 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 07:26am PT
Wow The Chief, you sure are proud of your graph, you posted it 5 times over the last couple of pages. Too bad you don't really understand what it represents:



Why did you pick less than 10 years of data? If you wanted to show a cooling trend, couldn't you just pick a month in the winter when the temperatures really plunge?



Fact is if this OBSERVED temp trend continues and is not interrupted for the next 10-15 years, it will clearly indicate Global Cooling. Per your own statement that 30 years of consistent weather/temps equals climate. Then we know how history will look back on your kind and all your AGW bs fear mongering eco-freak ideology.


And if the weather behaves like the models that are running on powerful servers predict, the ones run by scientists who actually know what they are doing, history will look back on your kind and wonder how we let you into the conversation for even a minute.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 07:42am PT
Credit: Malemute
Dr Richard Milne - Critical Thinking on Climate Change: Separating Skepticism from Denial
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gh9kDCuPuU8
at time 19:52

Credit: Malemute
ibid, time 25:04

Credit: Malemute
ibid, time 38:38

Credit: Malemute
ibid, time 40:46

Credit: Malemute
ibid, time 41:34

Credit: Malemute
ibid, time 57:24
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all the Sheep
Aug 15, 2014 - 08:46am PT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Perfect example of the ideology you and AGW eco-freak libtardos proliferate, MALNUTS. Thanks for clearly showing us, AGAIN, what this AGW stuff is all about.








k-man

Gym climber
SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Aug 15, 2014 - 07:26am PT
Too bad you don't really understand what it represents:





And if the weather behaves like the models that are running on powerful servers predict, the ones run by scientists who actually know what they are doing, history will look back on your kind and wonder how we let you into the conversation for even a minute.

I don't understand?




Then you state the ....

"Weather"

Priceless KMAN, utterly priceless.


You definitely are the AGW CLOWN CAR OWNER/OPERATOR.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 15, 2014 - 09:09am PT
First off Bruce, some of us have to get up in the morning to accomplish actual work. Second, your jabbering about taking Ed apart over straight line chicken scratching is not something I want or have the abilty to do. Instead I depend on his old school scientific ethic to occaisionally rise above his obvious bias to produce little gold nuggets of reality contrary to the alarmist narrative. He did so again last night with his three time series plot. The red line plot, the only one long enough (1975-2013) to represent climate versus weather variability according to the common thirty definition of average trends, clearly showed we are in a period of no significant change other than a very slight long term cooling. The only bone I had to pick was his criticism if The Chief over projecting a trend based on a ten year cooling period while defending the CAGW narrative for similar projections and the attempt to erase significance of "the pause".

Phule, your a damn fool. Look at Chiloes posted graphs fron a few days ago and see if it at all clear who he originally ascribed authorship to before you run off at the mouth.


Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 15, 2014 - 09:36am PT
How well does that red line from 1975 to 2013 describe the temperature anomaly time series, rick?

Can you state how you come to your conclusion?

You look "by eye" but what does your eye see... try to describe it.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 15, 2014 - 09:38am PT
your jabbering about taking Ed apart over straight line chicken scratching is not something I want or have the abilty to do. Instead I depend on his old school scientific ethic to occaisionally rise above his obvious bias to produce little gold nuggets of reality contrary to the alarmist narrative.

You really just don't get it do you? If you have no ability of discernment, you have no idea whether he is serving you gold nuggets or dog food. He could be pissing in your face and for all you know its raining out. You can't peg his narative as alarmist or animist. Thats why your only available tool is intuition. For all your ability to deliberate, Ed is speaking in tongues. Thats why Phule is mocking you with Latin. When Ed speaks, its all latin to you.

The moment you opened your flapper to proclaim " you're right, I don't know shit" you immediately remove yourself from the list of credible critic. All you can do is as you put it so wisely last night " Observe and add nothing".

But that really is what burns your ass isn't it? That is why you so gleefully identify with the Chuff, one of the few people even less qualified to comment as yourself. Malemute is right - the real thing going down with you guys is that literally you can't handle the fact that you are cut out of the picture purely on terms of your ignorance. That is the Red State ethic - preservation of self esteem takes presedent over any intelligent decision making process, all on the grounds that such process does not include you.

Pure childish butt hurt
raymond phule

climber
Aug 15, 2014 - 10:04am PT

Phule, your a damn fool. Look at Chiloes posted graphs fron a few days ago and see if it at all clear who he originally ascribed authorship to before you run off at the mouth.

Yes, it was clear. It was just to look at the URL. He also told you twice that it was a noaa graph and that you should look at the URL. What else should he have done? Is it really necessary to show the URL in quotes or similar so that you can see the link instead of showing the jpg file?

Even the chief used the same graph with the noaa url. You can ask him how he found the source of the file.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 10:27am PT
Solar Geoengineering: Weighing Costs of Blocking the Sun’s Rays
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/solar_geoengineering_weighing_costs_of_blocking_the_suns_rays/2727/

we can act now
OR
"desperate times call for desperate measures"

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/scientist-david-keith-on-slowing-global-warming-with-geoengineering-a-934359.html



What is amusingly tragic is that the knucklehead deniers on this thread are trying to push us to the point where we will need to use these last ditch efforts, which are both costly and risky.
But that's what stupid people do.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 15, 2014 - 10:52am PT
Before getting back to concentrating on my days task ahead ( job) of installing slate below the water table of the front of my now roofed and totally roughed in ready for insulation 2000 s.f. deluxe cabin in the sky overlooking the canary of the local coal mine, the receding or advancing matanuska glacier, I'll take a moment to again elaborate on what Ed's red line means. The line is the average july-august temp anomaly, ever so slightly negative, of the 38 year period from 1975-2013. This period definitely qualifies as a trend of climate being it exceeds the 30 years of an average of weather accepted as the definition of climate as previously represented by Ed and many others on this thread. If it is correct it can be checked by combining and averaging his green and purple plot of weather temp anomalies over a 13 and 25 year period. His red line result is reproducible with enough information provided. In short science showing the fact that there is no global warming here over the majority of the supposed rapid increase in manmade airborne CO2. Got it, good, now perhaps you can concentrate on what the taxpayers are paying you to do.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:07am PT
The line is the average temp anomaly, ever so slightly negative, of the 38 year period from 1975-2013.

which is a misunderstanding of the anomaly definition...

the "anomaly" is a difference of the observed temperature with some average temperature over a period of time. The absolute value of the anomaly doesn't contain any special information.

Say I choose to calculate the anomaly with respect to the average temperature over that same period of time, 1975-2014, by definition, the average of the anomaly will be zero.

That the plot I showed has a slightly negative anomaly is indicative of the difference between this time period and the time period over which the anomaly was defined. You can dig that out of the NOAA data webpage, but there isn't any information there.

What is interesting is the change of the anomaly with time. The obvious feature of this plot is that the early years are lower than the red line, and the later years are higher than the red line...

say you bisect the time and take 1975-1994 and 1995-2014

the number of points above the red line for these two periods are:

5 for the period from 1975-1994
14 for the period from 1995-2014

if this was random, you'd have expected half of the points to be above, and half below... that would be 10 above for each period.

Now we have a very slight shift, for the 1975-1994 we saw 4 above and expected 10 and for 1995-2014 we saw 14 above and expected 10.

This is an indication that the temperature anomaly is increasing over that period of time.

Credit: Ed Hartouni
raymond phule

climber
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:12am PT

I'll take a moment to again elaborate on what Ed's red line means. The line is the average july-august temp anomaly, ever so slightly negative, of the 38 year period from 1975-2013. This period definitely qualifies as a trend of climate being it exceeds the 30 years of an average of weather accepted as the definition of climate as previously represented by Ed and many others on this thread. If it is correct it can be checked by combining and averaging his green and purple plot of weather temp anomalies over a 13 and 25 year period. His red line result is reproducible with enough information provided. In short science showing the fact that there is no global warming here over the majority of the supposed rapid increase in manmade airborne CO2. Got it, good, now perhaps you can concentrate on what the taxpayers are paying you to do.

This is not even funny. How can someone be so clueless about something and at the same time believe that he knows it?

How is it possibly to draw that conclusion from Ed's graph?

It is of course not hard to understand that rick believes everything that his blogs feeds him when he manage to see what he wants in Ed's graph. It doesn't even need to be any connection at all with the line that he thinks is the trend and the actual data.
dave729

Trad climber
Western America
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:16am PT
Record Cold Summer Of 2014. Tree Leaves Changing Color Middle Of August!

http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/08/15/experts-cold-summer-leads-to-changing-leaves-in-august/

Do you believe those Final-Fantasy-global-warming-papers or your own eyes?




raymond phule

climber
Aug 15, 2014 - 11:23am PT

Do you believe those Final-Fantasy-global-warming-papers or your own eyes?

Unless you travel all over the world all the time is it kind of useless to believe your own eyes on a global matter.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:00pm PT
Regardless of your back pedaling over definition, You can draw no conclusion of climate trends by short term weather variation- your own words from earlier posts on this thread. Your short term uptick emphasis is ridiculous. Your red line representing true climate trends over the 38 year period stands regardless of NOAA"s baseline or non baseline. Nice try, but no cigar senor.
raymond phule

climber
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:08pm PT

Regardless of your back pedaling over definition, You can draw no conclusion of climate trends by short term weather variation- your own words from earlier posts on this thread. Your short term uptick emphasis is ridiculous. Your red line representing true climate trends over the 38 year period stands regardless of NOAA"s baseline or non baseline. Nice try, but no cigar senor.

It is just sad.

The red line is not a trend which should be obvious if you look at the data.
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:15pm PT

Three different emissions pathways to give 67% chance of limiting global warming to 2ºC (From the Copenhagen Diagnosis, Figure 22)

The graph shows three different scenarios, each with the same cumulative emissions (i.e. the area under each curve is the same). If we get emissions to peak next year (the green line), it’s a lot easier to keep cumulative emissions under control. If we delay, and allow emissions to continue to rise until 2020, then we can forget about 80% reductions by 2050. We’ll have set ourselves the much tougher task of 100% emissions reductions by 2040!

http://www.easterbrook.ca/steve/2010/01/bill-gates-is-very-wrong/

above diagram is explained in this video


Professor Somerville dubbed this the ski slope diagram with the 2011 line the bunny slope, 2015 the intermediate and 2020 a double black diamond.



more scientific videos at
http://www.thegreatstory.org/climate.html
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:25pm PT


Dr. Marshall Shepherd compared a temperature rise of 2 degrees C for the earth
to
a temperature rise of 2 degrees C for a human.
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:50pm PT
the definition of anomaly is not back peddling, you don't know what it is and are very confused... so you make statements based on your confusion which are idiotic.

But lets extend our averaging analysis to the times back to 1896 using the same data set..

Credit: Ed Hartouni

here the blue line is the average of all temperatures... once again, if you look at the number of points above the blue line from 1896 to 1955 you find 21 when you expect 30 (if they were random and independent of time) while as from 1956-2014 you find 36. So we our observation looking at the more recent time from 1975-2014 seems to be the same.

I've drawn on the averages from 1896-1905 in green, from 1895-1935 in red and 1905-1935 in purple, which are the same time periods but on the early side of the graph...

notice that these are all below the average over all the data, and in reverse order as those at the late side of the graph...

it seems that the anomaly is increasing with time, now over roughly 120 years, 4 times the period of the 1975-2014 time period

this is a very simple analysis, anyone who can average can repeat it... all you have to do is down load the data and do the calculations.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Aug 15, 2014 - 12:56pm PT
Malemute - Awesome posts!

It's now 4.5 yrs later since that 2010 graph, now we are facing the 2015 curve.
FortMentäl

Social climber
Albuquerque, NM
Aug 15, 2014 - 01:11pm PT
this is a very simple analysis, anyone who can average can repeat it...

No it's not. It's a Jedi mind trick, designed to confuse and anger the Australopithecus mind.
Messages 26441 - 26460 of total 28439 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