Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 26781 - 26800 of total 28251 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Sep 22, 2014 - 07:57pm PT
Yeah, a lot of long time residents out here prominently display Valley Trash bumper stickers. It's a local joke. A former high ranking member of the state senate first uttered that saying on the senate floor in Juneau. Within a few months he was indicted, run out of office, and narrowly avoided a long prison stretch.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:14pm PT
Here some REAL good old American FF Celebration. Over 250K attended over the 3 day event. Held annually right there in your own town DINGUS... Sacramento!





And this Celebration of FF's held just recently with a packed sold out crowd of over 100K.

Gotta love it...




Oh the roar and the smell.... nothing like it on this planet I tell ya!
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:22pm PT

>>>Big El Nino event in 1877-8.
Not hard to look up. Why don't you try it yourself sometime?
For some strange reason it doesn't disprove AGW.
Short lived. Has nothing to do with long term changes.
http://www.met.igp.gob.pe/publicaciones/2009/aceituno_et_al_2009.pdf
The last time we had a big “spike” was the 1998 event.
Today's climate is not a spike; it's a long term trend.


//tc: "We have a WINNER! Bingo and Precisely.
Just as it did in 1998 where it was the primary driving/forcing factor that year in setting the record for "Highest Temperature" in recorded history.
How about this year and this month in particular... another El Nino event is kicking in. The Pacific equatorial SST's have risen significantly the past six to eight weeks. As have the Kelvin Waves that have flowed in from the Indian Ocean transporting the warm currents. ENSO forcing is playing a NATURAL part in kicking up the Global Surface Temps, again!! ENSO is a natural event. It is not triggered nor can it be attributed to anything that us HUMANS have done. Not one aspect. Just another reason to question this liberal bullshet agenda called CAGW!
Oh it's warming alright. As it has been for a longass time. But it has nothing to do with what humans have done. Maybe a small percentage of it has. But no where near what you all claim it has to support your liberal political ideology as exhibited by ALL you nutbags on this thread claiming it has in order to attempt to implement your way of life into society in general.
Now, along with my ENSO statement, goes the data below. Interesting to see how every ANNUAL RISE/SPIKE in temps throughout the "RECORD" was accompanied by an ENSO episode. And the dips by a "Nina" period."
rs: "I believe The Chief is right."//


This insight is truly fascinating!!!
It is such wonderful news to know that long term climate change is caused by El Nino.
This theory simply must be published in climate journals.
They will be stunned and amazed by its brilliance.
And by the discovery of new energy source -
the oceans must have some kind of hidden exothermic reaction going on.
Is there a a patent on this yet?!

you could try taking a statistics course,
but better yet write your own new book on the subject.
Title it "Selective Statistics" and it will surely win a Nobel prize for such astounding and groundbreaking work!



The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:26pm PT
Nice try Splater. Sorry.

Your dull and almost nill insight into the Big Picture is no different than your herd brothers here on this thread.

Take off them blinders.
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:30pm PT
http://www.thepiratescove.us/2014/09/22/if-all-you-see-1260/
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:40pm PT
Oh self taught wisest leader of all statisticians, smarter than thousands of scientists,
where is your patent on this new ocean energy source?
jammer

climber
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:48pm PT
You climate deniers are a riot. Soooooo bad at arguing...

So, since it is feasible to have things like solar power and electric cars (as well as neato tablets, computers, and even - god forbid - cell phones) and I would still be able to enjoy basically the same quality of life, that is a real choice offered to me so I can choose to not be a "hypocrite" without having to go back to a pre-industrial life style? Right?

Also, our wonderful market is clearly flexible enough to have brought about this change, since so many people would like to see it, right? Right?

Or is it dumbass legislation voted in by dumbass people which actively perpetuates the status quo? Legislation which takes land away from rural Americans and gives it to energy development corporations so that dumbassses in cities can drive jacked up 4wd's, all the while purportedly sticking up for the American way as they shop for industrially created food in their local wal-mart.



The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:48pm PT
And the folks over in Sweden, Poland and Russia Celebrate every weekend during periods of Global Cooling known as ... Winter.


The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:56pm PT
Even Splater made you in less than 3 posts.

Bullshet. I whacked his azz in one Post. Dipshet Mental.




And this is especially for you DIPSHETAZZFACEMENTAL!


Something you do here on this thread regularly.... VOOOM BOOOOOM BOOOOM!









But these celebrations take the prize for the largest amount of C02 emitted into the atmosphere in the shortest amount of time....



jammer

climber
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:03pm PT


^^^

LOL...denier Karma?

I wonder if they would have as many crashes if they drove electric cars? Perhaps they are getting what they asked for, and should somehow be MORE like whitey?*































































*I love auto racing and hope and pray they can make electric go carts or something that I can enjoy when I'm older :)
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:07pm PT
climate change would allow the maple syrup industry to expand north

http://www.pressprogress.ca/en/post/stephen-harper-cool-climate-change
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 22, 2014 - 09:09pm PT
And allow for year round Denier Celebrations such as this one....

Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Sep 23, 2014 - 12:44am PT
repost from Sept 21, since the formatting is screwed up on that page.

That Koonin editorial in the WSJ has a point that Climate science is not settled. However it goes way overboard in its claims of uncertainty. Koonin buys into so much of the denier propaganda that his conclusion is warped into a position that little action is needed.


“Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.”

The entire premise here is WRONG. We wouldn't be having this discussion and the issue would not exist if the predictions were for a SMALL change. 1-2% of what? Greenhouse effect is measured in additional net Watts/sq meter. Writing it as a percent of some unknown is a way to make it small. Also the effects are not just going to end in 2050. "Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/


“A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.”

This paragraph is quite misleading on how much it underplays what we do know: that the ocean temps are going up by a lot, as is dissolved CO2 & acidity level.


“• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.

That is only 1/3 true: Natural variability is TEMPORARILY enough to counteract surface temps, but ocean warming and ice melting continue to RISE due to the heat imbalance.


“Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.”

WRONG. Models are now able to capture that slowing, and the whole episode shows that modeling is more and more accurate.


•” The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.”

Here he is guilty of focusing on a gap, an exception to the general trend, ignoring the forest for a few of the trees. Arctic sea ice has shrunk by much more than Antarctic sea ice has risen. Scientists have only recently focused on this particular issue, and are already in the process of figuring it out.


“ The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.”

Actually vapor has been directly measured, bypassing his misleading and incorrect conclusion.
As Ed posted, studies of water vapor so far have confirmed predictions that it will increase and amplify the CO2 greenhouse effect. More reading:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5875/518.short
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/025210
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html
a study that focuses on local exceptions to the general pattern:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012442/full
but more papers say those local exceptions do not change the global trend: “Clausius–Clapeyron scaling is directly evaluated using an invariant distribution of monthly-mean relative humidity, giving a rate of 7.4% K − 1 for global-mean water vapor. There are deviations from Clausius–Clapeyron scaling of zonal-mean column water vapor in the tropics and mid-latitudes, but they largely cancel in the global mean. A purely thermodynamic scaling based on a saturated troposphere gives a higher global rate of 7.9% K − 1. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/025207

“Robust and physically understandable responses of the global atmospheric water cycle to a warming climate are presented. By considering interannual responses to changes in surface temperature (T), observations and AMIP5 simulations agree on an increase in column integrated water vapor at the rate 7 %/K (in line with the Clausius–Clapeyron equation) and of precipitation at the rate 2–3 %/K (in line with energetic constraints).”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-012-9213-z


“ Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.”

As with most data, there is not one measurement that is good for representing the past and one measurement that is good for the present and future.
The rate has gone up in recent decades. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/#seaLevel
The general rate from 1870 to 1930 was 9mm / decade.
From 1930 to 1995 it was 24mm / decade.
Since then the rate has been 32 mm /decade.


“• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.”

That is incorrect. Climate predictions now have less uncertainty/sensitivity than previously.

"..open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.
Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies...”

Politicians overall are incapable of understanding all the nuances, and will always rely on a summary, whether it is an accurate one from the IPCC, or a biased one from former fossil fuel executives.
Koonin is clearly trying to create more doubt than actually exists in order to get policy leaders to ignore the consensus.


“While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem. We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. “

Obviously climatology will continue to advance. He is again way over the top with opinionated pronouncements like “decidedly unsettled.”. If it's so unsettled, why are IPCC summaries more certain than ever, after 25 years. (again his unbacked conclusion about climate uncertainty is incorrect.)


“A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.”

Basically what he wants is a George Bush type committee to rewrite all science reports so they conform to Wall St Journal opinions. Red Team reviews – Ridiculous. What would be useful is for Congress to start to read anything at all about science, instead of listening and taking payoffs from ALEC lobbyists.
The main misinformation source going on for the last 20 years is the campaign conducted by deniers.


“Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures. But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.”

He seems to be quite unaware of the extent of possible positive “no regrets” policies, in order to hint at his goal to delay any policy decisions for decades until it's too late. He should read the article Ed posted and learn something about how much we are subsidizing fossil fuel external costs, and how initial carbon taxes could simply make up for those subsidies, not even counting the external costs of global warming. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14174.pdf


“Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future.”

Any serious discussion is already doing that, so his advice is unneeded. Also unneeded is an exaggeration of uncertainty with the goal of delaying sound policy. Just like tobacco “scientists” who for decades claimed uncertainty in order to deny their knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking.

Koonin has connections to those who deny the consensus and suggest that we just adapt to any climate change. The quick internet reposts & links to Koonin don't actually examine it, since that takes more time, and tends to happen after the media moment is past. But one obvious question is why he is posting this article at the WSJ, which has a long definitive history as a biased denier outlet? Couldn't he even get the APS to publish it?
Most likely he was just in a hurry to stop progress at this week's UN climate talks.


Or maybe even his buddies at the APS like Lindzen disagreed?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/02/like-lambs-to-slaughter.html
son of stan

Boulder climber
San Jose CA
Sep 23, 2014 - 12:54am PT
2014 world crop harvests are all at record levels. Stupid CO2 maniacs are
embarrassed by this fact.
crankster

Trad climber
Sep 23, 2014 - 06:47am PT
The Rude Pundit gets it...

Climate March: If All the Trees Fell in the Forest...
So 310,000 or so people marched in New York City yesterday, calling for action of some kind to address climate change. It was an officially sanctioned, widely-advertised, well-funded protest. To all who participated, awesome. If you've never been to a giant march before, it's bracing in a way that few things are. You are surrounded by people who believe the same as you, you learn that you are not alone, and you discover a few new things, like how to argue your views and that, however radical you thought you were, drum circles are f%%king idiotic and put the f%%kin' things away already. Tolerance only goes so far, and someone's gonna end up with a giant puppet up his ass.

Of course, the people who were there felt amazing about it. How could you not? And, of course, it was barely covered by the news networks. Maybe if a dozen f&&knuts wearing colonial drag and open-carrying machine guns while riding on their Rascal scooters had been part of it, it would have been 24/7, motherf%%kers, 24/7, with a gddamned countdown clock leading up to it. The most extensive coverage was from Al-Jazeera America, The Guardian, and Democracy Now, and two of those aren't even from this country originally.

The Rude Pundit will admit feeling more than a little cynical about the march. If it's the start of some sustained action, groovy. Certainly, today's "Flood Wall Street" protest and semi-occupation are a good deal more radical but those are still getting all the attention of a flea fart in a hurricane.

And that's because why bother, huh? Especially when the march is endorsed by, for example, the Climate Group, which counts as its members Duke Energy, known for coal ash and pollution, and, for everyone flooding Wall Street right now, Goldman Sachs. Yes, it does do some good for the environment, but it does so with the tacit approval of those it should be dismantling. It's like if Batman asked the Joker if it's ok if he takes down Mr. Freeze.

The other problem is that, for the most part, Americans fall into two camps: Don't give a fat monkey f**k about climate change or don't understand it, don't believe it, and won't lift a f##king finger to help. Change a chunk of minds there and we've got a chance. The Rude Pundit couldn't help but think that if everyone who spent money on signs and plane and bus tickets and more had pooled that for ads in congressional campaigns across the country, the effect might have been even greater.

You wanna do something about climate change other than take a nice walk on a pretty nice, if a bit humid, day? You better make sure that the House turns Democratic and then you better make sure that the Senate doesn't have more than 40 dumbf*#ks on global warming. If you don't vote climate denialists out, then f%%k it, we're done here.

To go further, frankly, Chris Hedges is right when he said, as he did in August, "Play by the rules and we lose." Or as he said this past Saturday, "We will have to speak in the language of ... revolution. We will have to carry out acts of civil disobedience that seek to cripple the mechanisms of corporate power. The corporate elites, blinded by their lust for profit and foolish enough to believe they can protect themselves from climate change, will not veer from our path towards ecocide unless they are forced from power. And this means the beginning of a titanic clash between our corporate masters and ourselves."

But even that is dreaming. Right now, the corporate/government state is so entrenched in silencing real dissent, real revolutionary voices, that anyone who tried genuine radical action would immediately be punished. And everyone else will get so distracted when the iPhone 7, 8, 9, infinity comes out that they won't notice that they are wading through water or walking in deserts that used to be our cities to get to the Apple store first.

Frankly, the bigger news might be that the Rockefeller Brothers Fund plans to divest itself of anything fossil fuel-related, to the tune of $50 billion. That's real money, even by oil company standards, and it might be a sign that the way to attack the climate change problem is, as ever, to follow the (heaps of) money.
The Chief

climber
Laughing at all you angry blinded asshat Sheep
Sep 23, 2014 - 06:55am PT
To go further, frankly, Chris Hedges is right when he said, as he did in August, "Play by the rules and we lose." Or as he said this past Saturday, "We will have to speak in the language of ... revolution. We will have to carry out acts of civil disobedience that seek to cripple the mechanisms of corporate power. The corporate elites, blinded by their lust for profit and foolish enough to believe they can protect themselves from climate change, will not veer from our path towards ecocide unless they are forced from power. And this means the beginning of a titanic clash between our corporate masters and ourselves."




RFK, Jr.: Climate Skeptics 'Should Be at the Hague with All the Other War Criminals'


Absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in philosophy and ideology. NONE!




Oh the HYPOCRISY!
Sketch

Trad climber
Not FortMental
Sep 23, 2014 - 06:55am PT
Splater

climber
Grey Matter

Sep 23, 2014 - 12:44am PT
repost from Sept 21, since the formatting is screwed up on that page.

Screwed up?

That's just Fortmental doing his thing.

Thank you, Fortmental.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Sep 23, 2014 - 07:21am PT
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/stewart-blows-up-on-gop-over-climate-change-pushing-a-million-pounds-of-idiot-up-a-mountain/
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Sep 23, 2014 - 07:24am PT
Absolutely NO DIFFERENCE in philosophy and ideology. NONE!

I don't see a gun in RFK's hand.




Oh the HYPOCRISY!

Ah the Peasant's Lament. His Betters are hypocrites OH MY GOD!

DMT
Malemute

Ice climber
great white north
Sep 23, 2014 - 07:45am PT
a good overview:
http://www.globalissues.org/issue/178/climate-change-and-global-warming

World Bank Unveils Major Global Support for Carbon Pricing
http://www.globalissues.org/news/2014/09/23/20068

2014 GLOBAL INVESTOR STATEMENT ON CLIMATE CHANGE
http://www.iigcc.org/files/publication-files/2014_GLOBAL_INVESTOR_STATEMENT_ON_CLIMATE_CHANGE.pdf

Major corporations not only recognize climate-related regulatory risks and opportunities, but also are proactively planning for them and are outpacing their governments in thinking ahead
http://www.cdp.net/CDPResults/global-price-on-carbon-report-2014.pdf
Messages 26781 - 26800 of total 28251 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