Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2013 - 09:30pm PT
|
We can debate about the degree of the above and if human have anything to do with it.
It will be a short debate if the judges know anything about stable isotope geochemistry...
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2013 - 10:32pm PT
|
Amazingly, the seasons following the dry events, the snowfall amounts were considerably more than the average amounts.
Amazingly, you are attempting to build a correlation with very limited data and even less intelligence... which makes it all the more entertaining when you pretend to discredit the GCMs.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2013 - 11:01pm PT
|
Anyone else care to explain what constitutes a valid (statistically significant) correlation to this fuking moran? I've got better things to do.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2013 - 11:09pm PT
|
Anyone else care to explain what constitutes a valid correlation to this fuking moran?
Troll, troll, troll your boat merrily down the stream...
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 12:56am PT
|
I see you guys spent the whole day attacking the Chief. Well congratulations, but are you going to apologize to him when this phony science of CAGW eventually crashes and burns when confronted with the real scientific explanations for the ever changing climate. Another little hint, it won't take a manufactured consensus either, just actual testable and verified predictive capability.
Bob, glad you could join us. California needs legions of applied scientists to engineer the solutions of the problems preventing a bright future, not legions of study buddies always screaming doom. Many dams, especially in the northern reaches of the state ,are slated for destruction and behind each is a reservoir. And yes as the Chief calls for-Desal plants on the coast.They also need to harvest and produce their own energy.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 01:09am PT
|
yep, and we will all apologize to the catholic church and renounce Galileo/Copernicus/Aristarchus when the Earth ends up being the center of the universe.
Does it get any more idiotic?
(Chaff, you are the one that brought up a supposed correlation... which doesn't exist btw... but you are too stupid to realize it)
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 01:16am PT
|
Christ you guys are the church. You are just so dazzled by your own brilliance you can,t separate fact from fiction.
Bruce, divergence will increase and truth will fill the void.A lot of it is already out their but is being refused recognition.
Tired, retiring for the night.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 03:20am PT
|
For fuk sakes, you don't even know what a correlation is, do you?
correlation: a relation that exists between two measurements (like a dry year and an above average year) which vary in a way (like one following "immediately" after the other) that is not expected by chance alone (like "all" dry years being followed by a wet year), suggesting an underlying connection.
So you are claiming that your impression that
immediately after them "dry" seasons BobH posted, all were followed by heavier than normal snowfall season
is caused by ENSO which has a periodicity on the order of 3-7 years, and -AO, which has no regular periodicity?
What about the low snow pack 1924-1931? There was a major ENSO in 1925, and -AO in 1924, 1926, 1929, and 1931... yet still lower than average snowfall for 8 years.
How about 1997-1998, the strongest ENSO on record followed by a -AO? Barely average snow pack the following year.
I'm sure those don't count... for some reason.
Hey, if average annual snow pack at Donner is 142" and the total precipitation recorded at Donner for WY2012 was less than 25", doesn't that make 2012 a dry year? So, since ALL dry years are IMMEDIATELY followed by above average years, clearly 2013 is an above average year... despite being below average.
Precipitation data taken from USGS 391930120165301 DONNER LK PRECIP GAGE NR TRUCKEE CA.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 10:29am PT
|
Sorry Bruce, that's just me... I just can't get enough of the morans...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2013 - 12:04pm PT
|
... are you going to apologize to him when this phony science of CAGW eventually crashes and burns when confronted with the real scientific explanations for the ever changing climate.
Actually, I don't expect the deniers to apologize when the climate goes south. I don't even expect them to confront the reason why they were so bull-headed to begin with, and that is a sad thing.
When your preachers are shown to have no cloths, you will just imagine them to be fully clothed and carry on as usual, because as it's been shown in the past few thousand posts here, deniers are unable to alter their views, even when shown in black and white that they've been mislead.
Amazing what million$ in propaganda paid for by the fossil fuel industry can do to a few "good thinkers."
And Rick, we have every reason to call The Chief an imbecile. Every day there are scores of posts from him that prove it. Mr. Ther-Is-No-Drought because there is still a patch of snow somewhere in the high country.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 01:32pm PT
|
Did you guys listen to that presentation from Murray Salby i posted a few days back. Did you read the Lu paper, the Usokin paper, the Shapiro et al paper,the Penn and livingston paper, the recent works of Svensmark, or the recent works of Trenberth trying to identify the missing natural negative feedbacks,or have you read the approximately 50% of the papers Ed has posted that don't have a CO2 only forcing bias.A lot of the work trying to identify and quantify the natural forcings that tower over CO2's feeble signal is being done and it is your bias that doesn't allow any of it to register between your ears.
Did you know their are upright trees 600 feet below Tahoe's present surface that grew their around 1000 a.d. during a mega drought? Did you know that nevada's Lake Lahontan was, at many times in the comparatively recent prehistoric past, larger than the great Lakes and over 1100 feet deep? Did you know that it has ebbed lower than it's present stand (remnants Pyramid Lake, Walker Lake, Topaz Lake) and rebounded to full high stand many times?Did you know the only constant in climate is change, and far beyond the little swings you are now crying doom about?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:06pm PT
|
Did you guys listen to that presentation from Murray Salby i posted a few days back
I looked at the last 10 minutes but didn't understand what he did when he talked about the integral of the temperature but I am sure that you can help me out.
The first thing I noticed where that he talked about the integral of temperature but the caption for the blue dotted line in the figure was something else. Did he made a mistake with the caption or showed the wrong figure?
The second thing is about the integral of temperature. As you of course know the integral of a signal depends on where you put the zero level for that signal (what base line for the temperature anomaly is used in this case). One implication of this is that it is actually possibly in many cases to choose a zero level (baseline) such that the integral of that signal get a predetermined slope.
So my question is: What baseline did he use when he integrated the temperature and got the almost exact correspondence with the CO2 concentration?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:17pm PT
|
If CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?
Because it is the main component of climate change under the conditions that exist today but other components have been more important during other time periods.
It really shouldn't be that hard to understand that different mechanism can result in similar results.
If you and many more "skeptics" would learn the basics about dynamical systems you really wouldn't ask questions like the one above.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 02:30pm PT
|
If CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?
your question is honest and legitimate
the answer is because the LEVEL of CO2 in MUCH higher NOW than it was in the past, as in the rate of CO2 has accelerated, and we are quite certain the reason is human activity, industry emissions
the protective Ozone layer that shield this planet from the sun has also been thinned and weakened by human emission activity
pretty much everyone agrees we are in a warming period, and that humans had "something" to do with this
one debate at this time is to what degree humans contributed, relevant because IF we can lessen our involvement in the warming period then the obvious conclusion is that we can mitigate to some degree the obvious negative impact this is and will have on earth
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 03:30pm PT
|
Bruce, i havent been given an answer. CO2 has had many ups and downs in the past, NONE of which were contributed to by man.
Until the advent of the Industrial Age. And every attempt to lessen pollution has been fought tooth and nail by the polluters, who hate the thought of losing out on a few pennies of profit. Ergo, all this BS about man has no effect on the atmosphere.
Birds don't sh#t in their own nest. How come were not as smart as birds? Werner?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:13pm PT
|
Nothing there about the existance of arctic ice there Anderson.
I'll give you a hint again. The minimum age of the perennial arctic ice is considered to be 700K years old and it could be 4 million years old.
This is what you claimed:
if CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 04:34pm PT
|
What makes you ask questions with unproven assumptions then wonder why you don't get answers?
If CO2 IS the main component of climate change, then WHY in the past has it NOT done the same? Why did arctic ice melt under FAR less CO2?
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2013 - 05:02pm PT
|
"Our studies show that there are great natural variations in the amount of Arctic sea ice. The bad news is that there is a clear connection between temperature and the amount of sea ice. And there is no doubt that continued global warming will lead to a reduction in the amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic Ocean."
From the scientist that you quoted.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!