Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6841 - 6860 of total 26688 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 12:05am PT
Thats ok, take your time.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 12:07am PT
If it helps, go practice in front of a mirror
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 12:09am PT
Ok this is getting a little silly. I'm starting to think you don't like me
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 12:14am PT
whoa - I couldn't hold it in any longer. almost had a little accident there!





Did I miss anything?
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 12:19am PT
Rangers and Bruins tomorrow. should be good eh?
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 12:32am PT
The malarkey is making all your assumptions on that stupid graph that is completely misleading

Stupid & misleading graph?

by the way knott if i was capable of chalenging the veracity, accuracy or relevance of your graph I would, but I'm no more capable than yourself.

Refute it. Post current Climate Science models that align with real time observed temps. Please.
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 12:44am PT
This is a "draft" from the soon to be released IPCC AR5 concerning the model/s disparities and subsequent correction/s ("changes"). Look closely and even the IPCC observed values indicate ZERO warming since 1998.

Oh the horror of it all.



"Estimated changes in the observed globally and annually averaged surface temperature (in C) since 1990 compared with the range of projections from the previous IPCC assessments. Values are aligned to match the average observed value at 1990. Observed global annual temperature change, relative to 19611990, is shown as black squares (NASA (updated from Hansen et al., 2010; data available at http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/);; NOAA (updated from Smith et al., 2008; data available at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/anomalies.html#grid);; and the UK Hadley Centre (Morice et al., 2012; data available at http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcrut4/); reanalyses). Whiskers indicate the 90% uncertainty range of the Morice et al. (2012) dataset from measurement and sampling, bias and coverage (see Appendix for methods). The coloured shading shows the projected range of global annual mean near surface temperature change from 1990 to 2015 for models used in FAR (Scenario D and business-as-usual), SAR (IS92c/1.5 and IS92e/4.5), TAR (full range of TAR Figure 9.13(b) based on the GFDL_R15_a and DOE PCM parameter settings), and AR4 (A1B and A1T). The 90% uncertainty estimate due to observational uncertainty and internal variability based on the HadCRUT4 temperature data for 1951-1980 is depicted by the grey shading. Moreover, the publication years of the assessment reports and the scenario design are shown."
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 12:59am PT
OK I'll bite.

The first one was for sure Jackson Pollock and the last one I'm going to guess Picasso from his cubism period.

Wuttid I win?


BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 19, 2013 - 01:03am PT
What about all the billions of engines in our cars, trains, and planes, not only burning and giving off CO2 gasses, but also running at 200+ degrees

This is an interesting and fun question, but straight out of my cap, I would have to say no. Engines and stuff like that do not contribute noticeably to the climate. Look at a traffic jam in downtown Manhattan, or a freeway in LA.

The black color of the pavement absorbs a lot more energy and re-emits the radiation in the infrared (I hate using the word "heat.")

We all know this as the "heat island" effect. This has been studied for many decades and is nothing new. It is accounted for in models. The models are getting pretty good these days. The big users of supercomputers are the NSA, the Weather Service, modeling nuclear explosions (there is a test ban), etc. The petroleum geophysics industry used to use a huge amount of computing power to process 3D seismic volumes, but I'm not aware of how big of a number guzzler it is today.

Science is blind. If anyone tries to fudge anything, it will be discovered quickly if it is noisy (like cold fusion or faster than light particles). If it is not super important, bad science may fester, but a paper that refutes somebody else's hypothesis is just as important as the original hypothesis.

I know guys who take great pleasure in burying colleagues' work. There are numerous papers like that. Nobody holds a grudge (in "theory").
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 01:10am PT
Science is blind. If anyone tries to fudge anything, it will be discovered quickly if it is noisy

Clearly exhibited by the IPCC AR5's admission in their modeling "changes" as well as their own "observed" temp values that indicate ZERO warming since 1998.



I wonder how many millions of dollars it took for the IPCC to come clean.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 01:11am PT
I've taken time off from this addiction of arguing with fellow idiots on the internet.


no you havn't


rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 19, 2013 - 01:14am PT
Okay, let's start at the beginning of our limits of indirect observation-The Big Bang. At the point of the beginning, the future universe was contained in an infinitesimally small point, a singularity, possessing all future matter, energy and an unevolved set of properties we now have partially identified through millenia of observation and have partially codified in science ,and described by mathematics, as physical laws. The universe is estimated to be 13.8 billion of what we currently experience and describe as years.Is that correct? What came before? Let's not hear internet descriptions, let's hear your understanding and words.

Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 01:19am PT
You've been gone that long practicing in front of a mirror and that is what you've come up with?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 19, 2013 - 01:43am PT
Answer and expand on the description. Their are infinite degrees of nuance to add to my simple description and question. Let's see how precise, accurate, and briefly any of you learned men can describe to us this point of beginning.
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 02:01am PT
They can't R-Sumner. They of course will insist that they can. Tell you how and where it all began with 1000's of mathematical equations etc. But fact is, like their climate models, complete propaganda and spews of malarkey.

The world is not flat. Yes. That is a proven fact. Manmade global warming. Not proven and comes no where near the proven fact of a round planet earth. They repeatedly use this example. Again, their insistence in certainty that humans are to blame for all this is fantasy at best. Many are taking it to the bank though. Gotta give em credit for that. Scam, farce, indeed.

Di Vinci is laughing in his tomb I tell ya. Laughing uncontrollably at the total ignorance of the millions that believe em.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
May 19, 2013 - 03:50am PT

Let's not hear internet descriptions, let's hear your understanding and words.

The big bang idea is brought about from the assumption that the Universes are expanding. Thus, an expansion from one point. Infinitesimal or not, where did the collaboration for this one point come from? And what caused the Bang? (movement). So there must have been something before the big bang started. An end of another time. My body and mind can understand this. But my Spirit understands an Eternity
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 08:55am PT
Ok Mr. Cono, I will bite your ignorant troll. The IPCC utilized the observed global temps from HadCrut 3&4 (Met Office) and not NOAA as you indicated. You Amerikans believe you are the only ones with reporting stations? Humor me you have done. Ha. I would suggest that you continue posting as you have indeed proven my point of how fabrication of propaganda is the key to the "alarmists" cause.

Now look carefully after you wipe your face off of all that sheep feces that you waddle in. You will in fact see the same observed temp values that are indicated in the previous AR5 graph of "changes" that I posted. Huh. Amazing what happens when one looks at the real data and not the "fudged/doctored".



Year/HadCRUT4 inC (95% confidence range)/HadCRUT3 in C (95% confidence range)/NCDC in C/GISS in C
Year HadCrut4 C HadCrut3 C NCDC GISS
2011 0.40 (0.31 to 0.50) 0.35 ( 0.25 to 0.44) 0.40 0.44
2010 0.54 (0.45 to 0.63) 0.50 ( 0.40 to 0.59) 0.53 0.56
2009 0.49 (0.39 to 0.59) 0.44 ( 0.34 to 0.54) 0.46 0.49
2008 0.38 (0.30 to 0.47) 0.31 ( 0.21 to 0.41) 0.38 0.37
2007 0.48 (0.39 to 0.57) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.46 0.51
2006 0.49 (0.40 to 0.58) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.46 0.48
2005 0.53 (0.44 to 0.63) 0.47 ( 0.37 to 0.58) 0.52 0.55
2004 0.44 (0.35 to 0.53) 0.43 ( 0.33 to 0.53) 0.45 0.41
2003 0.50 (0.41 to 0.59) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.56) 0.49 0.49
2002 0.49 (0.40 to 0.58) 0.46 ( 0.36 to 0.55) 0.48 0.50
2001 0.43 (0.35 to 0.52) 0.40 ( 0.30 to 0.50) 0.42 0.42
2000 0.29 (0.20 to 0.38) 0.24 ( 0.14 to 0.33) 0.30 0.28
1999 0.30 (0.21 to 0.39) 0.26 ( 0.17 to 0.36) 0.32 0.26
1998 0.52 (0.44 to 0.61) 0.52 ( 0.42 to 0.61) 0.50 0.51
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/monitoring/climate/surface-temperature

Obvious that the values from the Met Office, NCDC & GISS indicate ZERO warming since 1998. Refute that Mr. Cono.




It is "Di Vinci", as in deado. Yes, he is laughing at you.

EDIT: Added MET OFFICE, NCDC and GISS annual temp values.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
May 19, 2013 - 09:48am PT
"Knotts" is a prime example of why most climate "skeptics" are not. He's a fervent believer, an avatar on a mission, apparently created two days ago for the purpose of copy-and-pasting stuff from denier websites to this thread on Supertopo. Not bright enough, it seems, to read or understand the actual science (even the abstracts) underneath, but that doesn't matter, he's anonymous and has an endless supply of material.
Randisi

Social climber
Dalian, Liaoning
May 19, 2013 - 10:04am PT
So all of this is just an elaborate scheme thought up by the climate scientists to make themselves rich...

Makes sense.

I was wondering where they got all that money for their limos and yachts.
Knotts

Mountain climber
State of Reality
May 19, 2013 - 10:12am PT
Mr. Chiloe, please refute the observed real temp values from the three reporting climate/met organizations that I indicated in my last post. Do not play the distraction game that you and the rest consistently resort to when called on your platform of scam propaganda. The numbers above indicate the truth of ZERO warming since 1998 and the reality of your professional global industrial hoax. Taking it to the bank. Indeed.
Messages 6841 - 6860 of total 26688 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