Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 6981 - 7000 of total 28268 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 26, 2013 - 12:38pm PT
How would we know? For that matter, how would you know?


from Svensmarks wiki page:

Debate updates [edit]

More recently, Laken et al (2012)[30] found that new high quality satellite data show that the El_Niño–Southern_Oscillation is responsible for most changes in cloud cover at the global and regional levels. They also found that Galactic Cosmic Rays, and total solar irradiance did not have any statistically-significant influence on changes in cloud cover whatsoever.

Lockwood (2012)[31] conducted a thorough review of the scientific literature on the "solar influence" on climate. It was found that when this influence is included appropriately into climate models causal climate change claims such as those made by Svensmark are shown to have been exaggerated. Lockwood's review also highlighted the strength of evidence in favor of the solar influence on regional climates.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 26, 2013 - 01:01pm PT
There is a little known psychological process whereby knowledge, skill and expertise in one capacity of human endeavor can transmorgiphy into wholly unrelated fields. This is known as "wisdom".

Not all humans are endowed with the this ability to transmorgiphy, but we are fortunate that those who can take it upon themselves to enlighten us.


Here, The Chief transmorgiphizes upon his knowledge and experience with stonehenge, and how exactly the "educated idiots" consistently get it wrong:


BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 26, 2013 - 01:06pm PT
This debate has nothing to do with how good a climber you are or how many medals you have. It is a science question.

Ed. Please read and comment on this. There is a problem and it is called Junk Science. Carl Sagan wrote an entire book on this topic.

This oft cited "peer reviewed article" is a piece of shit! It is a good op-ed, but it isn't very good science. You and The Chief could do a better job.

http://www.petitionproject.org/review_article.php

I read that article last night, Rick. It isn't really a scientific article. It is more like an op-ed. He contradicts himself and although he did list some references as he wrote along, it didn't come close to the 132 references cited at the bottom.

I did read about the organization. It is basically a political deal. A toilet bowl for bad science so that people can say that there is no consensus. It has positions on abortion and AIDS that are off their nut.

Sorry. It really is just awful.

There will probably never be a true consensus. Science doesn't work that way, but I don't know anyone who still believes in geosynclinal theory, which was the theory that bit the dust when Plate Tectonics came out. There may be some old retired guys who haven't accepted it, but Plate Tectonics is an exquisite theory. It never fails and obeys newer discoveries. We are pretty damn sure about that one.

That paper is a black eye. I don't know why they have it up, but I've seen it cited in political arguments. I get a couple of informal society bulletins with articles. I saw one dissing global warming and they cited that paper. I remembered it because I had never heard of it, and it is a ludicrously named journal for a climate paper.

Here it is, if you want some good reading of poor writing. Curious, because he had been the head of the NAS before he began a new career writing papers for the tobacco industry. They chime in on AIDS, Abortion, all kinds of stuff, and they do it in very strange ways. This isn't science. It isn't even policy.

mountainlion

Trad climber
California
May 26, 2013 - 01:10pm PT
nail meet the hammer (Bruce)!!! that was priceless^^^I can't believe the chief's ancestor "Duncan" singlehandedly built Stonehenge!!
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 26, 2013 - 01:14pm PT
Sorry, it really is just awful






BASE,You could not be more correct,that is not science.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 26, 2013 - 01:18pm PT
Nice BASE.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 26, 2013 - 01:30pm PT
But the relevance of the paper in Lindzen's thought is the question of the relative stability of the atmosphere and the surface temperature throughout the time of weaker irradiance. A simple explanation would be that some negative feedback acts as a thermostat.
Ed - or anyone, can you expand on this? Is it true that the expected increase in "severity" of storms is a function of vertical stability due to a increased temperature gradient?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 26, 2013 - 01:46pm PT
And isn't the current status of CAGW theory, as judged by the testable predictions of the models vs. real world observation incorrect-even Trenberth admits such in moments of candor. Face it ,this is an ideological battle-it started with a solution looking for a problem to attach itself to.Despite 100's of billions of dollars spent trying to validate and achieve scientific and public acceptance through the science of "applied hysterics" it is losing ground. You guys must, in your deeper moments of self inspection ,recognize this. If it was about co2 reduction, the money spent could have had us most of the way to viable, equally economic energy production sources.

Base, what were you in the New York paper for, was it recreation or work? I have never heard of a satisfactory answer to magnetic pole reversal and migration and its effects.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 26, 2013 - 02:13pm PT
It is not an ideological battle. It is pure science.

The ideologues come out of the woodwork when they don't like what science has to say. This is very similar to religion. Evolution to a literalist Christian simply cannot be true.

You can't do that with science. You don't frame a problem in those types of political or anthropological grids. You just take a deep breath and do your work. When you find something new, publish it, others will read it, and it will either get shot down or go into the quiver.

You guys do understand how science works, right? I'm not being flippant.

Oh. It was the New Yorker. It was a blurb about my medical problems. I was born with 4 testicles and it has been awful for my entire life.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 26, 2013 - 02:15pm PT
From WIKI:




Evidential issues [edit]
The film highlights what it asserts are a number of contradictions and inconsistencies in the evidence supporting man-made global warming.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change since 1940. The film asserts that records of atmospheric CO2 levels since 1940 show a continuing increase, but during this period, global temperature decreased until 1975, and has increased since then.
Variations in warming rate. The programme states that all models of greenhouse effect-derived temperature increase predict that the warming will be at its greatest for a given location in the troposphere and at its lowest near the surface of the earth. The programme asserts that current satellite and weather balloon data do not support this model, and instead show that the surface warming rate is greater than or equal to the rate in the lower troposphere.
Increases in CO2 and temperatures following the end of ice ages. According to the film, increases in CO2 levels lagged (by over 100 years) behind temperature increases during glacial terminations.


EPICA and Vostok ice cores display the relationship between temperature and level of CO2 for the last 650,000 years.
Relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide levels and temperature change. The film asserts that carbon dioxide levels increase or decrease as a result of temperatures increasing or decreasing rather than temperatures following carbon dioxide levels, because as the global climate cools the Earth's oceans absorb carbon dioxide, and as the climate warms the oceans release carbon dioxide.
Influence of oceanic mass on temperature changes. The programme argues that due to the very large mass of the world's oceans, it takes hundreds of years for global temperature changes to register in oceanic mass, which is why analysis of the Vostok Station and other ice cores shows that changes in the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide follow changes in global temperature by 800 years.
Influence of water vapour on climate change. According to the film, water vapour makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases and has the largest impact on the planet's temperature. Water particles in the form of clouds act to reflect incoming solar heat, but the film argues that the effects of clouds cannot be accurately simulated by scientists attempting to predict future weather patterns and their effects on global warming.
Influence of carbon dioxide on climate change. The film states that carbon dioxide comprises only a very minuscule amount—just 0.054% of the Earth's atmosphere. According to the film, human activity contributes much less than 1% of that, while volcanoes produce significantly more CO2 per year than humans, while plants and animals produce 150 gigatons of CO2 each year. Dying leaves produce even more CO2, and the oceans are "the biggest source of CO2 by far." Human activity produces a mere 6.5 gigatons of CO2 each year. The film concludes that man-made CO2 emissions alone cannot be causing global warming. (Durkin subsequently acknowledged that the claim about volcanic CO2 emissions was wrong, and removed the claim from later versions.[13])
Influence of the sun on climate change. The film highlights the solar variation theory of global warming, asserting that solar activity is currently at an extremely high level, and that this is directly linked to changes in global temperature. The posited mechanism involves cosmic rays as well as heat from the sun aiding cloud formation.[16] The film argues that the activity of the sun is far more influential on global warming and cooling than any other man-made or natural activity on Earth.
Previous episodes of warming. The programme asserts that the current episode of global warming is nothing unusual and temperatures were even more extreme during the Medieval Warm Period, a time of great prosperity in western Europe.
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 26, 2013 - 02:18pm PT
[youtube==ahx_l3sQOWc]

This is normal.
BASE104

Social climber
An Oil Field
May 26, 2013 - 02:22pm PT
You guys do realize that before life arose on earth, there was very little oxygen and its absence was replaced with CO2, don't you?

Does anyone want to know where a lot of that carbon is sitting now?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 26, 2013 - 02:24pm PT
the rocks where else .
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 26, 2013 - 02:26pm PT
i just released some methane..Xuse me world!
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 26, 2013 - 02:28pm PT
Here is a paper that addresses some effects and variations of the geomagnetic field but does not seem to answer the question of cause. Just glanced through it so far. Please excuse if this has been posted before.The name is: The proxy method of past solar-activity reconstruction.The address does not appear as i enter it after submit-can anybody aid in the fix for this computer illiterate?



http://solarphysics.livingreviews.org/open?pubNo=irsp-2013-1&page=article3.html
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 26, 2013 - 02:47pm PT
Yes we know basic earth history Base. Biogenic or abiogenic sources, they are both sitting in the trap formations you guys are getting much better at locating and developing techniques to extract. The land, through chemical weathering is the predominate sink, followed by the ocean (another high percentage sink), in the living flora,and the atmosphere.

Science has been hijacked by both sides Base, don't kid yourself. I think you recognized part of that in your response to the paper you read.Four nuts-hmnn-rather unique.You must have assimilated parts of a twin in utero,goes a long way towards your John Muir with a jackhammer internal conflict.

Ron your back!
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 26, 2013 - 03:05pm PT
Yes Rick,, back from Woodfest 2013. A Grand fest it was. I had to deflect many questions about the desert haunts we now gravitate to. As far as global warming in the canyon yesterday,, it was "coolish" and downright cold at night.



heres some "Scientific" quetions which seem to hava a conses that they are indeed questions.










The Earth is warming faster than at any time in the last 11,000 years, but scientists do not understand why the atmosphere has warmed less than they expected over the last decade.
Image: Flickr/Kevin Gill



The Best Science Writing Online 2012

Showcasing more than fifty of the most provocative, original, and significant online essays from 2011, The Best Science Writing Online 2012 will change the way...

Read More »
LONDON – Several leading authorities on climate change have given a guarded welcome to research suggesting the Earth may warm more slowly than scientists had expected.

An international research team led by Alexander Otto of the Environmental Change Institute at the University of Oxford has reported its conclusions in the journal Nature Geoscience.

The Earth is now warming faster than at any time in the last 11,000 years, but scientists do not understand clearly why the atmosphere has warmed less than they expected over the last decade or so – and more slowly than in the 1990s.

The researchers looked at how the last decade would affect the long-term sensitivity of the climate to a doubling of atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and suggest the Earth will warm more slowly than expected this century.

But even though the heating may be slower, giving politicians more time to act, the scientists still believe temperatures will eventually climb to 4°C above pre-industrial levels, well above danger levels.

Clive Hamilton is professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University in Australia, and author of Requiem for a Species: Why we resist the truth about climate change. Published in 2010, it says climate change will bring about large-scale, harmful consequences for life on Earth which it is too late to prevent.

"The study should certainly be taken very seriously, although we will need to see over the next year or two how well it stands up to scrutiny," Hamilton said. "Let's hope they are right; it's the first bit of good news we have had a for a long time."

Still guesswork
Geoff Jenkins is the former head of climate change prediction at the UK Met Office's Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research. He said: "Until we actually understand why the global temperature rise has paused over the last decade – and we don't yet – it's still guesswork what the implications are for climate sensitivity and hence the future projections.

If the pause is a "correction" to a naturally-boosted rise over previous decades, then the climate's sensitivity to carbon emissions may indeed be lower than the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's central estimate, suggesting that future rises will be towards the lower end of the range, he added.

But if the pause is a temporary natural offset to the man-made rise, then this offset would disappear at some stage and put the globe back on the central estimate track, he said. "I don't see how we can say which it is until we understand the reason for it."

Many governments have promised to try to limit atmospheric warming to no more than 2°C above pre-industrial levels, believing that threshold will prevent dangerous climate change.


Image Courtesy of NOAA
Previous estimates showed that would require global greenhouse gas emissions to peak by 2020 and then fall, a prospect that seemed out of reach while emissions continue to rise fast.

Another member of the research team, Myles Allen of ECI Oxford, said the findings offer some optimism. "Prior to this, a lot of us were feeling quite gloomy that whatever we did, we'll go over 2°C", he said. "It's not a foregone conclusion any more."

That means the protracted UN climate negotiations could still produce a workable agreement. If a deal enters force in 2020 and leads to rapid emissions cuts, "there remains a good chance we could hit the 2°C target," Allen said.




http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=is-global-warming-cooler-than-expected
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 26, 2013 - 04:04pm PT
Just glanced through it so far.


Ricky, do you think it would make much of a difference if you furrowed your brow and contemplated harder?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 26, 2013 - 05:35pm PT
Ed, i already posted the name but here it is again: The proxy method of past solar-activity reconstruction 2013 . Another interesting one which claims we reached a "grand maximum" of solar activity in the 20th century is called: A history of solar activity over millenia 2010. I was looking at that first paper because it mentioned variations of earths geomagnetic field.

edit-i was attempting to print that second paper, all 94 pages, when i noticed it was updated in march 2013
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 26, 2013 - 05:47pm PT
Yeah Ron, lots of the more judicious CAGW proponents are toning down their support of it. Off topic, but i'll be in Nv june 12-18, can i sign you up for that other next easiest route we spotted out in the middle of nowhere.
Messages 6981 - 7000 of total 28268 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