Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 7001 - 7020 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 19, 2013 - 10:16am PT
Here Elcono,,
In a change that is consistent with global warming computer models, the jet streams that govern weather patterns around the world are shifting their course, according to a new analysis by the Carnegie Institution published in Geophysical Research Letters.

From 1979 to 2001, "the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles. The jet stream in the northern hemisphere has also weakened," the institution reported.

The jet stream guides weather patterns across the globe. The reason that El Niņo and La Niņa – warming and cooling patterns in the Southern Pacific Ocean – play such a large role in world weather, for instance, is because the temperature of the distant ocean affects the flow of the jet stream.

The migration of the jet stream is small – just 12 miles poleward per decade – but the scientists warned that "if the trend continues the impact could be significant." For instance, hurricanes might become more frequent or intense, as the jet stream ushers more tropical and subtropical storms into North America.



Read more: Jet Stream Science - Global Warming May Have Shifted the Jet Stream - The Daily Green
Follow us: @the_daily_green on Twitter | thedailygreen on Facebook
Visit us at TheDailyGreen.com
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 19, 2013 - 10:21am PT
But i did work with many bitd, and at times, saw the DUMBEST crap i ever saw from those "highly educated" typs.

Funny because I have worked with many bitd and definitely saw the DUMBEST sh#t I ever saw from uneducated rednecks who think they know the "science" is wrong but can't/won't/don't cite a single scientific study (not even the one they are criticizing) and can't state (or even recognize) a testable hypothesis.

It would be like someone who has never seen an owl in the wild saying Ron's taxidermy looks fake and nothing like real life.




"easterly" shift of the jet stream?
El Cono

Boulder climber
Tierra Del Coņo
May 19, 2013 - 10:25am PT
From 1979 to 2001, "the jet streams in both hemispheres have risen in altitude and shifted toward the poles.

...and the poles are where?
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
May 19, 2013 - 10:31am PT
Ron brings up an interesting point in that you catastrophists always belittle others when they cite local conditions which you correctly identify as weather. Well look around gentlemen,their is an abundance of "localized weather (alaska being one fifth of the u.s landmass) which are in the whole indicative of climate changes and have been on the downslope from warming for over a decade.Look at the mid to upper latitudes around the globe. I'll try to dig up some farming news.

Knotts has presented graph after graph clearly showing how the models have consistently and increasingly diverged from the reality on the ground.They are not getting any better at climate predictions but do seem to be getting better at portraying some local conditions called "weather".Now, some of you guys keeping saying that we, and many, many of the most prominent scientists on the planet are just to simple minded to see the the particular twisted nuances that indicate the broader interpretation, in time and trends minus all natural forcing and mitigation agents, that the graphs clearly indicate to you. Well i'm sorrynot all of us are that desperate.

Bruce asks why we would weight Roy Spencers and the majority of the worlds scientists over Mr. Hansens. Well look outside gentlemen, the world still turns, the biota thrives, the climate is in a cooling trend contrary to Hansens early and repeated predictions of catastrophic effects in the future-dates that have come and gone without the world conforming to his hysterical predictions.

As i have said from the beginning of posting here, we need to return to page 1. So thank you Ed for your contribution to understanding the beginning from which all sprang including humans to affect this exceedingly tiny portion of space and time called Earth.So to return to the point of origin of all we see and can ever see because it is all-the UNIVERSE.Before origin their was nothing, no space, no time, no location, no past, no future, no universe since it was infinitesimally small and their was none of the above and nothing to witness or effect this nothingness.Ed says gravitation and electromagnetism are infinite and transcend origin. I ask where, when, what were their values, how could they exist if their was nothing to effect?
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
May 19, 2013 - 10:34am PT
East and West..?
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 19, 2013 - 10:49am PT
Well look around gentlemen,their is an abundance of "localized weather (alaska being one fifth of the u.s landmass)...

Uh, 1/5th the US landmass is NOT localized.

..which are in the whole indicative of climate changes and have been on the downslope from warming for over a decade.

This has been covered over and over and over and over. The mean GLOBAL temperature is rising, which results in a change in global climate depending on location. Get it yet?

Now, some of you guys keeping saying that we, and many, many of the most prominent scientists on the planet...

Hahahaaa... yes, "many, many of the most prominent scientists"... keep telling yourself that... hahahaaa.

Well look outside gentlemen, the world still turns,

Wow, I didn't realize one of the predictions of global climate change was that the Earth would stop turning!

"400 ppm - WOW. Haven't seen this much CO2 in the atmosphere since the Pliocene. This is equivalent to the DOW hitting 20,000 (if the DOW had been around for the last 4 million years)." -Dr. Spero
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 10:52am PT
why we would weight Roy Spencers and the majority of the worlds scientists over Mr. Hansens.


Do you really think this cute little sleigh of hand doesn't impact your credibility? If you mean it as a little humorous poke I suggest you insert little smiley faces into half of what you say. If you are serious in this assertion, amongst many similar, it is clear that your choice of data is very specific and .. dare I say, biased.
mechrist

Gym climber
South of Heaven
May 19, 2013 - 10:54am PT
Bruce, by biased data you just mean it is different than the data you choose to use. That is what biased means, right? ;)
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 19, 2013 - 11:01am PT
If the CO2 were DECLINING, there would be a FAR more fever-pitched study to that eh? Seeing as how its "lifes elixir"..
El Cono

Boulder climber
Tierra Del Coņo
May 19, 2013 - 11:03am PT
you just mean it is different than the data you choose to use. That is what biased means, right?

I believe it means data that has been carefully 'analized' with one of these:

Credit: kennyt
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 11:35am PT
Mechrist - absolutely. For instance I biase my judgement in this whole matter largely upon trusting the consensus science, in the absence of even a hint that it is unjustified.

Which once again leads me to the question that must be ignored at all costs:


If we lack significant credible evidence that contradicts, or in most of our cases we also lack the skill and experience to judge, why exactly would someone chose to doubt the concensus?



Well I have my own theories, generally supported by the consensus psychological sciences, but I am most interested in how the skeptic would describe their own motivations. It is curious that they treat the subject like the bubonic plague. I'm sure thier beliefs have something to do with thier intuitions but they seem to be loath to examine their intuitions and prefer to focus on that which they have no skill in navigating.

Anyway, nothing wrong with a bias so long as its justified.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
May 19, 2013 - 11:50am PT
If we lack significant credible evidence that contradicts, or in most of our cases we also lack the skill and experience to judge, why exactly would someone chose to doubt the concensus?


I have no intention waiting around for an answer never to arrive from a bunch of chickenshits so I'll try to answer.

The only reason, under the above criteria, is if the consensus cannot be trusted. Ron is the only one with any guts to suggest a personal reason that this is justified, but i think you could shoot it full of holes pretty easy, certainly as far as how his isolated experience translates to climate science.

Everybody else can offer only vague assertions that are wildly at odds with any semblance of reality and lacking completely in documented proof. They are, in a nutshell, the equivalent of the Alex Jones show.


Which gets to the fun stuff. Why would you want to be Alex Jones?
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
May 19, 2013 - 12:07pm PT
Tip of the iceberg when it comes to the good Dr. Roy Spencer;

http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2012/09/can-a-creationist-be-a-good-scientist/
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 19, 2013 - 12:22pm PT
If Ron A doesn't trust experts, then he should hire a plumber for his hernia operation.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
May 19, 2013 - 12:33pm PT

ya got your teat in a wringer again, didn't you sparky?
wilbeer

Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
May 19, 2013 - 12:41pm PT
McHale,he is a meteor doubter.

Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Soon to be Nipple suckling Liberal
May 19, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
Got news for ya Malamute, i would have been better off having a plumber read my L shoulder MRI in 99..Cuz according to the "experts" there was NOTHING wrong in a shoulder that had torn rotator, torn bicep tendons and atrophy started in the supra/infra-spinatus muscles from a lost nerve among other things....
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
May 19, 2013 - 01:59pm PT
Thanks for the meteor reminder. I've been meaning to look into this;
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2013/16may_lunarimpact/

And, this is what pathetically stupid looks like.
Credit: McHale's Navy

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-pn-lamar-smith-federal-research-funding-20130501,0,78113.story

http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/congress-s-science-committee-doesn-t-get-science

This second link reminded me that I wanted to say that the climate science skeptics don't seserve the title of 'Skeptic'. They are Naysayers and that's it.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
May 19, 2013 - 02:35pm PT
Ron, that was a republican MRI technician.
You forgot to bribe him first.
McHale's Navy

Trad climber
Panorama City, California & living in Seattle
May 19, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
Don't know if this has been posted before;

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/environment/climate-of-doubt/steve-coll-how-exxon-shaped-the-climate-debate/
Messages 7001 - 7020 of total 25079 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