Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7441 - 7460 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
mountainlion

Trad climber
California
Aug 27, 2013 - 02:53am PT
are you sure that pic isn't a pic of the chief beginning his exercise routine?? I sure hope you get in shape Chief because that is an embarrassing fitness level for any navy man let alone a Chief to be in...where is your discipline??? push yourself away from the buffet...there are people who eat less in a week than what you consume to maintain that girth...BTW is girth a measure of volume or area??
dirtbag

climber
Aug 27, 2013 - 05:52am PT
Plus a square foot or two for his moobs.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 27, 2013 - 09:40am PT
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 27, 2013 - 09:41am PT
dirtbag

climber
Aug 27, 2013 - 11:49am PT
For Chief Loudmouth, too stupid to realize he's stupid:





Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 27, 2013 - 12:27pm PT
While our politics are in chaos almost as bad as this thread, science still goes on. A good window on new developments continues to be the leading interdisciplinary journal Science. Their 2 August issue has a special section on "Natural Systems in Changing Climates," with new developments and synthesis reviews on topics that hint at the breadth and accumulating knowledge of ongoing research:

Natural Systems in Changing Climates

Once and Future Climate Change

How a Fickle Climate Made Us Human

Out of the Kenyan Mud, an Ancient Climate Record

Can Coastal Marshes Rise Above It All?

Worth a Thousand Words
[about comparing historical with modern landscape photos]

Advancing Seasons in China

Tundra in Turmoil

Tree Line Shifts

Humans Greening a Landscape

Changes in Ecologically Critical Terrestrial Climate Conditions

Marine Ecosystem Responses to Cenozoic Global Change

Climate Change and the Past, Present, and Future of Biotic Interactions

The Future of Species Under Climate Change: Resilience or Decline?

Climate Change Impacts on Global Food Security

Climate Change and Infectious Diseases: From Evidence to a Predictive Framework

Ecological Consequences of Sea-Ice Decline
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 27, 2013 - 12:32pm PT
And the 9 August issue of Science has a focus article on wildfires, a topic that sometimes comes up in this thread. It's an interesting read.

Computing a Better Fire Forecast
Eli Kintisch

As climate change threatens to make extreme fires more frequent in the western United States, fire researchers are working to improve computer models that can be used to predict how fires spread and where they might break out. Although improved models are on the horizon, an array of issues is complicating the search for alternatives, from technical debates to the differing cultures of firefighters and academic scientists.
...
A warmer climate will lead to a "higher probability of extreme fire behavior, not in every fire of course, but more often than in the past," predicts forest scientist Steven Running of the University of Montana in Missoula. This new regime will not only tax tactical simulators like FARSITE, but strategic models as well.

Such tools use historic weather data on previous fires to map the probability of fire spread. But existing databases of previous fires are increasingly not representative of the changing climate regime in the western United States, says Krista Gollnick-Waid, a fire analyst with the Bureau of Land Management in Boise. That should raise doubts about results produced by one oft-used strategic modeling tool, called FSPro, she warns: "Analysts need to be aware of the potential for FSPro to underpredict fire spread [and] probability." During her work analyzing a recent fire in southwest Colorado, for example, she found that the blaze traveled farther in 1 day than "what the model said it would go in 5 days." Says Close: "If that's the new normal, we better be ready."

UC Berkeley's Moritz is already grappling with the changing climate of the West. In a 2010 paper published in Geophysical Research Letters, he used roughly a decade of wind and weather information to map the Santa Ana winds across coastal southern California, which dry out landscapes and stoke brushfires into conflagrations. The results were fairly broad but disturbing, highlighting areas that were potentially vulnerable to major fires. "I had fire departments calling me asking whether they could have even finer resolution maps to understand their local risks better," Moritz recalls. Unfortunately, those are still largely unavailable. But he says that the experience highlights the growing demand for better, and more detailed, strategic fire models.


http://www.sciencemag.org/content/341/6146/609.summaryhttp://
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 27, 2013 - 05:01pm PT
rick sez:

Long ago i determined that the odds of CAGW effects posing a threat for the future well being of my descendants is near zero.



Let me see if I have this correct... Long ago, you listened to some propaganda that told you not to worry about climate change, and you liked what you heard. That helped you make up your mind that all the scientific studies around the world, made by real climate scientists, were flawed at the root level and that you had no reason to look at them because your mind was already made up.


Pretty laughable.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 27, 2013 - 05:10pm PT
Long ago i determined that the odds of CAGW effects posing a threat for the future well being of my descendants is near zero.
Please show us the calculation you used to determine this.
You know, the math.
Well in your case I guess it would be arithmetic.
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 27, 2013 - 11:11pm PT
Ed, exactly what physcical observations and measurements that your "scientists that have done that" have that fit the CAGW hypothesis advanced with ever increasing hysterics since at least the early 1980's?This is considerably more than the two year forecast i tried to pry from you earlier, its 30 years. Seems to me that thirty years is in the realm of the climate change scale.The stated purpose of all the hysterics were for nothing my friend. The severity of the current climate change has been well within the range of Earth normal for the Holocene. Certainly the change was no more severe than the little ice age, the Medieval warm or Roman warm periods (which were quite good for us earthlings and the biosphere i might add), and no where near as severe or as rapid as the cooling of the Younger Dryas or the warming coming out of it. So, as the old saying goes- put up or shut up-where are the matching physical realities to the frightening forecasts?

They don't exist Ed. As it turns out the climate is much less sensitive to CO2 than the attempted "scare science" forecast. Maybe it's time to jump ship, hell your not the captain anyway.
dirtbag

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:32am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



dirtbag

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:07am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:18am PT
Not back in Ak. till Sept. 6. Working my ass off on two remodels here in northern NV. Rehabbing habitats for the masses of humanity, but i expect a profit for my efforts. Anyway there is nothing preventing your access to the physical proofs of all the shocking CAGW predictions. Many of the dates of doom have come and passed over this thirty year period without the natural world caring not a wit about all the make believe climate models. But what do i know? The heat is probably hiding in the nearly uniform three degree centigrade waters of the deep blue where the sun never shines.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 28, 2013 - 03:42am PT
^yes you can jus go to Vegas
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:46am PT
During 2005 - 2007, I was funded by NASA to work as a visiting scientist on two projects studying climate change - MIRAGE (Mexico) and Intex-B (Hong Kong to NW USA). We flew NCAR's C-130 stuffed full of instruments and scientists that measured all kinds of atmospheric components - gases, particles, contaminants, you name it. These weren't really fun projects to participate in since the C-130 had lousy ventilation and no A/C - and fat old scientists stink more than normal people. But the big surprise for me was that few of those onboard were sold on the Al Gore view of global warming. In fact, I did not meet a single disciple out of the 153 scientists working MIRAGE and Intex-B.

I spent much of my spare time reading the literature related to the measurement side of climate change. These are the key points I walked away with from those years:

1) Some of the most meaningful data are those published of ocean surface temperature. The thing is, many military, research and commercial vessels have collected this data for over 150 years all around the world. Thus the data set is fairly complete. Over the last 70 years, the trend has been up and the main weather correlation has been regarding the *intensity* of tropical storms (not frequency). It appears that rising surface temps makes more mass available for evaporation - logical.

2) The global research community has far too little active weather stations to feed atmospheric computational models. Some estimate that we'd need one million times more sensors simultaneously live to begin correlating parameters such as CO2 to climate change.

3) Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface. See 2) above but also go look at the publications to see how far we have to go in understanding the global heat picture. For the moment, we have more suspicion than actual real experimental data.

In reading this thread, I see all the hate dumped on the Chief and also see how different his plots look compared to that of the GW believers. Holy sh#t, can there be bias in science? Of course. I do believe the review papers on ocean surface temperature measurements are valid and that we have seen over 1 degree (C) rise over the last century. I'm not convinced that greenhouse gases have yet been correlated to that change. However, I think they will eventually be shown to be a significant component in the big picture. But when the vast majority of the world's leading scientists are highly skeptical of Al Gore's position, that should make you step back and ask if that view has excessive bias - and I believe it does. The global heat budget estimates have too much uncertainty to predict that fossil fuel combustion is the dominant contributor to global temperature rise.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:50am PT
Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface.

^^^Complete Bullsh#t^^^

Who cares what Al Gore thinks?



Lets see, what could possibly be causing the warming?

photo not found
Missing photo ID#312885
Degaine

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:13am PT
mad69dog wrote:
Al Gore's position,

Could you please state what you think Al Gore's position on climate change to be?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2013 - 11:26am PT
Mad69Dog sez:

I see all the hate dumped on the Chief.


Proof positive that Mad69Dog can't see past his nose, and that he comes to the table biased. An unbiased viewer would quickly see that it is The Chief who initiates all the hate.

Try opposing one of The Chief's many views, Mad69Dog, and you will see what I mean. The angry man will begin to tear you down with his hatred, and you might not even be talking directly to him.

You worked with less than 200 researchers (153), and yet from this you claim "the vast majority of the world's leading scientists..." Your real-life observations seem to be riddled with bias. That doesn't do much to convince me of your scientific prowess.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2013 - 11:45am PT
@ The Chief,
Bro, if I were a real friend of yours, I would take you aside and let you know that the way you address people turns them into your enemies.

The fact is, you would not have a single friend if you talked in person the way you do over the internet. I imagine that you might have a friend or two, and if indeed you do, you must be a very different person in real life because nobody who acts the way you do keeps friends for very long.

Of all the people with whom I've had personal interactions, either live or via written correspondence, there are very few who I consider to be 'enemies' of mine. Out of all people I've known, or have talked to, very few fall into the bucket into which I place you. And in that bucket are the people who I have zero desire to communicate with. It's a very lonely bucket, I'm not even sure there's more than one or two other people in there.

You might hold this as an honor. But believe me, it is just the opposite.
Degaine

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:51am PT
k-man wrote:
Proof positive that Mad69Dog can't see past his nose, and that he comes to the table biased. An unbiased viewer would quickly see that it is The Chief who initiates all the hate.

Honestly, why do you care what The Chief thinks (of you or of an issue)? Why is it so important to you to convince him or bring him over to your point of view?

He has the minority opinion in this particular thread. Dude, let it go, you'll never ever get 100% of people to agree with you, whatever the issue.
Messages 7441 - 7460 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
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