Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 03:42pm PT
|
Okay Bruce, I assume you mean +.77 since the uah global lower troposphere reading for 2-14 is +.17 and you seem to indicate an additional +.6 rise, is this correct? Poor old Eddie is still hiding unferneath Jimmie Hansens kilt im afraid, so will not be joining. Anyway my number is -.05 for 2-19. Your 200 canucks seems a little low but what the hell. Give me an adress and account number and ill forward the corresponding exchange rate in greenbacks. Since your so ethical you can set up the proper holding account and escrow disbursement instructions.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 06:19pm PT
|
Rick, I really would recommend getting over this "science is ideology" thing. It's not the case, and won't get you anywhere either in thinking about stuff or convincing anyone of anything. It's just a practice of using consistent language and objectivity in making observations and analyzing them. Where something is a hypothesis, it's stated as such, preferably with the level of likelihood identified for future refinement. Simple. For anything quantitative, there have been literally centuries of experimenting with how to apply boring pure mathematical procedures to specifying how likely it is that some observed facts are the result of just random chance. These have been tested innumerable times and discussed absolutely ad nauseum for ages. Departing from doing quantitative analysis this way is not "layman's science," it's just deciding that objectivity doesn't matter, which is BS. Hence the +5%, -5% in Ed's (or anyone's) graphs.
I think it's great for everyone to educate themselves about science. I do some scientific stuff for work, but am not the dreaded government-supported propaganda machine you are so concerned about; and I am often tweaked about the difficulty anyone who's not part of formal academia or a government institution has in getting attention. But that doesn't mean I decide to use different definitions of terms, or rely on eyeballing something when there's a statistical test that runs in a millisecond or two on a $20 calculator.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2014 - 04:53pm PT
|
Sketch, that's an interesting set of quotes you compiled there.
In looking them up, I can see why you didn't cite references.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2014 - 10:16pm PT
|
Look Bruce, i'm not a religious man, so until i became aware about a decade ago of the more radical elements of the enviro/scientism religion, and their rabid agenda, i had no preference of the tenet's of conventional religions or this radical new age scientism crap.Perhaps you aren't aware, but the more radical elements desire to see a reduction of human populace from the current 7 billion down to their magical "sustainability level" of approx. 2 billion. Maybe you don't care about your kids or grandkids, but i do and would not like to see them amongst the culled.
Anyway frostyback, your are at best confused, as usual. I was talking about the UAH near surface temps, not the UAH mid troposphere temps that the hacks Po, Chedley, and Fu attacked. At any rate, see the Spencer/Christy rebuttal below for enlightenment. This is old news and not an issue. If your getting squirelly in your old age and have no confidence in your .6 c temp increase from now to feb. 2019 just say so. Note that your effective prediction of plus .77c anomaly above the UAH measured mean is a whopping .82c above my prediction of minus .05c below UAH mean.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/05/09/christy-and-spencer-our-response-to-recent-criticism-of-the-uah-satellite-temperatures/
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Mar 21, 2014 - 10:18pm PT
|
DAM IT
I want to know what and where are the "errors" in the "data", Rick Sumner
now prove the errors or apologize for lying
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2014 - 11:21pm PT
|
The first quotes were from Phil Jones, Tom Wigley and Stephen Schneider.
Yeah, I see that Sketch. I mean, I see from where you got the quote--it's from a blog that says:
Phil Jones, Director of the CRU at the time of the leaked emails and former director Tom Wigley, both IPCC members, said,
Many of the uncertainties surrounding the causes of climate change will never be resolved because the necessary data are lacking.
The funny thing is, how do two people say this one statement? If it was a written citation, then I should be able to find the actual quote somewhere besides your blog. I wonder why the blog doesn't cite the reference?
Also, your blog says, "at the time of the leaked emails". The leaked emails. Right. That was a [non-]scandal that broke in 2009. Got anything more current?
Oh yeah, how about the next quote:
Stephen Schneider 1993; "Uncertainty about important feedback mechanisms is one reason why the ultimate goal of climate modeling forecasting reliably the future of key variables such as temperature and rainfall patterns is not realizable."
Oh wait. That quote is over 20 years old! Sketch, how old were you when Schneider uttered that one?
Got anything more recent? How about the third quote:
In 1989, Schneider addressed the challenge scientists face trying to communicate complex, important issues without adequate time during media interviews. This citation sometimes was used by his critics to accuse him of supporting misuse of science for political goals:
On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage.....
(Quoted in Discover, pp. 4548, Oct. 1989. For the original, together with Schneider's commentary on its misrepresentation, see also American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996.[9]).
Holy Cow Sketch!!! 1989?!? Are you serious?
Look at how far back your dumbass blog needs to stretch to find fodder for its foolish article. I mean, those quotes are soo last century!
But thanks for taking my bait and giving me the chance to expose the lack of skill you have as a research agent.
Next!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 21, 2014 - 11:33pm PT
|
I am a warmist. Sweating, in fact.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2014 - 11:54am PT
|
Have a nice day.
|
|
sci-fi
climber
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
|
I dont know much about climbing and have only just started, but with a PhD in geoscience and a dozen peer-reviewed publications under my belt I can say a thing or two about the current state of climate science, which can basically be summarized in a few graphs.
1) This is the measured temperature change for the past 10 years:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2003/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2003/plot/gistemp/from:2003/trend
Yes, it is in fact flat or if anything slightly decreasing.
2) This is a comparison between the actual observations and the predictions by the climate models:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/CMIP5-90-models-global-Tsfc-vs-obs-thru-2013.png
Yes, these are the same models which governments world-wide use to base their climate policies on.
3) This is a statistical evaluation of the performance of these climate models versus the observations, which was published in the journal of Nature:
http://s28.postimg.org/8ov4zdh2l/Fyfe2013_Nature.jpg
In any other field of science, these models would have been deemed totally useless and certainly no one in their right minds would use these as a basis for decision making of a trillion dollar budget.
Climate is probably the most complex system that humans have every attempted to model. Anybody, who claims that they can disentangle human contributions from natural climate variation are simply lying. At the moment we are not even sure if clouds have a net positive or negative feedback. It could very well be that a warmer climate causes more clouds to form, which reflect more sunlight and thus cool the planet. Negative feedbacks are seen in all natural systems, whereas there are very few examples of positive feedbacks.
At the moment the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is 400 ppm. When plants developed over 400 million years ago they did so with over 4000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere. Plants grow much faster at higher levels of CO2, which is why Earth has been greening for the past decades:
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323374504578217621593679506
Another fact, which is quite important to know, is that photosynthesis completely stops working at CO2 levels under about 200 ppm. Life on Earth has never been this close to completely shutting down from the bottom and up.
If anything we should worry about two things: 1) the critically low CO2 level and 2) statistically we can expect a new ice age within the next geologic second:
http://crnano.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/25/co2.gif
Do you really think that a 2-degree warmer world is worse than and 10 degree colder one?
Imagine what would happen to crop yields and hence us in the latter case.
|
|
mechrist
Gym climber
South of Heaven
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2014 - 07:38pm PT
|
Ed, you aren't fooling anyone... you don't buy sci-fi's bullshit story any more than the rest of us.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
the Wastelands
|
|
|
Mar 23, 2014 - 10:05pm PT
|
there must be something in the air in Albuquerque tonight....
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 24, 2014 - 12:19am PT
|
Speaking of blogs, Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr. posted the following on WUWT a few days ago.
Sketch, after your last epic fail, what makes you think somebody is going to spend time looking at what you post?
You post noise from the 1980s and 1990s, but you still think somebody should pay attention to the drivel you post and reply to it? What didn't you understand about the assertion that the screwball 5% shouldn't be allowed a seat at the table. For some reason you don't think that applies to you?
One-liners and old news. Naw, didn't read your citation, too long and probably already debunked or just another strawman argument.
Tell me why we should expect anything different from you.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 01:13am PT
|
sci-fi wrote:
Another fact, which is quite important to know, is that photosynthesis completely stops working at CO2 levels under about 200 ppm. Life on Earth has never been this close to completely shutting down from the bottom and up.
sci-fi, you are 100 percent completely full of sh!t about photosynthesis. Learn some actual science, or at least look it up, before you start spouting off your crap. The atmospheric CO2 concentration has been below 200 ppm for significant periods of time, and life didn't completely die out. CO2 compensation point has been measured experimentally at somewhere around 50 ppm, or even much lower with altered O2 levels. This kind of utter falsehood makes everything else you said completely suspect. Where did you learn your "geoscience"? They ought to rescind your degree.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 02:10am PT
|
Notwithstanding my post above, and my flat-out disbelief that he actually has advanced training in any science, I do agree with sci-fi that "Climate is probably the most complex system that humans have [ever] attempted to model." Which is why his opinion that the models should be judged by the same p levels that would apply in other, much simpler quantitative analysis is a completely bogus one. Heck, just phrasing the hypothesis that you want to test with a specific statistical test, whose mandatory mathematical assumptions ALL of the input data sets meet, is very difficult just by itself, let alone doing the test. As Ed H has shown multiple times above, the fact that the observed temperature records are varying around generally or entirely within a range of model average +/-5 percent is a perfectly reasonable criterion to judge that they are pretty darn successful models. With short periods of time, maybe not, but there are a lot of data inputs (volcanic stratospheric aerosols, for one) that are not that perfectly characterized.
Especially in light of the many excellent sources linked above by Ed, it's pretty clear that sci-fi's take on the status of climate science is very far off the mark. You have to wonder about somebody who relies upon the Wall Street Journal for his information about global plant ecology. I recommend you drop that subscription and get one to a scientific journal instead.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 02:50am PT
|
Not sure what your point is. I totally agree that things that have happened in the distant past dwarf the ongoing anthropogenic-enhanced changes by orders of magnitude. We get hit by a big asteroid, well, that's not exactly in the models, and it would blow away the predictions totally (along with a lot or all of us). But so what? Ecologically, the human species is the most horrible plague upon the planet in many millions of years, probably the worst thing to happen since the KT asteroid(s?). But we're numerous and highly dependent upon water and food systems being stable within a certain range. It is practical to try to make some estimates, based upon some reasonable basis of observation and analysis, about how things may change in the near future (time scale of few to many decades) and to have a clue about how to adapt to those changes with a minimum of human and general ecological misery. If your philosophy is, come what may, by all means, be happy with it. But hardly anyone shares that attitude. You (enviably) live on the east side of the Sierra. If there were a very solid prediction that a major eruption were imminent, like weeks away at most, would you leave the area? Or would that be scientism religion, you should just stay? I'm not criticizing, just curious.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 24, 2014 - 10:51am PT
|
Well, we've had a second rate sci-fi presentation (facts largely correct but inept delivery) and now the loons come out in full force exposing themselves to the light of day.
Im particularly impressed by TLP's statement-" Ecologically, the human species is the most horrible plague upon the planet in many millions of years, probably the worst thing since the KT asteroids(s?)". This statement is indicative of the mindlessness of legions of ground troops of big green. I see the brain washing has taken complete hold of poor TLP- everything is filtered through the twisted logic that man, in his current state, is an unnatural disaster to the pristine body Earth. Give it up TLP, you are incapable of independent reasoned thought. Hell, you don't even know enough basics, like the particulars of the Milankovitch cycles, for reasoned discussion of the subject.
The Ed is stuck on his endless presentation of selected portions of papers, many of them read only by the authors, editors, and glanced at by the pal reviewers before the rubber stamp is applied. Ed, please man, shows us some indisputable truth like actual uncorrupted measurements of lengthy time series or actual areas of the landmasses that are slipping beneath the trumpeted waves without subsidence or techtonic influences. Show us the beef man-not the industry propaganda.Below is another new paper for your review Dr. Hartouni.
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379113004162?np=y
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!