Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 8, 2014 - 04:14pm PT
|
LOL A verbatim C&P from NOAA.
What a smart boy you are.
Yes, I can use Google. But you are wrong about my source. (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Climate_vs_Weather);
You said you would answer my question after I answered yours, so your turn Sketch.
I did.
Yes you did, after I directly answered your question. How reasonable you are!
My prediction: Sketch will run away like a little brat-boy instead of answering.
You are wrong. Again.
Yes, you proved my prediction wrong. And you say "Again." as if you have never been wrong. At least I am honest enough to admit when I'm wrong.
Unlike you.
Obvious dodge. Unless, of course, you can provide a link to where you covered this. Which, of course, is not possible.
I did.
You did not. Most folks would consider this a lie.
Same BS from the King of BS.
Now, I need a laugh. Tell us again how you read a graph...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2014 - 11:35am PT
|
The Chief, I don't live in the world that you consider to be reality.
Obviously you don't KMAN.
No The Chief. In the real world, there is a severe drought in California. In your world, the lakes are full and there is no drought.
In other words, your world is not the world that most folks on this planet inhabit.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 9, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
|
I suggest you contemplate moving your ass to a location where the water is plentiful.
The Chief, I think all of LA should move into your neighborhood, with the logic you posses.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
There goes the neighborhood.
Chief, can you imagine having s bunch of self rightous, overly concerned, rabid enviro's infesting your neighborhood?
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
There's already too many self-righteous LEO's and Navy retirees feeding at the public trough down there...What's a few more rabid enviros going to hurt...?
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
The Chief....Good news...I just save 10% on my car insurance....rj
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
The Chief....Everyone knows you were banned in Mammoth for the x-rated lap dances you were performing at Lakanuki and given a severance package by the Mammoth Town council to relocate to White Supremacist Estates near the Nevada border...I think you're the jealous one..? rj
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2014 - 05:04pm PT
|
Sorry The Chief..it was for pole dancing...rj
|
|
KabalaArch
Trad climber
Starlite, California
|
|
|
Aug 10, 2014 - 09:30pm PT
|
^^^ 66 1/2 lbs!? ^^^
I call bs on the lbs, Malemute - isn't B.C. metric and all?
|
|
AndyMan
Sport climber
CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2014 - 01:11am PT
|
A recent study posted in Science magazine has shown that global warming has increased the number of idiots in the community.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 11, 2014 - 11:36am PT
|
Stop worrying about shet you have absolutely no control over but think, in your utopian fantasy ideological screwed up mind, that you do. Because you don't. Nor do any of your so called climate scientific experts. Not one of em.
The Chief, who controls the coal-burning power plants? Who controls the transportation system? Does anybody control our energy grid, or were they put in place by mysterious sources?
These are obviously rhetorical questions--I'm not asking because I'm looking for an answer; I already know the answers to these. I'm also pretty sure The Chief does too.
At least I hope he does.
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2014 - 01:17pm PT
|
Well The, you must have misunderstood the article. Might be time to give it a re-read.
The prominent theory for the holes’ formation is a catastrophic destabilization of sub-surface methane under thawing tundra.
The most likely culprit? Catastrophic destabilization of Arctic methane stores due to human-caused warming.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
|
For a mere $40.00 (US), you can purchase this paper:
Although current global warming may have a large anthropogenic component, its quantification relies primarily on complex General Circulation Models (GCM’s) assumptions and codes; it is desirable to complement this with empirically based methodologies. Previous attempts to use the recent climate record have concentrated on “fingerprinting” or otherwise comparing the record with GCM outputs. By using CO2 radiative forcings as a linear surrogate for all anthropogenic effects we estimate the total anthropogenic warming and (effective) climate sensitivity finding: ΔTanth = 0.87 ± 0.11 K, .
These are close the IPPC AR5 values ΔTanth = 0.85 ± 0.20 K and (equilibrium) climate sensitivity and are independent of GCM models, radiative transfer calculations and emission histories. We statistically formulate the hypothesis of warming through natural variability by using centennial scale probabilities of natural fluctuations estimated using scaling, fluctuation analysis on multiproxy data. We take into account two nonclassical statistical features—long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes). Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %.
This is the study identified earlier as saying the chances of natural climate changes are "slim to none."
In reality, the paper is rather more circumscribed. It merely is using empirical data, and a much simpler method of analysis, to see if the results are consistent with the more complex climate models. It finds the results consistent.
If I'm about to give away a trade secret, too bad, but I do something similar with my forecasts. I use techniques such as time series analysis, and certain other proprietary non-linear forecasting techniques as a check on the results of my more complicated eocnometric models. The simplified techniques have little true statistical predictive value, but if their predictions divererge substantially from those of my econometric models, more often than not my models have a significant flaw.
Put in simpler terms regarding the climate study above, its finding of consistency with the more complex (and complete) climate models doesn't prove anything by itself, but the absence of inconsistency gives me more confidence in the models.
Of course almost every point forecast will be wrong, but we aren't using these models so much for point forecasts as we are for ranges. On that score, the allegations of gross inaccuracy of the models don't hold up.
John
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2014 - 01:25pm PT
|
The most likely culprit? Catastrophic destabilization of Arctic methane stores due to human-caused warming.
^^^Wew Sounds scary!
Do you think it was our farting that could have caused this?
|
|
zBrown
Ice climber
Brujò de la Playa
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2014 - 02:46pm PT
|
The
First:
Were you there? How do you know this happened?
Second:
Whether it happened in the past is not relevant to why it is happening now.
Third:
It certainly appears that you're saying that we are just now coming out of an ice age.
Go get yourself a snowcone. We'll all chip in to cover the costs.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2014 - 03:04pm PT
|
Then why use the models at all? Are you saying that despite the flaws, your models have utility?
Models without significant flaws obviously have utility. Even deeply flawed models can be better than their alternatives.
What I'm really saying is that if my checks confirm my models' predictions, I will rely on their forecasts and expected range of predictions. If the checks fail to confirm those predictions, I do more work on the model.
Econometric and climate models both necessarily rely on non-experimental data. For that reason, model building requires what my mentor, Ed Leamer, calls a "specification search," i.e. trying to specify the variables whose values we need to estimate. Doing a specification search properly requires the researcher to modify the predicted statistics of fit to account for the increased uncertainty caused by the uncertain specification of the model.
All of this simply broadens the confidence intervals, but as I pointed out earlier, the uncertainty goes in both directions. We may be exaggerating the extent of anthropogenic climate effects, but we may just as likely be understating those effects. We are, quite simply, going into uncharted territory. Since I live in that uncharted territory, I have a certain aversion to risking its destruction.
John
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2014 - 03:21pm PT
|
What is the utility of thr models if the empirical evidence they are compared to for validity are continually "maladjusted"?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 11, 2014 - 03:46pm PT
|
Your only utility here is msking sure you collect my five canucks from Raymond Fool once he comes out on the losing end of our arctic ice extent bet. Okay Bruce? Other thsn that keep your ignorant commie piehole shut.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!