Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 02:41pm PT
|
yes
the CC marchers DID leave a lot of trash behind
and so did the Occupy Wallstreet people
so did all the Marches in Washington DC through the decades
not surprising, is it, that when you have tens of thousands of people protesting or supporting some cause they believe in that there is evidence of their presence?
so what exactly IS your point then, chief?
that you don't think humans leave evidence when they gather in large numbers?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 03:06pm PT
|
Nothing in your original question MONO indicates any inclusion about any "long term trend".. nothing of the fact there.
Er, um, wrong Chief. The satellite era trend is the long term trend we've been talking about.
And to refresh your memory, here is my original statement.
Since the warming rate during the satellite era is very similar to the pre 'pause' rate, your 'pause' has little meaning.
Chief, I fixed your graph by including the long term trend. Notice how the long term trend increases when the 'pause' is included.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 03:45pm PT
|
When ,Where and how many people are going to that DENIER march/protest?
By calling someone a hypocrite you are actually acknowledging a problem.
38 years since a record cool year.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 04:38pm PT
|
So ,when is the denier march?
Thats right,The RNC.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 04:46pm PT
|
Man,that is a bunch of deniers!
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 04:53pm PT
|
How are you pointing out their hypocrisy?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 04:57pm PT
|
Thanks "The Chief".
You have made my point.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 06:53pm PT
|
Always trust a redhead.
Those cross ride 42 's are the ticket,tgt.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 06:56pm PT
|
That didn't look like 42's on the redhead...?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 07:17pm PT
|
Speaking of bottom feeding lying bastards. Bruce lies lower than the worm in the bottom of the bottle he attempts to crawl out of in the morning. What a disingenuous fool, sort of like a three canuck bill.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 07:28pm PT
|
Speaking of fruit loops, Leonardo suddenly goes deaf when asked about his yachts.
Then his goon body checks the reporter.
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 07:42pm PT
|
Your alchoholism is consensus, settled science, Bruce. Don't be more of a hillbilly than you already are by posing that you know more than the authority of expert opinion of the overwhelming majority. Now crawl back into your bottle and be a good little frustrated socialist.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 07:57pm PT
|
Yeah, a lot of long time residents out here prominently display Valley Trash bumper stickers. It's a local joke. A former high ranking member of the state senate first uttered that saying on the senate floor in Juneau. Within a few months he was indicted, run out of office, and narrowly avoided a long prison stretch.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:22pm PT
|
>>>Big El Nino event in 1877-8.
Not hard to look up. Why don't you try it yourself sometime?
For some strange reason it doesn't disprove AGW.
Short lived. Has nothing to do with long term changes.
http://www.met.igp.gob.pe/publicaciones/2009/aceituno_et_al_2009.pdf
The last time we had a big “spike” was the 1998 event.
Today's climate is not a spike; it's a long term trend.
//tc: "We have a WINNER! Bingo and Precisely.
Just as it did in 1998 where it was the primary driving/forcing factor that year in setting the record for "Highest Temperature" in recorded history.
How about this year and this month in particular... another El Nino event is kicking in. The Pacific equatorial SST's have risen significantly the past six to eight weeks. As have the Kelvin Waves that have flowed in from the Indian Ocean transporting the warm currents. ENSO forcing is playing a NATURAL part in kicking up the Global Surface Temps, again!! ENSO is a natural event. It is not triggered nor can it be attributed to anything that us HUMANS have done. Not one aspect. Just another reason to question this liberal bullshet agenda called CAGW!
Oh it's warming alright. As it has been for a longass time. But it has nothing to do with what humans have done. Maybe a small percentage of it has. But no where near what you all claim it has to support your liberal political ideology as exhibited by ALL you nutbags on this thread claiming it has in order to attempt to implement your way of life into society in general.
Now, along with my ENSO statement, goes the data below. Interesting to see how every ANNUAL RISE/SPIKE in temps throughout the "RECORD" was accompanied by an ENSO episode. And the dips by a "Nina" period."
rs: "I believe The Chief is right."//
This insight is truly fascinating!!!
It is such wonderful news to know that long term climate change is caused by El Nino.
This theory simply must be published in climate journals.
They will be stunned and amazed by its brilliance.
And by the discovery of new energy source -
the oceans must have some kind of hidden exothermic reaction going on.
Is there a a patent on this yet?!
you could try taking a statistics course,
but better yet write your own new book on the subject.
Title it "Selective Statistics" and it will surely win a Nobel prize for such astounding and groundbreaking work!
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 22, 2014 - 08:40pm PT
|
Oh self taught wisest leader of all statisticians, smarter than thousands of scientists,
where is your patent on this new ocean energy source?
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 12:44am PT
|
repost from Sept 21, since the formatting is screwed up on that page.
That Koonin editorial in the WSJ has a point that Climate science is not settled. However it goes way overboard in its claims of uncertainty. Koonin buys into so much of the denier propaganda that his conclusion is warped into a position that little action is needed.
“Even though human influences could have serious consequences for the climate, they are physically small in relation to the climate system as a whole. For example, human additions to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by the middle of the 21st century are expected to directly shift the atmosphere's natural greenhouse effect by only 1% to 2%. Since the climate system is highly variable on its own, that smallness sets a very high bar for confidently projecting the consequences of human influences.”
The entire premise here is WRONG. We wouldn't be having this discussion and the issue would not exist if the predictions were for a SMALL change. 1-2% of what? Greenhouse effect is measured in additional net Watts/sq meter. Writing it as a percent of some unknown is a way to make it small. Also the effects are not just going to end in 2050. "Additional forcings in business-as-usual scenarios range roughly from 3 to 7 W/m2 and therefore additional warming (at equilibrium) would be 2 to 5 ºC. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/08/the-co2-problem-in-6-easy-steps/
“A second challenge to "knowing" future climate is today's poor understanding of the oceans. The oceans, which change over decades and centuries, hold most of the climate's heat and strongly influence the atmosphere. Unfortunately, precise, comprehensive observations of the oceans are available only for the past few decades; the reliable record is still far too short to adequately understand how the oceans will change and how that will affect climate.”
This paragraph is quite misleading on how much it underplays what we do know: that the ocean temps are going up by a lot, as is dissolved CO2 & acidity level.
“• Although the Earth's average surface temperature rose sharply by 0.9 degree Fahrenheit during the last quarter of the 20th century, it has increased much more slowly for the past 16 years, even as the human contribution to atmospheric carbon dioxide has risen by some 25%. This surprising fact demonstrates directly that natural influences and variability are powerful enough to counteract the present warming influence exerted by human activity.
That is only 1/3 true: Natural variability is TEMPORARILY enough to counteract surface temps, but ocean warming and ice melting continue to RISE due to the heat imbalance.
“Yet the models famously fail to capture this slowing in the temperature rise. Several dozen different explanations for this failure have been offered, with ocean variability most likely playing a major role. But the whole episode continues to highlight the limits of our modeling.”
WRONG. Models are now able to capture that slowing, and the whole episode shows that modeling is more and more accurate.
•” The models roughly describe the shrinking extent of Arctic sea ice observed over the past two decades, but they fail to describe the comparable growth of Antarctic sea ice, which is now at a record high.”
Here he is guilty of focusing on a gap, an exception to the general trend, ignoring the forest for a few of the trees. Arctic sea ice has shrunk by much more than Antarctic sea ice has risen. Scientists have only recently focused on this particular issue, and are already in the process of figuring it out.
“ The models predict that the lower atmosphere in the tropics will absorb much of the heat of the warming atmosphere. But that "hot spot" has not been confidently observed, casting doubt on our understanding of the crucial feedback of water vapor on temperature.”
Actually vapor has been directly measured, bypassing his misleading and incorrect conclusion.
As Ed posted, studies of water vapor so far have confirmed predictions that it will increase and amplify the CO2 greenhouse effect. More reading:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v449/n7163/abs/nature06207.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5875/518.short
http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/025210
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Evaporating-the-water-vapor-argument.html
a study that focuses on local exceptions to the general pattern:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012442/full
but more papers say those local exceptions do not change the global trend: “Clausius–Clapeyron scaling is directly evaluated using an invariant distribution of monthly-mean relative humidity, giving a rate of 7.4% K − 1 for global-mean water vapor. There are deviations from Clausius–Clapeyron scaling of zonal-mean column water vapor in the tropics and mid-latitudes, but they largely cancel in the global mean. A purely thermodynamic scaling based on a saturated troposphere gives a higher global rate of 7.9% K − 1. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/2/025207
“Robust and physically understandable responses of the global atmospheric water cycle to a warming climate are presented. By considering interannual responses to changes in surface temperature (T), observations and AMIP5 simulations agree on an increase in column integrated water vapor at the rate 7 %/K (in line with the Clausius–Clapeyron equation) and of precipitation at the rate 2–3 %/K (in line with energetic constraints).”
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10712-012-9213-z
“ Even though the human influence on climate was much smaller in the past, the models do not account for the fact that the rate of global sea-level rise 70 years ago was as large as what we observe today—about one foot per century.”
As with most data, there is not one measurement that is good for representing the past and one measurement that is good for the present and future.
The rate has gone up in recent decades. http://climate.nasa.gov/key_indicators/#seaLevel
The general rate from 1870 to 1930 was 9mm / decade.
From 1930 to 1995 it was 24mm / decade.
Since then the rate has been 32 mm /decade.
“• A crucial measure of our knowledge of feedbacks is climate sensitivity—that is, the warming induced by a hypothetical doubling of carbon-dioxide concentration. Today's best estimate of the sensitivity (between 2.7 degrees Fahrenheit and 8.1 degrees Fahrenheit) is no different, and no more certain, than it was 30 years ago. And this is despite an heroic research effort costing billions of dollars.”
That is incorrect. Climate predictions now have less uncertainty/sensitivity than previously.
"..open questions are in fact described in the IPCC research reports, although a detailed and knowledgeable reading is sometimes required to discern them. They are not "minor" issues to be "cleaned up" by further research. Rather, they are deficiencies that erode confidence in the computer projections. Work to resolve these shortcomings in climate models should be among the top priorities for climate research.
Yet a public official reading only the IPCC's "Summary for Policy Makers" would gain little sense of the extent or implications of these deficiencies...”
Politicians overall are incapable of understanding all the nuances, and will always rely on a summary, whether it is an accurate one from the IPCC, or a biased one from former fossil fuel executives.
Koonin is clearly trying to create more doubt than actually exists in order to get policy leaders to ignore the consensus.
“While the past two decades have seen progress in climate science, the field is not yet mature enough to usefully answer the difficult and important questions being asked of it. This decidedly unsettled state highlights what should be obvious: Understanding climate, at the level of detail relevant to human influences, is a very, very difficult problem. We can and should take steps to make climate projections more useful over time. “
Obviously climatology will continue to advance. He is again way over the top with opinionated pronouncements like “decidedly unsettled.”. If it's so unsettled, why are IPCC summaries more certain than ever, after 25 years. (again his unbacked conclusion about climate uncertainty is incorrect.)
“A transparent rigor would also be a welcome development, especially given the momentous political and policy decisions at stake. That could be supported by regular, independent, "red team" reviews to stress-test and challenge the projections by focusing on their deficiencies and uncertainties; that would certainly be the best practice of the scientific method. But because the natural climate changes over decades, it will take many years to get the data needed to confidently isolate and quantify the effects of human influences.”
Basically what he wants is a George Bush type committee to rewrite all science reports so they conform to Wall St Journal opinions. Red Team reviews – Ridiculous. What would be useful is for Congress to start to read anything at all about science, instead of listening and taking payoffs from ALEC lobbyists.
The main misinformation source going on for the last 20 years is the campaign conducted by deniers.
“Society's choices in the years ahead will necessarily be based on uncertain knowledge of future climates. That uncertainty need not be an excuse for inaction. There is well-justified prudence in accelerating the development of low-emissions technologies and in cost-effective energy-efficiency measures. But climate strategies beyond such "no regrets" efforts carry costs, risks and questions of effectiveness, so nonscientific factors inevitably enter the decision. These include our tolerance for risk and the priorities that we assign to economic development, poverty reduction, environmental quality, and intergenerational and geographical equity.”
He seems to be quite unaware of the extent of possible positive “no regrets” policies, in order to hint at his goal to delay any policy decisions for decades until it's too late. He should read the article Ed posted and learn something about how much we are subsidizing fossil fuel external costs, and how initial carbon taxes could simply make up for those subsidies, not even counting the external costs of global warming. http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/wp/2014/wp14174.pdf
“Any serious discussion of the changing climate must begin by acknowledging not only the scientific certainties but also the uncertainties, especially in projecting the future.”
Any serious discussion is already doing that, so his advice is unneeded. Also unneeded is an exaggeration of uncertainty with the goal of delaying sound policy. Just like tobacco “scientists” who for decades claimed uncertainty in order to deny their knowledge of the harmful effects of smoking.
Koonin has connections to those who deny the consensus and suggest that we just adapt to any climate change. The quick internet reposts & links to Koonin don't actually examine it, since that takes more time, and tends to happen after the media moment is past. But one obvious question is why he is posting this article at the WSJ, which has a long definitive history as a biased denier outlet? Couldn't he even get the APS to publish it?
Most likely he was just in a hurry to stop progress at this week's UN climate talks.
Or maybe even his buddies at the APS like Lindzen disagreed?
http://rabett.blogspot.com/2014/02/like-lambs-to-slaughter.html
|
|
son of stan
Boulder climber
San Jose CA
|
|
|
Sep 23, 2014 - 12:54am PT
|
2014 world crop harvests are all at record levels. Stupid CO2 maniacs are
embarrassed by this fact.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!