Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Joshua Johnson
Boulder climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2013 - 06:22pm PT
|
We hope you go away Burghey.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Dec 26, 2013 - 09:44pm PT
|
Look out Ed,here they come.
|
|
abrams
Sport climber
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 12:15am PT
|
If you notice that those graphs ridiculously exaggerate
the vertical axis in an effort to make a fraction of a degree
look like doomsday. Scaring the peasants equals grant money.
Shyster research geeks could have as easily made it as steep as El Cap
but no one would buy such a misrepresentation of a virtually flat line.
A few tenths of a degree is still nothing but weather variation and not
doomsday climate change.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 12:26am PT
|
Yeah, really, what could possibly be the problem?
This is how we should view temps, in degrees kelvin.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 11:46am PT
|
Assuming you guys are true believers in this nightmare of disastrous AGW, what would be your expectations of the environmental events that would constitute proof in the coming year of 2014. Will it be deepening droughts, biblical scale deluges, f5 twisters tilling a wider swath of the plains, cat 6 hurricanes, new record heatwaves, inundation of the low coasts or will it continue to manifest as historically benign weather and cold, ice and snow outpacing increasing heat? Give us your predictions all ye prophets of doom.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 11:56am PT
|
and cold, ice and snow outpacing increasing heat?
and the warmest November on record? I would really like to have more snow and colder temperatures this "winter".
That it is cold outside your house doesn't mean that it is cold all over the world.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 09:21pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^[
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 10:41pm PT
|
Chill, y'all. I haven't been here for days and I come back and the conversation has not changed at all. What up with that?!
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 10:45pm PT
|
It is called refutation of denial.
Utopian!
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 10:48pm PT
|
wilbrew, can you state the caption of the above gif?
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 10:51pm PT
|
I kid.
But,I could deny that!
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 11:14pm PT
|
I'll take a shot at summarizing AGW to reach some level of civility here. Arguably, the concern is the current CO2 ppm level in the atmosphere. The problem is that no one really knows for sure what the final results will be. We simply don't know enough yet. So we're trying to measure the risk.
And the risk level has been totally effed up by politics and an unknowing populace. Classic formula for malfeasance. And throw in the whole redistribution of wealth concept and intentional Leftist indoctrination of the US through our university system, and well, see Dr. F and his posse's posts for supporting evidence.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Dec 27, 2013 - 11:22pm PT
|
It [CC], should never have been politicized in the first place.
Mimi ,who do you think may have had an interest in doing so in the beginnings of this?
Ah, the real problem,aye?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 01:22pm PT
|
I see that none of you "true believers", with the lone exception of Ed's generalities prediction, feel confident enough in your knowledge of CAGW to hazard a guess of the proofs you would expect of the theory in the coming year. Great, perhaps this is a sign that your "reeducation" is failing in the face of contrary fact.
That the sun is the overwhelming driver of climate on Earth on all scales from daily to geological, in the fact the cause of virtually all effects, can be revealed by a simple thought experiment. Imagine you wake up tomorrow and their is no sunrise because the sun is gone, vacated from our stellar system. The energy driving our climate system would be gone, the effects immediate. Within a few short years the minority of our atmosphere not lost to space would go quickly to frozen ground and ocean, the temperature reduced to near absolute zero as kinetic and radiation energy quickly waned, the only active source with any duration remaining coming from the core.
Okay, so you wake up tomorrow and the sun rises just as it has everyday of your life; what can you expect of the changes in climate over the coming year as a result of the minimum of solar activity we are entering? For a most complete compilation of the full spectrum of solar effects on climate see the link to the following paper.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009RG000282/abstract
If you have taken the time to at least skim through this exhaustive study you will have noticed that it repeatedly states that the extent of variation in a maunder type minimum is an unsure quantity. Sure, their have been plenty of estimations based on proxy data, but estimation is not a substitute for direct measurement. Our sun has entered a period of markedly reduced activity, studied and published most prominently by the works of Livingston and Penn. A growing number of solar scientists agree we are about to test the extent of variability in all spectrums and effects of a cold sun period.
Here is a few of my predictions based upon the sum total I have read.
1. Cold temp anomalies will continue outpacing hot temp anomalies and might even increase, as measured by UAH and RSS.
2. Since Arctic sea ice extent and volume saw such a huge rebound in 2013 it is unlikely that it continues at this pace. We might see a small decline in year over year extent in sept. 2014, but this will be more than compensated by an increase in Antarctic ice accumulation.
3.Faced with a lack of interest from the public the media will continue it's decrease of interest in reporting CAGW sensationalism. This will be negated somewhat by a huge increase of funding from government, environmental NGO's, and private interests of billionaires who stand to gain. We will see a large increase of "scientific studies" refuting wide swings in the climate of the past and "reinterpretation and manipulation" of data in an attempt to reeducate the disinterested public to believe that up is down and black is white in respect to all things climate.
Happy new year to all. I leave you with one of the best refutations of the climate crock of shet I have seen.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/05/06/the-global-warming-hypothesis-and-ocean-heat/
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 02:21pm PT
|
OK, I did start to have a look at the scientific link posted by Rick above, and in a few seconds, what do I find but this quote (from one of the sources cited [Ammann, 2007, PNAS 104:3713-3718]):
"Despite the direct response of the model to solar forcing, even large solar irradiance change combined with realistic volcanic forcing over past centuries could not explain the late 20th century warming without inclusion of greenhouse gas forcing. Although solar and volcanic effects appear to dominate most of the slow climate variations within the past thousand years, the impacts of greenhouse gases have dominated since the second half of the last century."
I'll report back later about what the Review authors say about this and any other relevant bits.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 03:06pm PT
|
That the sun is the overwhelming driver of climate on Earth on all scales from daily to geological, in the fact the cause of virtually all effects, can be revealed by a simple thought experiment. Imagine you wake up tomorrow and their is no sunrise because the sun is gone, vacated from our stellar system. The energy driving our climate system would be gone, the effects immediate. Within a few short years the minority of our atmosphere not lost to space would go quickly to frozen ground and ocean, the temperature reduced to near absolute zero as kinetic and radiation energy quickly waned, the only active source with any duration remaining coming from the core.
I am not sure if what you post are hilarious or just sad.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 05:09pm PT
|
Dingus, that's rich coming from you. I was simply making a joke around the campfire. Sorry you're having a bad holiday season in your dingy motel room or wherever you might be.
wilbeer, I expected AlGore to be in trouble with the SEC over his AGW political push and his 'green' investments. Yes, people are trying to cash in on this including the scientists competing for grant dollars and that's a bummer. Politics most always screws things up.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 06:47pm PT
|
Great question, Ed. My kneejerk answer is to agree with you that 'it just sounds good' because I haven't had actual experience and my scientist friends are all pro-AGW. I have read about it over the years in several opinionated editorials.
I searched several times to find an accurate account of funding being cut or denied to scientists that disputed AGW and ended up on Wikipedia. These couple of accounts are under the Funding heading under Global Warming Controversy. This is somewhat dated, but there's something to this depending on where the scientist might be employed or what type of funding he/she is trying to get.
Global warming skeptic Reid Bryson said in June 2007 that "There is a lot of money to be made in this... If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide'." Similar positions have been advanced by University of Alabama, Huntsville climate scientist Roy Spencer, Spencer's University of Alabama, Huntsville colleague and IPCC contributor John Christy, University of London biogeographer Philip Stott, Accuracy in Media, and Ian Plimer in his 2009 book Heaven and Earth — Global Warming: The Missing Science.
Richard Lindzen, the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at MIT, said that "[in] the winter of 1989 Reginald Newell, a professor of meteorology [at MIT], lost National Science Foundation funding for data analyses that were failing to show net warming over the past century". Lindzen also suggested that four other scientists "apparently" lost their funding or positions after questioning the scientific underpinnings of global warming. Lindzen himself has been the recipient of money from energy interests such as OPEC and the Western Fuels Association, including "$2,500 a day for his consulting services", as well as funding from US federal sources including the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and NASA.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!