Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
"Find a quality provider of carbon offsets. Because carbon offsets are fairly intangible, you need to take precautions to ensure that your purchase is having the intended impact."
Indulgences have been done before, just a different class of priest passing them out.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Sea ice is not land ice, Sketch. The repeat-blog-talking-points method of trying to sound smart has its drawbacks.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Cragman, I don't know you but in your first few posts here all you've established is that you are
(1) right-wing,
(2) smug, and
(3) totally ignorant about climate change, but that doesn't matter to you because (1) and (2).
Instead of jumping in to shout at us what you believe and how much you hate Al Gore, why not read a bit and find out what this thread is about? It's been pretty awful today but even then, it was never about Al Gore.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Lindzen began his meteoric rise through the nascent field. In the 1970s, while a professor at Harvard, Lindzen disproved the then-accepted theory of how heat moves around the Earth’s atmosphere, winning numerous awards in the process. Before his 40th birthday, he was a member of the National Academy of Sciences. In the mid-1980s, he made the short move from Harvard to MIT, and he’s remained there ever since. Over the decades, he’s authored or coauthored some 200 peer-reviewed papers on climate.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=1#
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I'm sure Cragman is quite aware of what this thread is all about Larry. Now why don't you go back to your cave with the rest of your climate Taliban brethren and compose new fatwa's (climate sociological studies) for dissemination to your dwindling band.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
If that's your key "fact" maybe you should start an I-hate-Al-Gore thread.
|
|
Gary
Social climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
Great thread! Not only entertaining, but informative. Today I learned that in winter it gets f*#king cold in Michigan! Who knew?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
So cragman is a skeptic while remaining proudly ignorant of the topic, relying on his gut while shunning data to form an opinion on a very complex topic.
Lol...
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Pretty squirrelly Ed. Ahh, the science of semantics-almost as good as the self refutation present in that farsical document AR5. You must be getting bored counting radioactive decay and climbing the walls of your work space.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
HAHAHAHAHAHAAHHHAAAA! Sorry wrong room.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Oh Yea!
Man it's COLD!!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Calendrical dating being out of jive with c14 dating is not exclusive to the Younger Dryas. It might have been pronounced then, but the working theory of the divergence in dating is commonly accepted to be variability of penetrating cosmic rays, Dr. Hartouni. Proximity of a cluster of relatively nearby novae accompanying a deep solar minimum is equally disprovable as the idea of sudden changes to deep water ventilation by way of abrupt reduction of north atlantic ocean salinity.
No i didn't read that paper or the others. Instead i responded to a request you made of Abrams for citation. The other 70 papers would make great reading while monitoring the efficacy of the stockpile.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Rick, that last one of urs , is my favorite yet!
I know your only a frammer.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
That's a pretty funny Video BK! How long did it take you to find that?
Opinions are like azz holes. Everybody's got one!
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html
yeah, it's long, but here's the gist:
"Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. “We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,” he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by “a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?”
Lindzen says not much at all—and he contends that the “alarmists” vastly overstate the Earth’s climate sensitivity. Judging by where we are now, he appears to have a point; so far, 150 years of burning fossil fuels in large quantities has had a relatively minimal effect on the climate. By some measurements, there is now more CO2 in the atmosphere than there has been at any time in the past 15 million years. Yet since the advent of the Industrial Revolution, the average global temperature has risen by, at most, 1 degree Celsius, or 1.6 degrees Fahrenheit. And while it’s true that sea levels have risen over the same period, it’s believed they’ve been doing so for roughly 20,000 years. What’s more, despite common misconceptions stoked by the media in the wake of Katrina, Sandy, and the recent typhoon in the Philippines, even the IPCC concedes that it has “low confidence” that there has been any measurable uptick in storm intensity thanks to human activity. Moreover, over the past 15 years, as man has emitted record levels of carbon dioxide year after year, the warming trend of previous decades has stopped. Lindzen says this is all consistent with what he holds responsible for climate change: a small bit of man-made impact and a whole lot of natural variability...
But Lindzen rejects the dire projections. For one thing, he says that the Summary for Policymakers is an inherently problematic document. The IPCC report itself, weighing in at thousands of pages, is “not terrible. It’s not unbiased, but the bias [is] more or less to limit your criticism of models,” he says. The Summary for Policymakers, on the other hand—the only part of the report that the media and the politicians pay any attention to—“rips out doubts to a large extent. . . . [Furthermore], government representatives have the final say on the summary.” Thus, while the full IPPC report demonstrates a significant amount of doubt among scientists, the essentially political Summary for Policymakers filters it out.
Lindzen also disputes the accuracy of the computer models that climate scientists rely on to project future temperatures. He contends that they oversimplify the vast complexity of the Earth’s climate and, moreover, that it’s impossible to untangle man’s effect on the climate from natural variability. The models also rely on what Lindzen calls “fudge factors.” Take aerosols. These are tiny specks of matter, both liquid and solid (think dust), that are present throughout the atmosphere. Their effect on the climate—even whether they have an overall cooling or warming effect—is still a matter of debate. Lindzen charges that when actual temperatures fail to conform to the models’ predictions, climate scientists purposely overstate the cooling effect of aerosols to give the models the appearance of having been accurate. But no amount of fudging can obscure the most glaring failure of the models: their inability to predict the 15-year-long (and counting) pause in warming—a pause that would seem to place the burden of proof squarely on the defenders of the models."
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Yes, exactly Chief, great post.
With Larry tucked away in his cave with his fellow Taliban furiously typing out new fatwas in support of their ongoing war against humanity and Ed not likely to squawk from his box because he is busy at work maintaining the stockpile to keep us all safe in the event of a return to mutual assured destruction, it leaves only the low level idiots stirring the crockpot of shet. Hardly a challenge.
The Chief is right, the doomists destroyed themselves through constantly missing "projections" then childishly "adjusting and manipulating" data and projections to fit reality. Any hillbilly, Beverly or not, can plainly see through their farce. Adjustment is no substitution for realized predictions. CAGW theorists have never conclusively made the case of how much of the very modest warming of the recent past (15-17 years ago) was attributable to man.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Hey Mono - How about some current graphs???
These charts without the last three years are lame.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
And you never link to wattsupwiththat, Bob Tisdale, Cato institute......
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Dr. James Hansen's original 1988 temp increase "prediction" modeling is seen in Scenario A. Then as the reality of the true climate forcing per the IPCC came to play, he "adjusted" his modeling in Scenario B and finally in C to coincide with it.
LOL, Chief, what an idiot.
Scenario A, B, C came out at the same time in 1988. They are different CO2 emission scenarios, not CO2 sensitivities.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Hansen was pretty close, 25 years ago. Lindzen was terribly wrong.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!