Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 03:51am PT
|
I understand that rick et al. like monkton. Here is his own answer when I asked him to explain the gibberish.
"The snarkily hemionymous “Raymond” sneers that a point I had made in the head posting about temperature feedbacks is “gibberish”. If “Raymond” considers that something is wrong with what I had said, let him say what is wrong and why. If he does not understand what I said, he has no basis for alleging that it was “gibberish”. A more grown-up approach is expected here,"
Nice to have grown up experts like lord monckton.
I am not even sure where to start pick about a "gibberish fact" when nothing make sense.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 09:22am PT
|
Well,Look at it this way.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 11:20am PT
|
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 11:32am PT
|
So Sketch has found out that trend lines over short time intervals can give fun results.
Your next plot could fit 3-4 new lines starting at a low level and stop at a high level.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 11:57am PT
|
Sketch, if I increase the revs of my Lambo at a constant rate the engine
temps will increase exponentially. I call that my GBW mobile lab.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 11:58am PT
|
It is not really interesting but you show one more time that you can't interpret and analyze data.
Calculating a trend from a low year to a high year does not imply that most of the warming happened during those years.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 12:02pm PT
|
while most of the warming (during the satellite era) has occurred in a single six year period
Sketch, you do know that UAH is a satellite dataset, don't you?
Six year period? LOL!
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
Terrapin Station
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 12:16pm PT
|
Did we figure it out yet?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 12:19pm PT
|
Always fun when Sketch drags over the latest Lord Monckton of Brenchley hilarity from wattsupwiththat.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 01:22pm PT
|
As i've pointed out repeatedly Bruce, it's WHETHER not wether.
Here is an interesting article about correlation between Solar activity and climate based upon a substantial selection of peer reviewed science. Perhaps Raymond or other esteemed science experts would care to critique its contents.
http://img213.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=62356_expanded_overview3_122_1094lo.jpg
I know many of you guys are engaged in supporting the last gasp campaign of climate catastrophe scenarios in an attempt to help "force the consensus agenda", but the science is slowly turning to alternative, less alarming and natural, explanations for the ever changing climate of earth. Don't you think its time to consider giving up the scare tactics in favor of sober analysis?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
|
Eventually Ed, you'll have no choice but to expand your 2.9% viewpoint. The laws of nature are immutable, even you will not be in denial in less than five years.Tap your own slippers in the meanwhile friend.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 02:39pm PT
|
The laws of nature are immutable, even you will not be in denial in less than five years.
It seems like you have higher thoughts about Ed than people have about you. I am sure that you are going to be in denial when you die. It is really not a chance that you start to even think of the possibility that your opinion ,that is based on your politics, is wrong.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 07:42pm PT
|
Rick,
Being a long-time follower of solar influences, I clicked on your link and read some pieces of it. (We all learned Milankovitch in college, and his theory of the Ice Ages was clearly the best one, even though he perhaps didn't have some of the mechanisms and weird feedback things, related to the locations of land masses and circulation of ocean waters, properly worked out.) To call the blog an "article" is awfully charitable. It is the usual scattershot splatter of bits and pieces which may or may not be very relevant to the recent 100 or so years of climate, with hints about maybe connections. Without it being presented in an organized outline, with a logical sequence of presentation of cited information, and conclusions (the way the scientific references you've linked are presented), it's simply not possible to critique the contents because it is too hard to figure out what he's trying to say.
But one thing does leap out from the screen. Many pages ago on this thread, Chiloe presented a bunch of graphs of temperature and the handful (I think it was four) main components affecting it (volcanic, ocean oscillations, CO2, sun), which showed remarkably good correlation with the combination of those factors. These were either not commented on, or outright rejected, by several of the posters here who deny the importance of human GHG emissions to climate change. Yet you are happy to accept that the relatively poorly correlated curves of astronomical radiation(s) and oceans/atmosphere that are presented in your link are the full explanation of what's going on. This inconsistency in what you accept and reject makes a reader very skeptical of your thesis, and doubt that you are applying the same level of critical thinking to all of the different things you are reading.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 09:53pm PT
|
Is this a peer reviewed and publicly paid for collection and interpretation of graphics TLP? No. What it is, is graphics from a collection of peer reviewed papers arrayed to make the case for a connection between cloud cover, surface temps, and sea level rise. I see a high degree of correlation in most of the graphs. It's pretty convincing high solar activity equals less cloudiness therefore more solar radiation reaching the surface, spiking the temps over both the eleven year schwabe cycle to the clustering of low to high groups of schwabe cycles on the millennial scale, sea level rise spikes closely to surface temps. It might not be pretty TLP, but it gets the point across. Yes, Milankovitch cycles are accepted to rule the periods of glaciation and deglaciation. Was the mid Pleistocene transition from 40,000 year cycles to the contemporary period of 100,000 year cycles caused by geographical changes, a change that favored the orbital eccentricity over axial tilt cycles, or some other combination of causes? Finally, i think we all agree man has an impact on the climate, how much is the million dollar question being battled about.
|
|
AndyMan
Sport climber
CA
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2014 - 10:34pm PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 19, 2014 - 10:40pm PT
|
Climate Nazis really are an excitable lot.
Here's your man Sketch!
Nate Silver sits on the stairs at a hotel in Chicago on Friday, Nov. 9, 2012.
And you can read all about how great he is here:
link: First Climate Article On Nate Silver’s Data Website
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 12:56am PT
|
Rick,
Lack of public funding is no excuse for not having a specific clear hypothesis and organized presentation. The problem with selecting some stuff here, some other there, is that the context is lost, along with the limitations and assumptions. Consequently, I wasn't convinced at all that most of what appeared there was actually relevant to the question of current climate. Skeptics are constantly criticizing the use of proxies... until their favorite blog leans heavily upon them, then they're totally accurate as a basis for stating what some climatic or astronomical condition was.
Anyway, I don't agree the correlations look very good; indeed, quite a bit worse than Chiloe's graphs which were just an initial cut at that idea. Often the thing that supposed to be a consequence is apparent in the graphs before the change that's supposed to be the cause. Climate science critics say this about CO2 concentrations and temperatures - but then ignore it when it's obvious in their own graphs. When something on this subject is peer reviewed and published with a clear train of thought, I'll be really interested. So far, the solar-influence articles are very interesting but not yet convincing that the currently modeled CO2 influence should be down-rated.
I see LOTS of posts on this thread vociferously disputing that humans are having any effect at all on climate. Though I am not 100 percent confident of the magnitude, I think the current crop of models are a lot closer to correct than any other clearly stated position I've seen yet. And it is a lot more than a million dollar question! More like maybe trillions on both sides (costs to substantially alter emissions, and costs from likely alterations in climate patterns whether storms, droughts, changes in agriculture, issues with water supplies, sea level rise, etc. etc.) Big stakes both ways.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 02:17am PT
|
TLP you determine the graphs show effect before cause in a few sections of a few graphs and in the rigidity of your pro CAGW bias dismiss all. Have you considered range of uncertainty in the collected data for the graphs inconsistencies? After all, there is no such thing as perfect knowledge, especially in this subject. If you have the time look at other material, the solar signal is clear if not obscured by other mechanisms like strong ENSO events, large volcanic eruptions, or excessive manipulation by the industry's proponents.
Now about those Milankovitch cycles; the 21-26,000 year axial wobble cycle, the 41,000 year axial tilt cycle, the 100,000 year orbital eccentricity cycle- where are we currently at in the cycles and why did the length of the glacial cycle change in the mid Pleistocene? Let's see what you know besides the party line.
Bruce-im in if it be judged by UAH global surface temperature anomalies data, methodologies, representations.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2014 - 10:50am PT
|
Yes Ed, now your talking, but as you say it is not enough to see, you must quantify. So buddy, put up or shut up. Quantify the numerical departure from mean in the UAH global lower troposphere anomaly measurement for February 2019. No, not graphs based on heavily manipulated data compared to models modified to fit, but rather a simple two digit number. I must remind you that with this solar cycles current double peak it is shaping up to be a long cycle and you know what that means for the probability of a prolonged minimum beginning around 2019. You take that and the negative phases of ocean basin overturnings, the pacific is in one now and indications are that the atlantic will soon follow suit, then it is quite likely the indicated cooling phase will swamp the already feeble co2 signal.
Once again, i reject your cockeyed notion that knowledge of the physical world is the sole province of trained government scientists of consensus persuasion. What you are witnessing here is self education of laymen in response to a scientism ideology not compatible to our human life.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!