Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 13, 2014 - 06:16am PT
|
Deniers argue their beliefs without reason.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 13, 2014 - 07:42am PT
|
Imposing your ideological and political beliefs of how we should all here on earth live our lives.
The Chief, you cannot find one phrase of mine where I am imposing my ideological and political belief on how anybody should live their lives.
Twist words all you want, the science behind climate change is nothing of what you speak.
You will employ any tactic available in order to impose your way of life on us all.
Deep end, say goodbye to The Chief, for he is off.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 07:52am PT
|
Ah, your no fun Raymond. You take life too seriously, don't laugh enough at the ridulousness of this shet fest of a debate. Want to double down on your guesstimate?
I'm seeing an increase in published studies attempting to unlock , understand, and better explain the obvious- that little known solar variation effects are the primary drivers and control knob for climate change between swings in the glacial age we are in caused primarily by the Milankovitch cycles. Any one else noticing this?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 07:58am PT
|
Well Rick.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo cu nullam delicata, an veri cetero est, erant semper officiis vix in. Ut c#m habeo iusto, an vis offendit persequeris, impedit commune te mea. Ne est dicit facete, per at mutat vocent latine, an assum concludaturque ius. Ea dicunt denique nominavi his, eam ea omnis postea corpora, cu duo movet nostro. Nec illum lorem perfecto eu, cu quo oratio laudem viderer, ludus epicurei ad usu. Ut his tollit intellegam quaerendum, modo eros appareat vim ut. Id quando utinam usu.
Veniam vivendo mediocritatem ad duo, in nec denique verterem efficiantur, mea graeci sanctus commune et. Case legimus fuisset ex pri, laoreet intellegam in ius. Duo ridens nominati torquatos te, qui in amet omittam. Sed saperet hendrerit id, eam ei incorrupte scriptorem. Duo ne constituto sententiae, ubique euripidis cu qui.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 13, 2014 - 08:04am PT
|
Please do tell us all how that is not a direct reference to how your ideology/political belief supersedes anything from the "right-wing".
It's not. This is not imposing any belief system nor is it telling you how to live your life.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 08:29am PT
|
Curious about what goes into those air temperature indexes that show up in so many graphs? Conspiracy theories masking ignorance on this topic are noisy staples of the blogosphere, but there is a good new reality-based post by Victor Venema, climatologist at the Meteorological Institute of the University of Bonn, writing on Variable Variability:
“Is the US historical temperature network trend too strong?”
The main US surface temperature records (which go into NASA, NOAA and HadCRUT4) are those maintained by the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN). This is a set of consistent, quality-checked records from about 1200 weather stations in the 48 contiguous states, from 1895 through 2013. A national index synthesized from these records shows a marked warming as graphed below. For comparison the two main satellite-based temperature indexes (UAH and RSS), which use indirect observations and modeling to estimate lower-troposphere temperatures, are graphed as well.
The satellite indexes track the surface-temperature records fairly well. Even so, there remains an internet meme of denial, claiming that this USHCN surface temperature warming is an artifact of urbanization. That is what Dr. Venema is addressing.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 08:37am PT
|
you'd like to explain your comment "The Chief"?
perhaps one of your crayon drawings?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 08:41am PT
|
Aware of the urbanization concern, NOAA in 2005 established the US Climate Reference Network (USCRN), a set of 114 high-quality observing stations in pristine locations, designed with climate science in mind. If the USHCN has a warming bias due to urbanization, this should stand out in a comparison with the USCRN. Venema shows that comparison over the years we have data from both networks:
Oddly, the comparison does not show a warming bias for USHCN (on which the standard datasets are based). If anything, USHCN (solid lines) appears slightly warmer than USCRN (dashed lines) early in this period, and slightly cooler than USCRN late in this period. In other words, the standard USHCN record is warming more slowly than the new reference network. How can that be?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 08:46am PT
|
if I do any analysis of those graphs, The Chief, you would complain that they are "manipulations" and untrustworthy, particularly because they would not support your assertion.
why don't you do the calculation? and then also calculate an estimate of the "goodness" of the hypothesis that the temperature change is zero.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 09:05am PT
|
I'm not stalling, The Chief,
I'm asking you to define what you consider a test for you assertion...
any monkey (or retired US Navy Chief) can run a canned program to make a graph. What does that graph mean? what is it's significance?
maybe you could explain that....
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 09:22am PT
|
Chiloe's plots of data do not look like straight lines over the time period of the plots,
The Chief claims that a straight line is the same thing as Chiloe's data plots...
can The Chief explain why he states that the straight line he plots (or a plot he takes from someone else) is the same thing?
I'm off to work now, I let The Chief come up with an explanation over the day and get back to this later tonight or maybe tomorrow morning...
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 11:19am PT
|
Sometimes when I read this thread, I feel a need for instruction on argument. It reminds me of the Monty Python skit "Argument Clinic." We seem to be stuck at "Abuse."
Then I read Chiloe's posts and remain thankful for his input.
"Climate Science models are testing many of the AGW assumptions. But at the same time those climate scientist are demanding that global political leaders initiate life altering actions based on the assumptions that have yet to be thoroughly validated/proven by those inconsistent models in order to test those assumptions."
The Chief, I have a similar complaint to what you quoted, but for a different reason. I object to those who advocate policies without trying to compare marginal costs and benefits. The fact that a model is uncertain does not mean we should not act on it, however.
Suppose I told you that tomorrow I think thunderstorms will develop on the Sierra Crest and reach all the way west to El Cap. Would you start up the Northwest Face of Half Dome tomorrw (a route where you can't see those thunderstorms coming, and where being stormbound can add more excitement than I, at least, would care to experience)?
Doesn't the answer depend, at least in part, on your understanding of my forecast of possible rain? If the prediction of rain has only a 25% chance of being correct, you may still choose a different objective for tomorrow's climb. If the forecast has a 95% chance of being correct, you could act fairly confidently on the forecast, even though I still haven't proven myself to be 100% accurate.
Criticizing the climate model predicitons because they are "unproven" strikes me as similar to saying I won't act on a weather forecast because they're never 100% right. We live in an imperfect world, but waiting for perfection would cause us to act rather foolishly.
For that reason, I would modify what you quoted, above, to read as follows:
"Climate Science models are testing many of the AGW assumptions. But at the same time some climate scientists -- and others -- are demanding that global political leaders initiate life altering actions as if the assumptions being tested were 100% certain, and the opporunities foregone by doing so were 100% certain to be inferior."
Not as sexy, maybe, but much more accurate.
John
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 11:50am PT
|
A further complexity to John E's point is that the climate "scientists," first and foremost, want more money (invariably taken from taxpayers) to continue their "scientific research."
I'm not saying they deserve nothing (when you look at what our government spends money on, it's hard to argue that climate "science" is near the top of of the list of taxpayer rip-offs, but it all adds up).
Ed operates under the fiction that money spent by the government is all well spent.
Most of us know better. (My line of work, dealing with the US Patent and Trademark Office, got some press recently as yet another government rip off, in this case, paying paralegals not to work. http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202665355201/Investigation-Finds-365M-of-PTO-Mismanagement-and-Waste?slreturn=20140713144334
(I'm not suggesting that Ed himself abuses the public largesse; I can easily believe that he's an honest guy who is fact so honest that he has trouble understanding that he's the outlier.)
How much if anything to give these jokers is a tough public-policy question. Seems to me that, in general, money is better spent in preparing to deal with whatever catastrophes arise, since you know there will be some, rather than trying to precisely pin down everything there is to know about one particular potential source of trouble (that members of the public believe, probably correctly, is pretty far down on the list of things to worry about).
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 01:28pm PT
|
The Chief,
I agree that the predictions on AGW models represent a much longer period of time, but they also don't represent points as specifically as tomorrow's weather forecast for Yosemite.
The point I tried (and apparently failed) to make by my example was to illustrate why it's not irrational to act on an imperfect forecast, but that the extent of the uncertainty affects how much action I take.
I personally find the evidence supporting the models sufficient to justify some action, though maybe not as much, or too much, action as some others as other find appropriate. I assume (there's that word again!) that you find the reliability of the forecasts so remote that they justify no particular actions at this time. If so, then we disagree, but at least I can accept your position. Those who say we should not act because the madels are uncertain -- in contrast -- advance a non-sequitur. It's not important that the models may be uncertain, it's a question of how uncertain.
Is that last sentence a fair statement of your position?
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 01:51pm PT
|
The Chief,
I can't generalize on what policies "climate scientists" advocate, because I don't see a monolithic policy prescription. With that caveat, I would say the following:
1. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. (general agreement);
2. Human activity is raising the atmospheric concentration of CO2 (fairly general agreement);
3. The earth's mean temperature is rising (strong agreement, but less than (1) or (2));
4. (3), above, is caused primarily by human activity (strong agreement, but less than (3));
5. Based on (1) - (4), humanity should try to reduce its atmospheric carbon emissions (about the same agreement as (4));
6. Environmental and anti-industrial groups advocate greater "carbon reduction" than the general public, and tend to advocate policies they already supported as the way to achieve their desired policy outcome (example, those against logging advocate less logging to keep more forests, etc.) (I may be the only one who agrees with this statement);
I support mandatory efforts to reduce carbon emissions because I find the scientific studies raise sufficient evidence to justify action. I advocate mandatory efforts because carbon pollution is an externality, and those who undertake efforts to reduce their carbon emissions suffer for doing so, but cannot exclude others from the benefits of their doing so. I am a market economist, so I advocate "cap and trade" as the best mechanism to reduce carbon emissions (in contrast to explicit government regulation).
In a nutshell, that's my position.
John
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 05:21pm PT
|
Larry Hamilton, why did you have to go to a Bonn Germany blogger to get the particularly skewed graph of the ten years of the 114 USCRN stations that you posted on the prior page. Could it be ,Larry, that you could find no such interpretation from any reputable U.S. scientist or even blog?
Complete B.S. propaganda, and not even from this country. The U.S. has been cooling, admittedly in fits and starts, since the highest recorded temps of the 1930's.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 05:34pm PT
|
Larry Hamilton, why did you have to go to a Bonn Germany blogger to get the particularly skewed graph of the ten years of the 114 USCRN stations that you posted on the prior page. Could it be ,Larry, that you could find no such interpretation from any reputable U.S. scientist or even blog?
Complete B.S. propaganda, and not even from this country. The U.S. has been cooling, admittedly in fits and starts, since the highest recorded temps of the 1930's.
It's been a tough competition today but here Rick Sumner has managed to leap ahead of blahblah and The Chief. That graph is from NOAA.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 09:02pm PT
|
The NOAA fudge factory is s reputable source? Surely you jest Larry. Where was the credit in your previous post? Your post said the comparison was by Venema.
Bruce , too bad I can't figure out a way to charge your ever present and lazy ass for all the entertainment I've provided you basket cases with.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Aug 13, 2014 - 09:11pm PT
|
Rick,
Please bear in mind that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo cu nullam delicata, an veri cetero est, erant semper officiis vix in. Ut c#m habeo iusto, an vis offendit persequeris, impedit commune te mea. Ne est dicit facete, per at mutat vocent latine, an assum concludaturque ius. Ea dicunt denique nominavi his, eam ea omnis postea corpora, cu duo movet nostro. Nec illum lorem perfecto eu, cu quo oratio laudem viderer, ludus epicurei ad usu. Ut his tollit intellegam quaerendum, modo eros appareat vim ut. Id quando utinam usu.
Furthermore, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, quo cu nullam delicata, an veri cetero est, erant semper officiis vix in. Ut c#m habeo iusto, an vis offendit persequeris, impedit commune te mea. Ne est dicit facete, per at mutat vocent latine, an assum concludaturque ius. Ea dicunt denique nominavi his, eam ea omnis postea corpora, cu duo movet nostro. Nec illum lorem perfecto eu, cu quo oratio laudem viderer, ludus epicurei ad usu. Ut his tollit intellegam quaerendum, modo eros appareat vim ut. Id quando utinam usu.
I look forward to your fascinating reply.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
There was a transition in US weather recording from a cotton region shelter to automatic weather stations (maximum-minimum temperature systems). This transition is almost completed and was more intense in the previous century.
Let us know!