Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Norton
Social climber
quitcherbellyachin
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2014 - 01:54pm PT
|
now please cite all of the studies where no "data' was falsified, ok?
just so no one gets the idea that False Equivalences" of showing a couple of isolated instances does anything at all to minimize the massive evidence already tested, retested,
and accepted into the record
because that would be, like, ignorant and childish, right?
|
|
TomCochrane
Trad climber
Santa Cruz Mountains and Monterey Bay
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:20pm PT
|
UN panel: Global warming human-caused, dangerous
By SETH BORENSTEIN
From Associated Press
August 26, 2014 1:00 PM EST
WASHINGTON (AP) — A new international draft report says global warming is here, human-caused and can already be considered dangerous. The report warns that it is increasingly likely that climate change could be irreversible.
The United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change on Monday sent governments a draft of its final synthesis report, which combines three earlier, gigantic documents by the Nobel Prize-winning group.
The 127-page draft, obtained by The Associated Press, paints a stark warning of what's causing global warming — burning fossil fuels — and what it will do to humans and the environment. It also describes what can be done about it.
The report said the climate changes that have already occurred are widespread and consequential, while the human fingerprints on the problem are clear and unequivocal.
|
|
BigFeet
Trad climber
Texas
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:22pm PT
|
So, are you saying that false data that is being included in, and contributing to, the world narative does nothing to discredit said theory?
Yeah, I'm not biting. Garbage in = garbage out.
Science is the act of trying to disprove your theory in all ways possible to see if it holds true, not to fabricate data or contort them to fit your needs.
Not saying climate change does not exist just that man is not the cause. Nature, man... it is a wonderful and crazy bitch.
|
|
karen roseme
Mountain climber
Bishop
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2014 - 02:50pm PT
|
Science group says climate change worsening, dangerous
Doyle Rice, USA TODAY 5 p.m. EDT August 26, 2014
Human influence on the planet's climate is clear and having "widespread and consequential impacts on human and natural systems," some of which may be irreversible, says a draft report out today from a United Nations science panel.
"Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia," the report says. "The atmosphere and ocean have warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, and sea level has risen."
Changes in many extreme weather and climate events have been seen in the past six decades or so, including fewer cold temperature extremes and more hot temperature extremes.
The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) document is the final part of the group's Fifth Assessment Report, which synthesizes three earlier large reports on various aspects of climate change. There's little in this document not covered in the others, but the language is more stark.
The IPCC is a group of researchers and scientists from around the world who monitor recent climate science and release reports every several years about the latest scientific findings.
The report states that the cause of this climate change is man-made emissions of greenhouse gases, which are "the highest in history" and probably "unprecedented in at least the last 800,000 years."
The recent uptick in carbon dioxide levels is correlated with a rise in global temperatures of about 1.5 degrees since the early 1800s.
"Without additional mitigation, and even with adaptation, warming by the end of the 21st century will lead to high to very high risk of severe, widespread and irreversible impacts globally, " it says.
The report says that if carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases continue to be emitted at the current rate, it's likely that by 2050, temperatures will rise by about 3.6 degrees Fahrenheit, when compared with the temperatures from 1986 to 2005.
By 2100, temperatures could be about 6.7 degrees warmer. Though it wouldn't occur for hundreds of years, the huge sheet of ice over Greenland could melt entirely, leading to as much as a 23-foot rise in world ocean levels, leaving many coastal cities underwater.
This 127-page draft report, obtained by USA TODAY Tuesday, could change before its official release in Copenhagen in October.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2014 - 03:47pm PT
|
Nevada dry lakes are changing back to their wetter ice-age mode
due to the cooling climate. 2014 has seen above normal
precipitation in Nevada and below normal temps.
2014 BURNING MAN:
Burners locked out on opening day.
The dusty dry lake is a wet muddy mess
because of ice-age like summer rains.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2014 - 05:50pm PT
|
At least we don’t sacrifice virgins anymore
TOM BURGUM
Staff Columnist
burgum@lbknews.com
It was a belief in some ancient cultures temperature could be altered, draughts ended, the rise of oceans halted, merely by throwing a couple luckless virgins into a volcano. Some would think this makes the Incas and Mayans appear misogynistic but, it’s much more likely they didn’t think the gods were much interested in young boys. As I said, it was an ancient culture.
Before you smirk in condescension because these illiterate savages were not conversant with such natural phenomena as the Pacific decadal oscillation, you might look at today’s human folly where we in the United States propose to sacrifice a good bit of our economy in hopes of appeasing the global warming gods. Oh yes, there is not much difference in the religious fervor of the global warming, climate change or weather disruption crowd today and the Inca priests who thought their pathetic and cruel activities could influence the climate.
You have to look no further than the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) new proposed rules which will, according to the United States Chamber of Commerce, cost the American economy $51 billion, as well as 224,000 jobs, every year through 2030. The EPA has much lower estimates but the Government Accountability Office found that the EPA was using a study outdated by 20 years and even when new only took into account four industrial sectors.
According to a study by the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), “The United States is already facing the loss of 60 gigawatts of power over the next three years, the result of older coal plants being forced to shut down because they cannot comply with the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxic Standards enacted in 2012.”
At the onset of those rules the EPA, with its usual distain for accuracy, claimed that only four gigawatts of capacity would be lost because of the regulations. Now, even EPA admits, 60 gigawatts of coal-generated electricity will be lost and that is even before the new regulations kick in. The real problem here is that ninety percent of plants slated to close by the new draconian regulations were needed to provide power during the periods of severe weather last winter. Too bad EPA can’t just throw a few virgins down a volcano to hold off the threat of another cold winter.
Forget all that, you say. Our sacrifice will stymie global warming, or whatever it’s called now. Not really. Chip Knappenberger and Patrick J. Michaels of the Cato’s Center for the Study of Science, using the EPA developed climate-model emulator, “found that the EPA regulations would barley affect the climate — by eighteen-thousandths of a degree Celsius by 2100.” This is such a small number it cannot even be discussed in practical terms. EPA, of course, didn’t publish that information on their misnamed fact sheet and it’s easy to understand why: It’s hard to get people to agree to seriously damage their economy for no apparent reason.
There now is credible evidence developed by HadCRUT that the earth is not warming. The HadCRUT data on earth’s temperature is the authoritative data set used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The temperature is determined by combining the sea surface temperature records compiled by the Hadley Centre of the United Kingdom Met Office and the land surface air temperature records compiled by the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia.
The latest figures from HadCRUT show that over the last 15 years the globe has cooled with a -0.24C per century trend, not warmed as predicted. Then, earlier this month the IPCC’s own data showed that the global mean temperature has dropped an unprecedented 1 degree C since 1990. Significantly, the vaunted computer models that predicted a hot Armageddon unless we stopped burning coal have been proven wrong.
So much for settled science.
Meanwhile, there are those who believe the earth is headed for a cooling period. Physicist Henrik Svensmark, a professor in the Division of Solar System Physics at the Danish National Space Institute, declared, “global warming has stopped and a cooling is beginning. Enjoy global warming while it lasts.”
Habibullo Abdussamatov is a Russian astrophysicist and supervisor of the Astrometrial project of the Russian section of the International Space Station: He heads the Space research laboratory at the Saint Petersburg-based Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. He has a question: “Has the Obama administration, the EPA or anyone that can read a chart actually looked at what global temperatures are now doing?”
Prominent geologist Dr. Don Easterbrook warns “global cooling is a slam dunk” for up to 30 years or more” While the Australian Astronomical Society warns of global cooling as the sun’s activity significantly diminishes.
The high priests of global warming ignore all evidence to the contrary and continue to insist on reducing our capacity to produce electric energy. Even though the draconian regulations will not even have a measurable affect on climate they will have a very measurable effect on our economy. The cost can be counted in the hundreds of billions of dollars and the hundreds of thousands of jobs with higher electric rates that will impact the manufacturing sector, the poor and middle class. It also poses a real threat to the stability of the electric grid itself.
It is a pretty depressing story overall but, at least we are no longer sacrificing virgins. I guess that is progress of a sort.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 26, 2014 - 08:05pm PT
|
... predict the long-term response of the climate to ongoing CO2 rise with great accuracy.
you avoided answering this before... how do you define accuracy?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 07:42am PT
|
Sketch wrote:
The quality or state of being correct or precise.
What's your point, Ed? Do you think my statement is wrong? Or are you just trying to hang me up on the details?
which is to say, you don't know what a quantitative definition of accuracy is...yet you have made claims about "accuracy."
Used in the manner you have defined above "the quality or state of being correct or precise" I'd say that the climate models are "accurate" in their treatment of CO2 in particular, but in many other ways. Your definition has for possible combinations ("or" is used twice).
I don't actually think you agree with the definition you've stated, and your opinion that the models are not "accurate" comes from people who have a specific quantitative definition in mind. You just don't know enough to understand that.
One tip off in your proposed definition is the statement "precise," which has a different definition (in statistics) than "accurate." You no doubt recall that I might often use the two when describing a prediction as being "accurate and precise," why would I do that?
My point was to find out what you think the definition was, and having done that I would see that you don't actually know. It certainly isn't worth my time to discuss the accuracy and precision of a model, and how you would determine those quantities, with someone who has strong beliefs but no knowledge. Maybe that discussion could happen once you have a better understanding of what it is you are talking about.
And I don't have time to teach you... those are simple enough concepts in statistics that you could learn about them yourself.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 08:12am PT
|
Thanks for not being a condescending little f*#kwad
Sketch, have you written a single intelligent comment on this thread, one that shows your own comprehension and thinking? I haven't seen it, but then I skip most of what you post. Why not take this space to show I'm wrong, cite a few paragraphs that articulate your thoughts and show a brain actually working.
Ed is right, "accurate" and "precise" have different meanings in science (even, in Stats 101), which he can see you don't know. Instead of thinking for one second by yourself, or looking them up to figure out what he's talking about -- I gather that you can't -- you toss feces, your first, last and middle resort.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 08:52am PT
|
so Sketch, you haven't looked up a quantitative definition of "precision" and "accuracy"?
If you fear that such a discussion will actually lead to something useful in this thread then your fear is well founded. However, I don't think you'll take the discussion in that direction.
As for your unhappiness at someone pointing out that you really don't understand something, I'm sure you'll get over it, you don't value understanding anyway.
You made a provocative statement twice... and when asked to explain your statement (by providing the definition of "accuracy") your provocation backfired. Had you responded with a better definition of "accuracy" you could have strung us all along a bit. Now you're just crying that some bullies are kicking sand in your eyes... poor Sketch, he isn't smart enough to stand up to some bullies, people know something he doesn't and he thinks it's unfair for them to point it out.
...and I post that with all due respect.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 09:11am PT
|
There you go again Ed, schooling us in the finer points of is ism. You really should , at this point, abandon the facade of wrapping this debate in the obscurity of scientific nomenclature and instead concentrate on the polical advancement of the ideology so common among you progressive intellectuals. Always remember your preferred path is the one and only "true course". The suffering and economic hardship of full imposition of the agenda is justified, by among other concepts, the precautionary principle and correction of the evils of the human stain afflicting the body earth. So, if at some future date, after fossil fuel deindustrialization, we find ourselves unable to feed the masses with a consequent population correction downwards, that's just fine-right?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 09:57am PT
|
rick writes: "...wrapping this debate in the obscurity of scientific nomenclature ..."
when terms like "precision" and "accuracy" are considered to be "obscure scientific nomenclature" it indicates the very low level of understanding of those making such claims. It also indicates the quality of their arguments.
rick I agree that if you eliminate all precision from the discussion that experts aren't necessary. what you are left with then are people with opinions which they loudly proclaim.
time and again when you are confronted with your lack of understanding of these "obscure scientific nomenclatures" you go on to insist that they are not necessary...
that you would make such a statement speaks volumes.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 10:01am PT
|
Good ol' Chiloe. Showing up swat my hand with a ruler.
No, you're stuck in a much earlier grade. Here, I'll repeat the question I actually asked:
Sketch, have you written a single intelligent comment on this thread, one that shows your own comprehension and thinking? I haven't seen it, but then I skip most of what you post. Why not take this space to show I'm wrong, cite a few paragraphs that show your brain actually working.
Sketch has made 5 more witless posts since I asked for a few examples showing intelligence by him. With no interest in or grasp of science topics, he uses this thread just to display his personality.
So smug.
So predictable. Dumbass. Hey liitle buddy THE INTOLERANCE OF GLOBAL WARMING NAZIS Oh poo!
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 10:31am PT
|
Your shameless hypocrisy is impressive.
No, I'm just bemused that anyone could make so many belligerently witless posts like this one (your 6th in how many minutes?), and zero posts showing any thought or intelligence, and yet get so whiny when people don't take you seriously.
I'm sure my own interactions with you do often have this character -- in your posts, there is nothing else there. But if you look at my posts written for people who do read, those often have science content.
As for hypocrisy, I'll just remind you that you posted this pyramid. Obviously with no sincerity, you just imagined it was another empty way to insult.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 11:47am PT
|
Not impressive. Pathetic. ;-)
Zero for 7 now.
But enough Sketch drama, let's try something real. Upthread BigFeet shared a tale making denialosphere rounds, alleging dastardly doings by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM).
Ouch! Once again, fabrication of data...
But no, BOM did not fabricate data, once again or otherwise. This is worth going into because conspiracy nuts on this thread and elsewhere make similar points often, they will shout it right after this post. But onlookers might wonder, just what are the temperature adjustments, and why?
What BOM did, routinely, is notice retrospectively that temperature records from one station fell out of line with its own previous values, and the temperatures recorded by a number of other nearby stations (which pretty much agreed with each other). This seems to have happened suddenly, in August 1980.
When one "station" suddenly starts to disagree with itself and its neighbors, that's a yellow flag that something has changed. A frequent explanation is that the recording location has moved. I mentioned upthread the US experience of having many urban weather stations that were moved to cooler locations, especially airports, since the 1940s. The Australian station in question may well have moved too, but at the time it was maintained by the Royal Australian Air Force and they haven't filled in the metadata, perhaps having other priorities. Nick Stokes, while being banned from posting comments that disagree with the party line at WUWT, has a very clear factual post on this topic, with links to all the original data (adjusted or not).
Here's Nick's graph of the raw data, showing Amberley's trend and variations quite at odds with three neighboring stations. Amberley's red line is mostly warmer than the other stations in the first half of the period, and mostly cooler than others in the second half. Note that these are temperature anomalies, so "warmer" or "cooler" are relative to average temperatures at each station, not comparing one station to the others.
Well that might be because Amberley is right and the other 3 are wrong. All wrong in the same direction, and at the same time! Conspiracy believers will like that, but scientists tend toward simpler hypotheses -- like, something happened at Amberley in August 1980, such as the instruments got moved. For example, somebody might have noticed it was sitting on black pavement, or in the alley between two buildings, and moved it out to fresher air for more representative temperature readings. That happens a lot, as meteorologists became aware of heat island effects.
The simple non-conspiracy hypotheses leads to a prediction: if Amberley developed a cool bias (or more likely, lost a warm bias due to better siting) we could calculate what that is, and see whether it persists. Indeed, if you add 1.4 C to each temperature after August 1980, suddenly the whole Amberley series aligns with its neighbors, through this whole period of record.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
|
Awesome post little buddy.
Good work.
Again... about your Denali climb, did you summit?
Did you use a guide service?
Zero for 8. Sketch can't even read it, let alone articulate some thoughts of his own.
Dan Kahan's research, with its emphasis on "cultural" explanations, is a very interesting strand in this field. A key idea, exemplified in the upper right plot in FM's post, has been found in many other studies too -- it's definitely real. The explanation for this "interaction effect" is less settled, however. Besides Kahan's favored cultural explanation, there are a set of overlapping but differently flavored hypotheses involving "elite cues" (people take their belief from their political leaders), "biased assimilation" (they filter out or acquire information in order to support their existing prejudices), "reinforcing spirals" (kind of the Fox news effect, the more you watch the more you believe; on this thread we see the blogosphere version) and some others.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 03:23pm PT
|
Another area that makes me skeptical is the reluctance (among the experts) to admit they may have overestimated their forecasts.
you have demonstrated over and over, that you do not understand the answers, thus the reluctance...
and it does start with understanding the seemingly elementary concepts of accuracy and precision... I say "seemingly elementary" because there is some work to be done to really understand them.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Aug 27, 2014 - 07:40pm PT
|
no the statements are not accurate
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!