Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:25pm PT
|
Drinking hard again little Ricky??
You are off the wall.
He will never get it...thick as brick.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:27pm PT
|
From the article...can't you read??
"Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution, when people first started burning fossil fuels, carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere have risen from about 280 parts per million to 387 parts per million
And it quite obvious you don't geography...Socorro is in the southern part of NM.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:29pm PT
|
Really Chief? You can't figure out where 400ppm should be on that graph?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:33pm PT
|
The Chief doesn't know we've reached 400ppm?
Hint for The Chief: Maybe it's not a recent article.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:33pm PT
|
I make more than a buck. Did you complete high school?? Put down the vodka. Now!
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:38pm PT
|
That is a GISS/NASA article and graph dated
No the article is not dated. Yer such a little fibber.
And the graph goes to 2009. Don't ya think C02 has risen in 5 years?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:41pm PT
|
Chief is one of the reason this fecking country is so fuke up...ignorant to the bone and proud of it. Ego the size of California with a small brain to process what little information that gets into it.
Chief wrote: OK Bobda.... 1.01. Makes you even MORE of a HYPOCRITE.
I never had the luxury of the government giving me a check every week.
Go do something you are good at...shooting guns, drinking, collecting scrap metal.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 12, 2014 - 09:45pm PT
|
So twice The Chief ask me, Yes or No. I answer straight up, each time.
Then I ask a simple question and say, Yes or No will do fine.
The Chief, simply incapable of answering a simple question.
Blow on, The Chief, blow on.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 12, 2014 - 09:50pm PT
|
That is YOUR energy source, BOBDA!
Yes The Chief, that is an energy source. And that is exactly why Big Gov't MUST get involved--the average man has no control over that energy source.
But, the Gov't does. Thanks for making a point about getting the world leaders involved in putting a stop to this madness.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 09:56pm PT
|
Maybe you should inform Earth OB to get their shet together and stop promoting false and inaccurate information.
This from someone who didn't know CO2 has reached 400ppm.
Nighty night, Chief. You've had quite a day.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 10:10pm PT
|
Dumb ass doesn't even know where Socorro is on the map. Little Ricky it is not my place, I'm moving back to Taos, I consult and fix dysfunctional places. You are beyond hope.
Look me up in Taos if you can find it on the map you sick little man.
Plus the little man has a weird fixation on sheep...must be a navy thing.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
|
Sep 12, 2014 - 10:40pm PT
|
It wasn't dysfunctional, just needed some love. You are the dysfunction one. Go get some love little man.
Oh little man called me a hypocrite. I don't think I can carry on.
Tell me this, do you think 397 ppm is closer to 400 ppm or closer to 300 ppm?
Simple yes or no.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 12, 2014 - 11:22pm PT
|
NO KaveMAN!
BOBDA could have put SOLAR PANELS ...
Why did you change the subject, The Chief?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 08:28am PT
|
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 08:38am PT
|
Oh my, look at all those speedups and slowdowns, yet the long term trend continues.
|
|
rockermike
Trad climber
Berkeley
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 09:02am PT
|
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 09:04am PT
|
But it's laughable how you guys consistently try to invalidate the lack of global surface warming. Back in the 90s, many of the experts were predicting continued warming. It didn't happen. Back in the 00s, many of the experts said dramatic warming would resume any day now. It didn't happen. Up until about 10 years ago, surface air temp was the only metric used regarding global warming. Now, it doesn't really matter. It's all about the oceans... including made up data about deep ocean heat content.
Do my charts invalidate anthropogenic global warming? Not to me.
so your just being a troll... but we know that.
My point was that nobody expects a linear trend. What is expected by all the "experts" is that the climate models should give a reasonable prediction of the global mean surface temperature. Reasonable in this sense has to do with the comparison of the predictions including their uncertain inputs with the observations including the variability.
This gets into a discussion of accuracy and precision and in comparing the models with the data.
The point of my "debunking" was that no one would use a model that results in a linear temperature trend without explaining the choices of beginning and end times and stating an estimate for the uncertainty of the parameters of that model (e.g. the slope and intercept of the line).
Chiloe also took the F & R paper and showed the analysis was "predictive" using the inputs of 4 other time series and itself... that is, next year's global mean temperature depends on parts of this year's, the ENSO index, the ADO index, the CO2 concentration and a small bit on the TSI.
This analysis, by the way (ARMA) is similar to what is used on Wall Street to do things like predict trends.... however we have better models of the climate than of the economy.
So there is no serious point to the "straight line" trends, especially when we have many models to test against the observations.
The ENSO, ADO indices are not predictive, though there is a possibility that the ENSO might be. The CO2 can be reliably projected (it's increasing). The TSI is constant as far as it's affect in this model.
This forces any analysis to come to terms with the variability of those (and other) factors when predicting over such short periods as 10 years.
A major point is that the 1940-1970 "hiatus" was also characterized by relatively constant global mean temperature, yet by 1990 that temperature had increased. The disagreements between the models and the observed short time climate observations (here on the decadal time scales) is a result of increased accuracy of the model predictions.
This disagreement could point to some other missing mechanism in the models.
These disagreements between models and observations is how the science gets done.
But putting that in perspective, this disagreement is caused by improved models and improved model accuracy. The major expected result is that the models will be even better, and the uncertainties will be described more completely.
But the models are a much better predictor of future climate than a straight line.
|
|
skcreidc
Social climber
SD, CA
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 09:18am PT
|
THIS thread would be funny if it wasn't on such a serious topic. It's like hanging out in middle school during recess.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 09:47am PT
|
Sketch doesn't like to look at the big picture.
Sketch likes to look at smaller intervals and twit.
That way, Sketch doesn't have to explain the huge jump between his trend lines.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 13, 2014 - 10:02am PT
|
It's a lot bigger than cutting that period into two pieces.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!