Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 02:17pm PT
|
LOUD NOISES
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 02:21pm PT
|
It is the real side of CAGW ideological political hypocritical rhetoric/propaganda denial.
The earth is indeed warming and has and will continue to do.
You egocentric utopian idealists have this false conception that you as a human can "fix" or change the ongoing natural climate change.
 So, as long as there is no ego involved... then we can make rational decisions on our future... or should all "future" subject discussion just be off limits because they don't take into consideration the futility of trying to stay alive in a hostile environment like space... so, if there is an ego involved.... its gonna be propaganda, it will be about making money off the sheople who blindly follow whatever the charismatic leader says to do.....
I agree, there may be nothing that humanity can do to stop the sky from falling... But nothing says we must help the process along.... except people like you.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 02:26pm PT
|
BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOING!
You missed the "R", smarty pants.
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 02:55pm PT
|
- is it safe to say that you have not bought Naomi Klein's new book then?
[Click to View YouTube Video]
pardon me if I don't care if you bought the book or not.... just deny.... deny... deny...
lets not do anything.....
lets yell down those who cheerlead for change of any kind....
deny.....
|
|
Jingy
climber
Somewhere out there
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 03:39pm PT
|
BlueBPlug! - find an as#@&%e!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2014 - 04:12pm PT
|
No I haven't.
Because Naomi Klein is NOT a scientist nor even a policy maker.
Is The Chief trying to say he buys books that are authored only by scientists or policy makers?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2014 - 04:16pm PT
|
I made an effort to answer your questions.
No Sketch, you did not attempt to answer my question. You said what the graphs showed, but in no way touched on my question. I asked you to explain why the graphs were relevant.
I can read the graphs, which is what all your "answer" did--regurgitate the information in the graphs, they show downward trend lines for 12-18 years. I asked why those graphs had any merit.
But, if you are fine with your vapid answer, then you'll be fine with my answer too:
I already answered your question.
I am not going to link to it. Why should I, you never linked to the answer you said you authored.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2014 - 04:23pm PT
|
Petty answers deserve criticism.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 05:44pm PT
|
A mistake often made on this thread is expecting to have either a reasonable or rational discussion with someone who does not share that goal.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 06:37pm PT
|
I myself have learned a lot on this thread, so I am only talking about someone who intentionally is consistently uninterested in that. Of course
provocations stir up emotion and response, but here it often seems to foul up and sidetrack too much of the whole thread, focusing on outlying issues.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 24, 2014 - 06:56pm PT
|
wilbeer, this is a really cool, well-produced, and funny skit. The trend line between two points is appropriate, as is the sunglasses remark:
[Click to View YouTube Video]
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 07:52pm PT
|
TGT, do you have specific evidence that 13 misconceptions youtube skit is wrong?
or is it just then when you have a question like "what is the capital of Italy?" you ignore geographers, and have Jay Leno do a selected survey of people on the streets as in "Jaywalking"
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 07:54pm PT
|
I'm leaving you with some better questions to stir the pot.
(not that anyone should demand an answer, you can always try to look up yourself)
A summary of the main inputs to forecasts are graphs like these:
Malemute Sep 2 2014 http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2478953#msg2478953
The forcings of course are simplified to average out typical oscillations and durations. Solar variation is very small.
Notice that the net imbalance has a big uncertainty (.2 to 1.0 W/m2)
What year is that imbalance for? And compared to when (what baseline)?
What is the timeframe and baseline of that net imbalance?
How much does it change in the long term with more GHGs? - what will it be in 40 years?
And what is the likelihood of the outer uncertainty bands, in both the short term and long term?
Aug 31 Ed posted a pic of the overall energy balance that gives a net of 1.6 w/m2 (.6 to 2.4)
http://www.supertopo.com/inc/photo_zoom.php?dpid=Ojg8OzgjKCYhLQ,,
What is the year that is calculated for, and against what baseline year?
What will it be in the long run with more GHGs?
And there's a different figure here, baseline of 1750, Net imbalance shown for 1950, 1980, and 2011.
http://www.climatechange2013.org/images/uploads/WGIAR5presentation1403.pptx
Page 12
Now go to pages 14-21 of that summary.
A question for the skeptics.
Notice that regardless of what has happened so far, the biggest changes show up mainly after 2040.
Even in the rosiest scenario, sea level rises .42 meter, surface temps another 1 degree C, compared to year 2000.
That scenario requires action now.
The less rosy scenarios get worse - temperature rise of additional 2-4 degrees C (3.5 to 7 degrees F),
sea level rises .5 to .75 meter. (Shows the delayed effect of how long melting takes).
Do you have particular disputes with this,
or you just don't like hearing it?
one more
Look at figure 3 of http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/climate/seasonal-to-decadal/long-range/decadal-fc
What is the general slope of the Blue section for 2014 to 2018?
Slightly upwards or significantly upwards?
Why are they so focused on the short run - the next 4 years?
Most importantly, What does that slope change to in the longer run with more GHG's?
What is the likelihood of the uncertainty, versus the average slope?
Is their model different than the IPCC consensus, or is it similar but short term?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 24, 2014 - 08:44pm PT
|
Judith Curry and Nic Lewis have a newly published paper on TCR and ECS up at Climate Etc. Using observational data from AR5 they come up with significantly lower numbers than the GCM generated numbers from AR5. Worth a look since these values agree better with recent (climate or weather, argue as you will) 21st century trends.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 25, 2014 - 07:08am PT
|
Don't be so coy, Sketch.
SSDD
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!