Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 14601 - 14620 of total 17219 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 12, 2014 - 11:27pm PT
Chief, Even on that very website you linked to is a lot more evidence, which I'm sure you will promptly ignore. How could you have missed it?
Could it be that you only skimmed the thousands of pages, comments, and references in only 5 minutes?

http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-fingerprint-in-global-warming.html
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:22am PT
I just figure it's you trolls recycling in on different avatars, rick....

certainly no one of you have found any recent research, you just reuse the same old stuff off the same old blogs...

sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 06:44am PT
How is this for recent research:

Stanhill et al. (2014). The cause of solar dimming and brightening at the Earth's surface during the last half century: Evidence from measurements of sunshine duration. JGR (in press).

Abstract
Analysis of the Angstrom-Prescott relationship between normalized values of global radiation and sunshine duration measured during the last 50 years made at five sites with a wide range of climate and aerosol emissions showed few significant differences in atmospheric transmissivity under clear or cloud-covered skies between years when global dimming occurred and years when global brightening was measured, nor in most cases were there any significant changes in the parameters or in their relationships to annual rates of fossil fuel combustion in the surrounding 1° cells. It is concluded that at the sites studied changes in cloud cover rather than anthropogenic aerosols emissions played the major role in determining solar dimming and brightening during the last half century and that there are reasons to suppose that these findings may have wider relevance.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 13, 2014 - 08:08am PT
Minumum Arctic sea ice volume was higher again this year, as charted for the Arctic Sea Ice blog.


This follows the area and extent charts I posted last week. Both climate (warming trend) and weather (inter-annual variation) signals occur in these data.


k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 09:01am PT

so Sketch, how do you use the "Lower Troposphere" channel? corrected to the surface?

do you have any idea what of the numbers is used in the plots you've copied?

Did Dr. Roy clue you in?

Oh look.

Ed... being an assh0le,... again.


What's wrong Sketchy, did Ed hit the nail on the head?
Being a poor sport, is your only option to try biting... again?


You know, somebody who knew what they were talking about could answer a questions about their own post.
But whenever folks ask you to explain what you post, out come the gums!!
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Oct 13, 2014 - 09:36am PT
Our new entrant to the debate, Scifi, seems to be patiently laying out the case for the obvious-greatly reduced real world sensitivity to CO2 radiative forcing and the dominance of the large spectral variations of solar radiation reaching earths atmosphere as the primary driver of the recent decadal/centennial climate change. In this vein here is a new paper I ran across this morning. Scroll down to the paper by Hermann Harde. Sorry for the inconvenience but my phone only allows for opening a few windows at a time so you'll probably have to enter the address yourselves.

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/recent

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Oct 13, 2014 - 09:38am PT
NASA: September, 2014, hottest September on record.

Yeah, I just looked at their data. Jan through Sep, 2014 is right up there among the top 4 (after 2010, 1998 and 2004). Globally speaking we live in warm times.
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 10:08am PT

Advanced Two-Layer Climate Model for the Assessment of Global Warming by CO2:

http://www.scipublish.com/journals/ACC/papers/846


k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 10:36am PT
Did you ever learn the definition of many?

Are you talking about this:

Think coral reefs — many of them are thriving, some of them are not ...


Why yes, many is more than "some," a concept you fail to grasp.

Are you going to break out your gums now?
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 10:53am PT
Speaking of corals:

Venn, A. A., Tambutté, E., Holcomb, M., Laurent, J., Allemand, D., & Tambutté, S. (2013). Impact of seawater acidification on pH at the tissue–skeleton interface and calcification in reef corals. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(5), 1634-1639:
http://www.pnas.org/content/110/5/1634.short

"Overall, our findings suggest that reef corals may mitigate the effects of seawater acidification by regulating pH in the SCM [tissue–skeleton interface (subcalicoblastic medium)]"
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 13, 2014 - 11:52am PT
Speaking of trolls,
that silliness about "global dimming" was already debunked in 2007.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Schmidt_etal_2.pdf
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 13, 2014 - 12:04pm PT
Many - more than some.

Priceless.

How telling that Sketch cuts out the context.
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:05pm PT
Really?


Román, R., Bilbao, J., & de Miguel, A. (2014). Reconstruction of six decades of daily total solar shortwave irradiation in the Iberian Peninsula using sunshine duration records. Atmospheric Environment:

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1352231014007456

Highlights

• A method to reconstruct shortwave irradiation is developed.
Dimming and brightening periods are observed.
• Uncertainty in series can affect temporal trends.

Abstract

Total global solar shortwave (G) irradiation and sunshine duration were recorded at nine Spanish stations located in the Iberian Peninsula. G irradiation under cloudless conditions was simulated by means of a radiative transfer model using satellite data as input. A method based on these cloudless simulations and sunshine duration records was developed to reconstruct G series. This model was validated against experimental data, providing a good agreement for cloudless skies (mean bias error of 0.4% and root mean square error of 5.8%). Monthly averages of modelled and measured G irradiation presented a mean bias error of 0.5% and a root mean square error of 3%. Differences between modelled and measured G irradiation were in agreement within the model uncertainties. The reconstruction model was applied to sunshine duration measurements, giving long-term G series at the nine locations. Monthly, seasonal, and annual G anomalies were calculated and analysed. Averaged series (using the nine locations) showed a statistically significant decrease in annual G from 1950 to the mid 1980s (−1.7%dc−1) together with a significant increase from the mid 1980s to 2011 (1.6%dc−1). The effect of uncertainty in the reconstructed series on statistically significant trends was studied.
Hardly Visible

Social climber
Llatikcuf WA
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:06pm PT
I normally avoid jumping into the fray, but this seems to belong here.
Ok I'm outa here

The confidence of the dumb
There’s also that immutable problem known as “human nature.” It has a name now: it’s called the Dunning-Kruger effect, which says, in sum, that the dumber you are, the more confident you are that you’re not actually dumb. And when you get invested in being aggressively dumb…well, the last thing you want to encounter are experts who disagree with you, and so you dismiss them in order to maintain your unreasonably high opinion of yourself. (There’s a lot of that loose on social media, especially.)



http://thefederalist.com/2014/01/17/the-death-of-expertise/
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:17pm PT
I was just about to say that the Dunning-Kruger effect fits perfectly on the description of the alarmist ecomaniacs. Save the polar bears...

Btw. I work at Stanford University as a researcher in geoscience.
What do you do for a living?
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:36pm PT
>>Speaking of trolls,
>>that silliness about "global dimming" was already debunked in 2007.
>>http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2007/2007_Schmidt_etal_2.pdf

Really?

Yes, really.
Do you read anything that doesn't support your denialist opinion?
You only throw that article out like a pop up mole because you are on a hunt for anything that supports your preconceived opinion, just like you brought up cosmic rayguns. But this study of "dimming" does Nothing to make a significant impact. At this point, as in 2007, it remains an obfuscation latched onto by denialists.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:38pm PT
Why we need the 2 degree C climate upper limit.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/10/limiting-global-warming-to-2-c-why-victor-and-kennel-are-wrong/#more-17538
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
Lets recap.

The cause of solar dimming and brightening at the Earth's surface during the last half century: Evidence from measurements of sunshine duration:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2013JD021308/abstract

Abstract
Analysis of the Angstrom-Prescott relationship between normalized values of global radiation and sunshine duration measured during the last 50 years made at five sites with a wide range of climate and aerosol emissions showed few significant differences in atmospheric transmissivity under clear or cloud-covered skies between years when global dimming occurred and years when global brightening was measured, nor in most cases were there any significant changes in the parameters or in their relationships to annual rates of fossil fuel combustion in the surrounding 1° cells. It is concluded that at the sites studied changes in cloud cover rather than anthropogenic aerosols emissions played the major role in determining solar dimming and brightening during the last half century and that there are reasons to suppose that these findings may have wider relevance.

_


Decadal variations in estimated surface solar radiation over Switzerland since the late 19th century:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/12/8635/2012/acp-12-8635-2012.html

Abstract.
Our knowledge on trends in surface solar radiation (SSR) involves uncertainties due to the scarcity of long-term time series of SSR, especially with records before the second half of the 20th century. Here we study the trends of all-sky SSR from 1885 to 2010 in Switzerland, which have been estimated using a homogenous dataset of sunshine duration series. This variable is shown to be a useful proxy data of all-sky SSR, which can help to solve some of the current open issues in the dimming/brightening phenomenon. All-sky SSR has been fairly stable with little variations in the first half of the 20th century, unlike the second half of the 20th century that is characterized also in Switzerland by a dimming from the 1950s to the 1980s and a subsequent brightening. Cloud cover changes seem to explain the major part of the decadal variability observed in all-sky SSR, at least from 1885 to the 1970s; at this point, a discrepancy in the sign of the trend is visible in the all-sky SSR and cloud cover series from the 1970s to the present. Finally, an attempt to estimate SSR series for clear-sky conditions, based also on sunshine duration records since the 1930s, has been made for the first time. The mean clear-sky SSR series shows no relevant changes between the 1930s to the 1950s, then a decrease, smaller than the observed in the all-sky SSR, from the 1960s to 1970s, and ends with a strong increase from the 1980s up to the present. During the three decades from 1981 to 2010 the estimated clear-sky SSR trends reported in this study are in line with previous findings over Switzerland based on direct radiative flux measurements. Moreover, the signal of the El Chichón and Pinatubo volcanic eruption visible in the estimated clear-sky SSR records further demonstrates the potential to infer aerosol-induced radiation changes from sunshine duration observations.
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 12:52pm PT
Regarding the 2-degree target it would interesting for you to read this work that has just been published:

http://judithcurry.com/2014/10/09/my-op-ed-in-the-wall-street-journal-is-now-online/#more-17038
sci-fi

climber
Oct 13, 2014 - 01:12pm PT
I'm certainly not an expert, but I do critical thinking for a living and I see a LOT of things that simply do not add up in the climate debate.

You have to remember that we are not discussion whether or not there is climate change or if there is a greenhouse effect.
The whole discussion concerns whether or not we will face a catastrophic scenario in the very near future and if trying to cut CO2 has any significant effect.

I would argue from the most recent estimates on the climate sensitivity that we are not facing a crisis and even if we were then adapting to those changes would be the only way forward. Look at where China and India are going in terms of energy production.

In the geological perspective we are in a very cold period and we currently have an extremely low concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. So much so that we should be worrying about that instead of both increasing.

Climate changes and always has. We managed just fine during the Little Ice Age and the Medieval Warming with primitive technology, so surely we can manage whatever comes next.

Lets deal with real world problems rather than wasting any more sleep over computer-generated simulations of the future!

Messages 14601 - 14620 of total 17219 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta