Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Raymond,
your mistake is attempting to have a rational discussion with someone who is incapable of that goal.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Look out the kitchen window of my cabin in the foothills of the Talkeetna mountains. That glacier you see fifteen hundred feet below and two miles distant drains a major icefield in the Chugach Range. The terminal moraine within a few hundred yards of the glaciers end has fifty year old trees growing on it. I'll believe we have some significant warming if and when I see any appreciable recession. BTW, im selling quarters shares for 95k- year round road and airstrip access, 3 bdrms, 2 baths, fully furnished, seven acres with abundant recreational opportunities in near vicinity. 1.5 hours from Anchorage international airport.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Nice Chief. Heres looking out a few more windows.[photo[photoid=393549]id=393548]
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
[photoid=393549]
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Yeah. Don't want to burst their bubbles but those pics are all current except the first which i took 4pm yesterday. Currently -2 f here with a 20 mph wind. Of course this isn't the anchorage weather station on the tarmac just behind the 747's jet wash.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 6, 2015 - 05:02pm PT
|
They know what? How much? Please post where they say how much with proof. They do not know how much with any certainty.
OK, who put gas in the Noise Machine??
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Blithering idiots? I'll have you know that term has been reserved for description of you and your merry band of endlessly repetitive and incompetent idiots.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
from the IPCC WG1 AR5 report (page TS-4)
"The following terms have been used to indicate the assessed likelihood:
Virtually certain: 99–100% probability
Very likely: 90–100% probability
Likely: 66–100% probability
About as likely as not: 33–66% probability
Unlikely: 0–33% probability
Very unlikely: 0–10% probability
Exceptionally unlikely: 0–1% probability
Additional terms
extremely likely: 95–100% probability,
more likely than not: >50–100% probability, and
extremely unlikely: 0–5% probability)"
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Is that how science is done professor?
Frosty, you've proven your incompetence daily on this thread for five years now. How many contrarians have you won over to your side? How many fence straddlers have you snake charmed down to your side of the divide? How many people have you pissed off to the point of never seeing eye to eye with you? Case closed moron. You defeat yourself.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
It is extremely likely [95–100% probability] that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010.
IPCC WG1 AR5 page TS-25
Consistent with AR4, it is assessed that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 is very likely [90–100% probability] due to the observed anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations
IPCC WG1 AR5 page TS-26
Based on this evidence, the contribution of internal variability to the 1951–2010 global mean surface temperature trend was assessed to be likely [66–100% probability] between –0.1°C and 0.1°C, and it is virtually certain [99–100% probability] that warming since 1951 cannot be explained by internal variability alone.
[underline added]
IPCC WG1 AR5 page TS-26
It is very likely [90–100% probability] that anthropogenic warming of surface air temperature over the next few decades will proceed more rapidly over land areas than over oceans, and it is very likely [90–100% probability] that the anthropogenic warming over the Arctic in winter will be greater than the global mean warming, consistent with the AR4. Relative to background levels of internally generated variability there is high confidence that the anthropogenic warming relative to the reference period is expected to be larger in the tropics and subtropics than in mid-latitudes.
IPCC WG1 AR5 page TS-48
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I hope you are looking in the mirror as you spew Frosty, because you're not connecting with anyone else in the projections of your insecurities and self loathing. Do yourself a favor; take another bottle of rotgut off your shelf, step into your backroom and drink your brains out. Stay off that keyboard, as hard as you are pounding yourself you just might break it.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
The Chief asks (usually a question mark is the correct punctuation)
So what's your point Professor.
But stated up thread a page or so:
Which IPCC report? Do you even know how many IPCC reports there are?
The latest doesn't specify a percentage with any certainty. Nor do any of the other dozen or more reports. Not one.
So I thought to point our that the AR5 had specified percentages and quantified certainty.
Perhaps you didn’t read the report… if you did you don’t read very well, and if you didn’t, where did you come by your erroneous statement?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Time again for my yearly climate sciency predictions for the year 2015.
The big shindig in Paris will be missing most of the Earths human population representatives as China, India and Russia abstain amid turmoil over economic warfare.
Solar cycle 24 will finally start its precipitous drop towards minimum and the various purveyors of fraudulent regional and global temp data products will be unable to smother the reality of the cooling climate even with a maximum effort of the massive CAGW propaganda machine.
There will be an increase of published peer reviewed studies effectively challenging all aspects of CAGW science
Both poles will continue to add additional ice area extent and mass.
The severe winter in the mid north american continent will continue into a slightly delayed spring. Ice out in the great lakes will be as late as last year.
The northern asia winter will be even more severe and long lasting as mid americas.
California will continue its rain dance while crucial funding for effective water capture and storage will be pissed away on senseless projects advanced by the rabid eco enviro's.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Of the 545 [460 to 630] PgC released to the atmosphere from fossil fuel and land use emissions from 1750 to 2011, 240 [230 to 250] PgC accumulated in the atmosphere, as estimated with very high accuracy from the observed increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration from 278 [275 to 281] ppm9 in 1750 to 390.5 ppm in 2011. The amount CO2 in the atmosphere grew by 4.0 [3.8 to 4.2] PgC yr–1 in the first decade of the 21st century. The distribution of observed atmospheric CO2 increases with latitude clearly shows that the increases are driven by anthropogenic emissions which primarily occur in the industrialized countries north of the equator. Based on annual average concentrations, stations in the Northern Hemisphere show slightly higher concentrations than stations in the Southern Hemisphere. An independent line of evidence for the anthropogenic origin of the observed atmospheric CO2 increase comes from the observed consistent decrease in atmospheric O2 content and a decrease in the stable isotopic ratio of CO2 (13C/12C) in the atmosphere (Figure TS.5). {2.2.1, 6.1.3}
The remaining amount of carbon released by fossil fuel and land-use emissions has been re-absorbed by the ocean and terrestrial ecosystems. Based on high agreement between independent estimates using different methods and data sets (e.g., oceanic carbon, oxygen, and transient tracer data), it is very likely that the global ocean inventory of anthropogenic carbon increased from 1994 to 2010. In 2011, it is estimated to be 155 [125 to 185] PgC. The annual global oceanic uptake rates calculated from independent data sets (from oceanic Cant inventory changes, from atmospheric O2/N2 measurements or from pCO2 data) and for different time periods agree with each other within their uncertainties, and very likely are in the range of 1.0–3.2 PgC yr–1. Regional observations of the storage rate of anthropogenic carbon in the ocean are in broad agreement with the expected rate resulting from the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations, but with significant spatial and temporal variations. {3.8.1, 6.3}
IPCC WG1 AR5 TS-16
perhaps you should read the IPCC WG1 AR5 again, you can do it slowly and move your lips, no one is watching you...
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Isn't there a new CO2 earth observatory in orbit? Doesn't its first period of observation show the largest areas of concentration arising from rain forests south of the equator? Kind of put's the lie to the AR NH industrual attribution claim doesn't it Ed? I believe the preliminary observations validate data from JAXA.
Hell I aint going to go all squishy like IPCC. No Frosty, this charlatan claims 100% certainty. Quack, quack.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
you have a citation, rick?
oh, I forgot, you don't post citations...
well, it's easy enough to find:
http://oco.jpl.nasa.gov
you were expecting something else? there is a natural carbon cycle that happens on Earth... perhaps you didn't know about that?
it is the addition of the human component that we're talking about...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
There is absolutely no level of concise real time valid accuracy to this statement based on actual physical human emission evidence as it can not be measured once mixed into the atmosphere/oceans within the natural occurring uptake of the earth's C02 cycle.
this is a a sentence of pure bullsh#t... perhaps you should re-write it, I can't understand what it is you are saying at all.
Are you are saying that we don't know how much CO2 is going into the atmosphere from human activity?
Are you saying we don't know that the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing because of human activity?
By the way, you might want to review the isotopic ratios and what they imply about the sources of carbon.
And you might want to update your reading, quoting a paper from 1991
https://gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/jls9102.pdf
is hardly relevant to the discussion of the latest findings.
That is, if you actually read that paper at all, more likely, you plucked the quote from some blog...
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!