Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
"CAGW, for "catastrophic anthropogenic global warming," is a snarl word.
So is denier. They're insults, meant to demean or offend the other side.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Chief wrote: This CAGW BS has nothing to do with science. Has everything to do with a political ideological agenda/movement that wants to change how we all live our lives.
So, so funny.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
A hypocrite? Not much in my case. I drive the most fuel efficient used vehicle I can afford. (33mpg in town 39 highway) I use as little electricity as I can. I make an effort to influence people to do the same. I have occasionally written politicians with my concerns.
I find that doing my best regarding AGW also makes my standard of living better. Maybe that makes me a hypocrit in a way because the main reason I do things that reduce my impact is for financial reasons.
Many of the facts regarding AGW are clear.. what to do about it is not. I don't post here much because folks are still arguing over the equivalent of whether the earth is round or not.
Are there political opportunists out there trying to use the issue for their gain and our detriment..almost certainly as that is what they do with anything. There are political opportunists on both sides of this issue. I suspect more of them on the fossil fuel side actually.
Are there scientists doing dubious work to get grants .. probably a very few. Does this mean AGW is no real concern and a scam. Of course not.
If people ever graduate to the much more interesting and complicated discussions of what can or should be done.. let me know.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
4.7 years of reading what a loonie has written who has no understanding of science. Please go away.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Answer the question...do you know the difference between CAGW amd AGW??
Chief the non-hater wrote: Don't look to extremist left winger ideologists "Parrots" such as Bobda, Malnuts etal for any of that. They are too busy hating and firing off their insistent personal attacks.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 7, 2015 - 09:16am PT
|
EdwardT, You ask a lot of questions of others. For example, here's a slew of questions you ask of EdH:
What interpretation are you referring to?
Shallow comments? What are you referring to?
I "apparently didn't read the paper"? What led you to that conclusion?
You ask questions and expect answers, but you ignore a simple question about your personal view on AGW. Can you answer this question for me?
Do you believe the reports from the IPCC, and specifically this summary from the Fifth Assessment: Summary for Policymakers
In other words, do you believe or deny the findings of the climate science community?
Also, in light of your comment on "denier" as an insult, what do you propose we call the group of people who deny the scientific findings of the IPCC, and the overwhelming majority of all other climate scientists?
deny - [dih-nahy]
verb (used with object), denied, denying.
1. to state that (something declared or believed to be true) is not true:
to deny an accusation.
(I won't be surprised if you dance around these questions, answering them would require you to take a stance.)
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
K-man - I ask questions because it's less offensive than simply pointing out someone is lying.
I've asked you repeatedly to back up your accusations about me. All you've delivered are generic references to my posts. No content. Just "it's what you said" type answers.
From what I've seen, you do your best to misunderstand my words. Even when I've explained my intent, you still miss the obvious.
That said, I think I'll let your future posts slide.
About your questions.
Yes.
I believe much of the IPCC findings. I don't deny anything.
Skeptics.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
EdwardT in your post:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2574435#msg2574435
the quote in the quote box is not from the paper... but it can be searched using Google and one finds a Nov. 20, 2013 entry on the plot "The IPCC Report" and then picked up the next day and rebloged on WUWT, etc.
While the initial blog plays on the word "skill" (which is used in common language differently than in scientific language) and expands to "demonstrate" that the predictions of the original paper were "wrong" the original blog makes some attempt to show that such models have no predictive power. Yet the piece makes its own predictions... which turned out to be at variance with observation.
Interestingly, the Science paper does note that the model shows a cooling during the time period of the prediction (this isn't noted by that blog piece). 2014 turns out to be ranked warmest, and that 2 of 6 years since 2009 have been warmer than 1998 (the paper claims that 3 of 6 would be, although there is some question about just what this prediction is from the paper).
Finally, the change of the surface temperature from 2004 to 2014 is within the papers stated Confidence Interval, that is not mentioned in the paper, which speculates that it will not be so.
But here we're discussing a blog, not anything you've contributed. You've posted some quote out of a blog without attribution.
What was your intention?
You were responding to Wade's post that linked to an article on "experts." Was your unattributed quote of the blog intended to demonstrate that the "experts" were wrong?
I fully expect you to disingenuously claim that you didn't "mean" anything... since you didn't explicitly comment.
Do you actually have a point to discuss?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Ed Hartouni
EdwardT in your post:
http://www.supertopo.com/climbing/thread.php?topic_id=970221&msg=2574435#msg2574435
the quote in the quote box is not from the paper... but it can be searched using Google and one finds a Nov. 20, 2013 entry on the plot "The IPCC Report" and then picked up the next day and rebloged on WUWT, etc.
While the initial blog plays on the word play of "skill" (which is used in common language differently than in scientific language) and expands to "demonstrate" that the predictions of the original paper were "wrong" the original blog makes some attempt to show that such models have no predictive power. Yet the piece makes its own predictions... which turned out to be at variance with observation.
Interestingly, the Science paper does note that the model shows a cooling during the time period of the prediction (this isn't noted by that blog piece). 2014 turns out to be ranked warmest, and that 2 of 6 years since 2009 have been warmer than 1998 (the paper claims that 3 of 6 would be, although there is some question about just what this prediction is from the paper).
Finally, the change of the surface temperature from 2004 to 2014 is within the papers stated Confidence Interval, that is not mentioned in the paper, which speculates that it will not be so.
But here we're discussing a blog, not anything you've contributed. You've posted some quote out of a blog without attribution.
What was your intention?
You were responding to Wade's post that linked to an article on "experts." Was your unattributed quote of the blog intended to demonstrate that the "experts" were wrong?
I fully expect you to disingenuously claim that you didn't "mean" anything... since you didn't explicitly comment.
Do you actually have a point to discuss?
All ^this^ over the word skill?
My intention was show how the "experts" get it wrong.
A bonus was seeing how some of our resident experts would address these predictions. Looking at the predictions you previously noted.
1) "Our system predicts that internal variability will partially offset the anthropogenic global warming signal for the next few years."
Correct.
2) "predict further warming during the coming decade, with the year 2014 predicted to be 0.30° ± 0.21°C [5 to 95% confidence interval (CI)] warmer than the observed value for 2004"
You say "this was true". You're right. It's true. Barely. Doing a point to point comparison, we saw 1/3rd of the predicted warming. But thanks to a generous range, it's a win. Definitely not an F. I'd give it a D+.
On a side note, is warming measured on a simple point to point basis? If so, the decades ending in 2011, 2012 and 2013 all showed cooling.
3) "at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record"
That's just a flat out FAIL.
Using a golf analogy. Solid drive onto a generous fairway. The approach shot had the distance but landed in the bunker. Third shot went over the green, landing in another bunker. End result - double bogey.
Not what I'd expect from an expert.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
not so fast... and usually someone doing the grading has a mastery of the subject, you do not.
You do not understand how to interpret "Confidence Interval" perhaps you should look that one up...
you make a common mistake of taking the central value and noting "how far" from that value the observed value is... but in so doing you are assuming some distribution of how the experiments would be distributed between the upper and lower limit of the interval, that's not correct. Maybe you would state what probability distribution function you presume in your analysis.
Correctly used, the Confidence Interval states that the observed value will be in the interval, with no statement regarding where in the interval it would be...
The size of the CI is ± 0.21°C, if you actually look at the observations, you find that the annual variability if of order ± 0.2°C, so the claim is that the models have an accuracy on the order of the natural variability.
That's not a fail, especially since the model runs are over a century in duration. Given the change of the surface temperature of 1.2°C since the end of the 19th century, this represents a 20% uncertainty in the accuracy of the model.
And it is precisely the thing needed to understand affects that have not been previously significant in climate model prediction.
As a first attempt to predict the decadal climate change, a very difficult task, it can hardly be considered a failure. From the science aspect, the results of this and other attempts to predict the climate for the next 10 years has been a great success, since the disagreements between those predictions and the observations, of order or less than ± 0.2°C, have revealed the importance of the decadal oscillations of the oceans, both the Pacific and the Atlantic.
This, in turn, directs the research effort in a meaningful way, prioritizing the observations that would help unfold the effects.
you also wrote:
A bonus was seeing how some of our resident experts would address these predictions.
which is an admission of intentional trolling. You could have approached the discussion in a quite different manner, yet you thought somehow that a troll would be the correct way...
...your complaining about the "civility" (and lack thereof) on this thread seems to ring rather hollow. You might have been more forthcoming in asking the pertinent question if you were actually interested in the answer.
My opinion is that you're just interested in playing "gotcha"...
I usually won't comment on someone's reblog of material found elsewhere on the web. And so I'll check your posts in the future, and avoid wasting time responding to those that you obviously haven't actually read, but are just putting up there as a troll.
finally, you seemed to have avoided the question about whether or not you actually read the paper.
Did you?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Ed Hartouni wrote:
not so fast... and usually someone doing the grading has a mastery of the subject, you do not.
You do not understand how to interpret "Confidence Interval" perhaps you should look that one up...
you make a common mistake of taking the central value and noting "how far" from that value the observed value is... but in so doing you are assuming some distribution of how the experiments would be distributed between the upper and lower limit of the interval, that's not correct. Maybe you would state what probability distribution function you presume in your analysis.
Correctly used, the Confidence Interval states that the observed value will be in the interval, with no statement regarding where in the interval it would be...
The size of the CI is ± 0.21°C, if you actually look at the observations, you find that the annual variability if of order ± 0.2°C, so the claim is that the models have an accuracy on the order of the natural variability.
That's not a fail, especially since the model runs are over a century in duration. Given the change of the surface temperature of 1.2°C since the end of the 19th century, this represents a 20% uncertainty in the accuracy of the model.
And it is precisely the thing needed to understand affects that have not been previously significant in climate model prediction.
As a first attempt to predict the decadal climate change, a very difficult task, it can hardly be considered a failure. From the science aspect, the results of this and other attempts to predict the climate for the next 10 years has been a great success, since the disagreements between those predictions and the observations, of order or less than ± 0.2°C, have revealed the importance of the decadal oscillations of the oceans, both the Pacific and the Atlantic.
This, in turn, directs the research effort in a meaningful way, prioritizing the observations that would help unfold the effects.
you also wrote:
A bonus was seeing how some of our resident experts would address these predictions.
which is an admission of intentional trolling. You could have approached the discussion in a quite different manner, yet you thought somehow that a troll would be the correct way...
...your complaining about the "civility" (and lack thereof) on this thread seems to ring rather hollow. You might have been more forthcoming in asking the pertinent question if you were actually interested in the answer.
My opinion is that you're just interested in playing "gotcha"...
I usually won't comment on someone's reblog of material found elsewhere on the web. And so I'll check your posts in the future, and avoid wasting time responding to those that you obviously haven't actually read, but are just putting up there as a troll.
finally, you seemed to have avoided the question about whether or not you actually read the paper.
Did you?
Wow!
I'm blown away by your response. Seriously.
To tell the truth, I'm laughing my ass off.
The dominant theme here seems to be attempting to shut/shout down any and all commentary that doesn't embrace "consensus" thinking. You look for any angle to attack skeptic viewpoints.
Your preferred tactic seems to be smug, condescending tutorials, putting me in my place.
Yesterday, you made a number of accusations about me. I asked you to explain what you meant. Instead of answering my questions, you continued your offensive. Even though you ignored my questions, I responded to that subsequent post.
You respond with more attacks, parlaying your misunderstanding of my use of the word "bonus", into an admission of intentional trolling, which you went on about.
Bonus - something welcome and often unexpected.
If you were paying attention, you might have picked up on my post about a Federalist story was trollery. Just so there's no confusion, I was mocking the site.
It is laughable that so many grown men can get their panties so easily wadded up, over an off-topic discussion, on an internet rock climbing site.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Chief wrote: Do either of you really know??? Wouldn't be surprised if you really didn't.
It is obvious you don't.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
|
|
Definitely not Sketch^^^^^^^LOL.
You still misrepresent how much the USG spends on Climate
Research,along with The Chief.
You both dislike the word Denier ,as if it were an insult.
I ask this:
1. Is the climate is warming?
2.Is this warming unprecedented and is it almost certainly because
of human influence?
3.Is this unprecedented warming going to do some very bad (or at
least unpredictable) things?
To me it appears that almost nobody except the most rabid
fundamentalist denier would have a problem with the first point.
Personally I would also call someone who disagrees with the second
point as at least leaning toward being a denier; to me there’s really
no other good explanation for the warming that we have seen except
human activity.
Now if you disagree with all three,you are definitely,"In Denial of
Climate Science".
Like or not.What do you call that person.A Skeptic?
So please misrepresent some more,as if it were your job.
Since I seriously doubt any one of you have a real one.
And while I am at it,put up some more ad-homs about me smoking dope,
especially when you know you are wrong.
By the way ,The Chief,if you were a member and supported Greenpeace you
would know everything about the Putin story.
But you are not and will have to wait for the ridiculous story to come
out,with numbers.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 7, 2015 - 03:46pm PT
|
I've asked you repeatedly to back up your accusations about me.
 EdwardT
Let me get this straight, you are accusing me of accusing you?
To say that I have repeatedly accused you of anything is such a stretch of the truth that it dilutes what the word "truth" means.
Also, for someone who believes the findings of the IPCC, you surely seem "skeptical" of the science--the majority of your posts seem to be aimed at discrediting the findings of climate scientists. In fact, in your own words, you say:
My intention was show how the "experts" get it wrong.
As EdH shows, in order to demonstrate the experts are wrong, you must be able to understand the details provided by the experts.
Are you claiming that you have the expertise to actually show how they have gotten it wrong?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Chief wrote: This is what all this GW/CC/AGW/CAGW/AWG or what ever the fk you all call it now, is all about. Finally the truth comes out!
Dumber than dirt you are.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
Wilbeer wrote:
You still misrepresent how much the USG spends on Climate
Research,along with The Chief.
Is this directed at me? If so, please tell me what you're talking about?
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Chief wrote: Typical Bobda hate post.... at least you're predictable.
Truth and hate are two completely different things. You seem to have many issues with facts vs opinions, truth vs lies, hate vs criticism.
|
|
Bob D'A
Trad climber
Taos, NM
|
|
Chief wrote: You on the other hand, you HATE anyone that appears to be a conservative and does NOT agree with your political ideological bullshet.
Weaksauce. I like JE.
Chief wrote: I have absolutely no issues, Bobda
And of course you have no issues. Hilarious.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Bravo Wilbeer. Now your slinging some serious shet.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
"Scientists discover how to use Baking Soda to scrub CO2 caused global warming away"
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!