Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 12:31pm PT
|
Rick, why should anyone do your homework for you? You can find and look at all of chiloe's published worked and decide and write about your finding if you find anything interesting.
I don't believe that all scientist are biased free but it is ridiculous when people that haven't read a single scientific paper in their life tries to determine the validity of papers only based on the assumed biases of the authors.
The fact is that it is actually possibly to determine the validity of many papers by actually reading them... Science is not just people writing down their own beliefs even though you seems to believe that.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 12:32pm PT
|
Not long ago reasonably intelligent men who, no doubt, loved their families
and obeyed the law and kind to animals wrote papers that proved
'Cigarette Smoking Was Good For You.' BECAUSE they were paid to do it!
Pro global warming types are doing the same thing today.
Doing it for the money.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2015 - 12:34pm PT
|
Not long ago [men] wrote papers that proved 'Cigarette Smoking Was Good For You.' BECAUSE they were paid to do it!
@dave729, do you know what company these men worked for, and do you know what company now writes papers that deny the findings of the global community of climate scientists?
Does Heartland Institute ring a bell? It should...
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 12:41pm PT
|
The request was for a full AGW related publication list along with the accompanying funding sources so the good people here can decide for themselves about your claimed scientific and bias free extent of purity.
seems like 97% of the good people can and have decided for themselves, while less than 3% are demanding citation and proof of the science they've stated they disbelieve in the first place.
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 03:08pm PT
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2015 - 12:28pm PT
Odd, I thought you were talking about Malemute responding to your questions on denier funding.
I was.
His response was the the pic of the kid, which I quoted in my reply and which I quoted again for you.
Yet again, I'm spelling out the obvious for you.
I hope you don't consider this a threat.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 30, 2015 - 04:56pm PT
|
His response was the the pic of the kid, which I quoted in my reply and which I quoted again for you.
It's quite obvious to me that his pic of the kid had nothing to do with your question.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 30, 2015 - 07:37pm PT
|
The idea that scientists unerringly follow the thread of truth no matter its direction and results to their theories has repeatedly been proven untrue.
that's why we "show our work," so others can take a look critically and determine if what we're showing is untrue...
when you don't show your work it's problematic.
rick you can't show your work, you don't have anything... you have an opinion, which is apparently ironclad, and since your assumptions are unknown to us, and very likely unexamined by yourself, you have nothing that can be criticized.
Science involves all of the human foibles, nothing new or startling about that, but if we conduct ourselves in the proper practice of science then we'll know what is correct and what is not correct.
As far as your quote above, it sounds like you don't believe any science (which wouldn't surprise me, but it would also not surprise me if you are selective in the science you decide not to believe in... any science that threatens your own interests would be on that list).
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 31, 2015 - 08:07am PT
|
Malemute posts about a "study" on denier funding. I ask for details on denier efforts.
 EdwardT You won't see a response from me because I don't see any of your [Eddie's] posts.
Malemute His response was the the pic of the kid, which I quoted in my reply and which I quoted again for you.
EdwardT
Feeling a little self-important Eddie?
|
|
EdwardT
Trad climber
Retired
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2015 - 08:57am PT
|
Malemute
Ice climber
great white north
Mar 30, 2015 - 10:59am PT
Malemute posts about a "study" on denier funding. I ask for details on denier efforts. You won't see a response from me because I don't see any of your posts.
How do you manage that?
Or better yet, how can you reply to posts you don't see?
Why?
Because you can't make a rational argument.
Nice copout. I guess it's better than simply admitting you can't produce numbers based on anything more than guesswork.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 31, 2015 - 09:02am PT
|
How do you manage that?
He greased you, Eddie. You don't show up when he reads threads.
But he can see your posts when others, like me, quote you.
I guess it's better than simply admitting you can't produce numbers based on anything more than guesswork.
This is pretty funny, and par for the course from you. We produce an article in Scientific American on dark money funding AGW-denier efforts, but that's doesn't register as valid in your eyes.
Yet you moan and bemoan how we can't produce numbers, except for guesswork.
At least you are consistent.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2015 - 11:00am PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 31, 2015 - 12:21pm PT
|
Eddie, there's a (JavaScript?) program that you can run to scrub folks from a thread as you read through the thread.
Apparently Malemute has found your posts distract him from the contents of the forum, so he greased you.
Pat yourself on the back for posting an article that's pure propaganda.
$900 million per year... yet no one seems able to show how as little as one percent of that amount is being spent on denial efforts.
And you can show this is propaganda, and have contacted the publishers of the article to show your concern? Sounds like you have a real gripe with a major publisher! You should contact them so they can issue a correction.
As a caution, it is typical for "deniers" to deny inconvenient facts when they do not suit their purpose. Seems this is one of those cases. Unless, of course, you can back up your claim of propaganda. But I doubt you can.
And you can begin your dodge now...
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2015 - 09:12pm PT
|
This thread has been off on a boring track for a couple pages, let's liven it up with some thoughts about, well, climate! instead of who's a numbskull or has hypothetically compromised ethics. For a bit of comic relief, I'm curious what some of the different folks posting here think we're probably going to see in the next 5-10 to maybe 20 years. Not what the official predictions are, but what's your seat of the pants expectation? No change outside the small usual range of variation? Or something interesting?
For my part, I think all that energy in the oceans is going to do something, and in more like a few years than in 50. What that will be, I have no idea, but we ought to see one or more of the major oceanic oscillations do something different than it has in the last few years. After all, they're oscillations, the pendulum would be expected to swing the other way sooner or later (though that's a bad analogy, they're not that regular or predictable). And my guess is, a short term slug of warmer surface temperatures to go along with it, as has occurred in the past. Probably, increased energy at the surface instead of at 2000 m depth means some wild storminess; who knows.
But I'm not nearly as interested or worried about temperature numbers, but in change of large scale patterns. For example, I'm really curious whether this pattern of the last few years, of warm and dry in the West and just nuked and polar in the NE is going to stick around, maybe time to start planning some ski and ice climbing trips to the 'Dacks if so.
It's a given that we don't, can't, and won't know exactly what's going to happen, never mind that, I'm just interested in some people's guesses, for fun.
Edit to add: We don't have The Chief posting, so I'll speak up for him, at least in part. The past 1000 years, don't even have to go back further, have seen some really massive climate swings in the West, at least, stuff that (hopefully) dwarfs anything we'll see in a few decades; and with no elevated CO2 to contribute to them. True enough. But we're here now, and we'd be in deep do-do if we have those several-decade droughts in the immediate future.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 31, 2015 - 10:58pm PT
|
Long term patterns?
How about the death of the western forests due to warm drought conditions and insect infestation brought on by a combination of climate change and human fire suppression.
The forest death actually increases the atmospheric CO2, the "banked" CO2 in the trees is released by insect action and wild fires.
The landscape has already changed greatly in the last couple of decades, imagine the next couple of decades. And include western Canada too.
The rebounding ocean oscillation puts us back into a warming trend over the next decade too... on top of what is happening, sort of like the period between the 70's and the 90's.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
How about the death of the western forests due to warm drought conditions and insect infestation brought on by a combination of climate change and human fire suppression.
By coincidence that's something I've been learning about this month, for a project on the Blue Mountains region of Oregon. Several interesting new papers have come out in the past few weeks, looking to untangle the synergistic effects of climate, beetles, fire suppression and forest management practices. They're hard to untangle because all happening more or less at once, and the connections are subtle -- climate effects on beetles may be not from absolute temperatures or warming but whether the minimum temperatures in those places where temperatures formerly limited beetle growth have risen above thresholds; but if the temperatures were not low enough to limit beetles to begin with, warming may have less effect ... less effect on beetles that is, but not on drying which looks to be more important on the grand scale. Anyway it's complicated.
Western forests are an example of potential ecosystem tipping points, I suspect ocean ecosystems -- reef-scale to much larger -- will prove to have tipping points too. Those seem devilish hard to predict in advance, though, you just see the point when it's too late.
Arctic sea ice is a physical system that some folks think could reach a tipping point within the next few decades. The big Antarctic ice shelves are still another, but compared to ecosystems or sea ice they seem to move in slow motion. Conversely if the shelves (or thermohaline circulation) do tip, they won't tip back again on civilization time scales.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I've been watching the solar indices and believe cycle 24 began its long slide to minimum some two months ago.
I suspect the shift of the arctic jet stream southward was the main feature of prior continental glaciations. Look for perrenial snow fields in norteast Canada by 2019, then extending southwards in fits and starts over the remainder of the century. The grain belt of canada and mid america will likewise follow suit, though not without frequent disastrous harvests and accompanying shortages.
I fear the extinction of the western bark beetle in the gathering cold. By 2053 look for the one hundred year old Eddie Hartouni to chain himself to the last infested sierra white pine in an effort to "save the bark beetle" from the loggers chainsaw.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
rick you've been watching the solar cycle for years now...
or at least you've been reading about it at your favorite blog spot.
Have you got a workable hypothesis as to why you think this is such a big effect when there is no sign that it is a big effect? A necessary (but not sufficient) condition is that some correlation exists, but there doesn't seem to be anything but very week correlations. The mechanism you've been touting all these years, some amplification effect due to "non-linear" la-di-da-da-da are yet to be specified, and analyses don't seem to be helping in the search for same.
Not only that, they are irrelevant to explaining what is happening.
As far as caricatures, how about the one where Adam Smith's "invisible hand" snakes up your bunghole and makes you into a market sock-puppet? "What's good for General Bullmoose, Is good for the USA"!
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Monolith, that's an interesting new development, people trying to (educatedly) guess the global temp indexes before they're released -- there's actual suspense among those who follow these things. Arctic sea ice has that character too.
Nick Stokes writes something similar on his blog:
Most of the NCEP data for March global surface temperature is in, and despite some cooling at the end, it still looks to be a little warmer than February. Probably less than May 2014, but higher than any other month in 2014 (or 2015). I'd expect this to be reflected in surface temps.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
While I appreciate you, Eddie, unstuffing yourself from your overtight shirt and letting your hair down ( maybe thats an improper analogy since your hair seems to poke every which direction) with some humorous written visuals, you are nonetheless exhibiting selective amnesia again. Comb back through what remains of this threads 35, 000+ posts to see the various mechanisms theorized for the rather large varition's of individual solar outputs other than the convenient TSI.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!