Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 17, 2011 - 01:01pm PT
|
From the "sad but true" file:
The U.S. Energy Information Administration has projected that the United
States will lead the world into catastrophic global warming over the next
twenty five years. In its 2011 Annual Energy Outlook, the EIA predicts that
energy-related CO2 emissions will “grow by 16 percent from 2009 to 2035,”
reaching 6.3 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent (or 1.7 GtC):
Source: US agency sees “catastrophic global warming” over next 25 years
There is simply no exaggerating the importance of the oceans to earth’s overall ecological balance. Their health affects the health of all terrestrial life. A new report by an international coalition of marine scientists makes for grim reading. It concludes that the oceans are approaching irreversible, potentially catastrophic change.
The experts, convened by the International Program on the State of the Ocean and the International Union for Conservation of Nature, found that marine “degradation is now happening at a faster rate than predicted.” The oceans have warmed and become more acidic as they absorbed human-generated carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. They are also more oxygen-deprived, because of agricultural runoff and other anthropogenic causes. This deadly trio of conditions was present in previous mass extinctions, according to the report.
Source: The oceans are doomed, and so are we—unless we ALL stand up
This week, a climate hearing was held in the US House of Reps. Six 'experts' on climate were brought in, but only three were scientists. And it turns out that one of the GOP's star witnesses -- a scientist who's been vocal in his skepticism of global temperature records, the physicist Richard Muller, of University of California, Berkeley, didn't quite help them disprove climate change. Quite the opposite, in fact.
...
As you can see -- and more importantly, as Muller himself has come to believe -- the established data collected by temperature stations around the world are accurate. Muller's independent work confirms that the data on which the majority of the best climate models rely upon is actually quite good.
Source: Koch-Funded Climate Skeptic's Own Data Confirms Warming
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2011 - 01:21pm PT
|
Speculation is not science, Chief. It may guide where the scientist looks next, but that's all. We make decisions based on today's science, not 100+ year old speculation.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2011 - 01:36pm PT
|
Does this mean the earth is round..?
|
|
monolith
climber
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2011 - 02:17pm PT
|
Like I said Chief, speculation is not science. Arrhenius produced sound science showing that man's activities could warm the earth. Then he speculated that this would be beneficial.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 17, 2011 - 07:16pm PT
|
Why Hasn’t The Earth Warmed In Nearly 15 Years? By Patrick Michaels.
You mean, *this* Patrick Michaels:
Patrick J. Michaels (±1942- ), also known as Pat Michaels, is a largely oil-funded global warming skeptic who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed ...
Now that's a curve ball! STRIKE!
But never mind these latest headlines because the Earth is not warming:
Worst heatwave in years grips Midwest, moving east
Drought cripples southern US farms: ... the past nine months have been the driest in Texas history.
(BTW, I got these off the Drudge Report.)
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2011 - 07:28pm PT
|
Because the reality is that since that 1998 El Nino induced "Spike", there has not been ANY warming in the So Hemisphere since 1998. NONE! The mean temp since that spike clearly indicates a COOLING TREND and a DECLINE in the So Hemisphere's temps.
Another perfect example of the AGW's HIDE THE DECLINE syndrome. Let's not tell the people that. Let's ponder on what contributes the AGW hysteria so we can continue to collect that pay check and them Gov't funds.
Cherry picking at it's best.
Bizarro logic. Start with any year BUT 1998 and you don't get a cooling trend. Why not just take 1998 to 1999 and claim a huge cooling trend.
And why is that when ever you hear anyone attempt to discredit AGW they don't just state the facts, which should speak for themselves. They always include whining about being persecuted, ridiculed, and discredited. In fact it's much harder to convince people there is AGW than convince them there isn't because no one WANTS to believe there is a problem. But plenty of people want to pretend there isn't a problem. And thankfully for them they have the people making billions of dollars off the status quo to provide them disinformation to feed their denial.
My prediction is the people who don't want any changes and their dupes will succeed and we won't make meaningful attempts to deal with it. Then in 25 years in won't be "doomsday" like the denialists claim the "warmists" say will happen, but there will be significant issues with crop failures, record heat waves, record hurricanes, sea level rise, etc. That will be a significant economic burden. And the denialists will still be in denial, they'll claim it's from natural causes because they won't have the guts to admit they were a part of the problem and chose to not only do nothing about it but tried to derail efforts to combat it.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2011 - 12:30am PT
|
Simply, Ed's post is not good news.
|
|
Lennox
climber
just southwest of the center of the universe
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2011 - 01:13am PT
|
The idiomatic expression, "he cannot see the forest for the trees" implies that someone is too wrapped up in the details to see the larger picture.
Which is the case for The Chief, but what's worse, he can't even tell a fake plastic tree from a real one--and doesn't want to.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2011 - 02:08am PT
|
GISS and NCDC are the only two entities that show this [increase in global temperature].
-- The Chief
The Chief, here are some quotes that you must have missed from the paper that Ed referenced:
"[3] Here we describe the current Goddard Institute for
Space Studies (GISS) analysis of global surface temperature
change. We first provide background on why and how the
GISS method was developed and then describe the input data
that go into our analysis. We discuss sources of uncertainty
in the temperature records and provide some insight about
the magnitude of the problems via alternative choices for
input data and adjustments to the data. We discuss a few of
the salient features in the resulting temperature reconstruction
and compare our global mean temperature change
with those obtained in the NCDC and HadCRUT analyses.
Given our conclusion that global warming is continuing
unabated and that this conclusion differs from some popular
perceptions, we discuss reasons for such misperceptions
including the influence of short‐term weather and climate
fluctuations."
"[14] Here we describe the current GISS analysis and
present several updated graphs and maps of global surface
temperature change. We compare our results with those of
HadCRUT and NCDC, the main purpose being to investigate
differences in recent global temperature trends and the
ranking of annual temperatures among different years."
In fact, if you read the whole paper, you will see that HadCRUT
is taken into account throughout the entire paper, both in the
graphs presented and in the explanatory text.
And, being a paper published on the NASA government site, it
doesn't surprise me to see the long list of references at the end.
Really, The Chief, you might want to take the time to read the report,
it's very telling.
The Chief, I assume that you are a decent fellow, and as
such I'm certain that you will now apologize for your rush to judgement,
which was obviously biased according to your prejudged opinion.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2011 - 02:39am PT
|
Holy cow The Chief, do you even read the links that you post?? Pretty amazing stuff you've found there.
For example, here is a direct quote from the last paragraph of the text you present in your last post:
The simulations also produce an average increase of 2.0°C in twenty-first century global temperature, demonstrating that recent observational trends are not sufficient to discount predictions of substantial climate change and its significant and widespread impacts. Given the likelihood that internal variability contributed to the slowing of global temperature rise in the last decade, we expect that warming will resume in the next few years, consistent with predictions from near-term climate forecasts (Smith et al. 2007; Haines et al. 2009)
Honestly ...
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2011 - 02:43am PT
|
Here's another gem from The Chief's list of interesting links:
Following the theft of data and emails from CRU in 2009, a number of inquiries and reviews have been completed.
"the scientific reputation of Professor Jones and CRU remains intact" (House of Commons Science and Technology Committee)
"we saw no evidence of any deliberate scientific malpractice in any of the work of the Climatic Research Unit" (Lord Oxburgh Science Assessment Panel)
"their rigour and honesty as scientists are not in doubt" (Sir Muir Russell Independent Climate Change Emails Review)
"careful examination of the e-mails and their full context shows that the petitioners' claims are exaggerated and are not a material or reliable basis to question the validity and credibility of the body of [climate] science" (US Environmental Protection Agency)
Source: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/info/warming/0
The Chief, thanks for pointing this stuff out.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2011 - 09:52am PT
|
Chief is trolling.
No one can be that oblivious.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2011 - 10:51am PT
|
Chief is trolling.
Nah, I don't think so.
The Chief is a stand up guy who will understand how wrong he
was and will come back and apologize for his errant ways.
Sometimes it's sad to watch a grown man realize the world he created
in his head is all a fantasy, but in this case it will be refreshing to watch
this big man open up as he begins to learn.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2011 - 11:48am PT
|
The warming has slowed in the last decade...good news..i'm going to buy a 62 bonneville that gets 8 miles to the gallon and drive up and down the big highway..
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2011 - 12:00pm PT
|
Wow The Chief. Good thing your primitives are working so you don't have to think in order to breathe.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2011 - 01:32pm PT
|
where do your plots come from? please cite the papers.
I pulled the URL on the plot and came to this site. http://digitaldiatribes.wordpress.com/learn-about-joe/
So he is searching for sites that reinforce what he wants to hear.
From that site:
Who am I to present such things? I am an actuary. Have been for a couple of decades. I just have an interest in numbers and trends and such things. I enjoy putting together little models that project future results. It’s a hobby. But my actuarial background does lend itself to data analysis and modeling procedures that are often used in insurance can be applied to temperature data sets to yield some interesting results.
I make no claims about being some kind of an expert in climatology or solar cycles. I just like to look at the numbers, pick out some things of interest, and present the results. I am often surprised by responses that I get from those who think that a mere presentation of actual data somehow suggests I have an agenda. Anyone who follows this blog knows that I present both short and long-term data trends. I have my own skepticism and ideas about the future, to be sure. I’m not afraid to offer those opinions. But I don’t in any way massage the data to tell the story I want to tell. If trends warm, I’ll show the warming. If trends cool, I’ll show the cooling. I let others argue about what the results mean. For the official record, I have no dog in this fight other than that of an unfunded citizen who has an interest in such matters. My economic interest is no more than anyone else, and is from the perspective of hoping to avoid ridiculous taxation and government spending on matters of insignificance which we have somehow become convinced are significant.
Anyway, I do have a background of some University study in Chemistry and Physics. However, it was not my career of choice and I did not go on to get PhD or anything like that. I’m not a Doctor of the Sciences, a climatologist, or anything of the sort. I am not a statistician, and despite being an actuary, there are certain failings I have in that category as well. Any presentations I give on the numbers I state clearly what the assumptions are, so that I’m not making myself sound more knowledgable than I am. As I said, where I believe I can offer some insight is in digging into the data and applying some different modeling and weighting techniques.
This guy is probably a lot like to Chief, he thinks he has no agenda but then goes on to say "ridiculous taxation and government spending on matters of insignificance". So he does have an agenda.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jul 18, 2011 - 05:09pm PT
|
Ed, you have the patience of a saint.
The latest posts from The Chief, CC, and Bookworm make it pretty evident to me that they don't read the stuff that anybody posts, or even the stuff that they themselves post.
If they see a paragraph or two that supports their preconceived ideas, then they use that as evidence that AWG is a hoax. Even if the conclusion of the pieces they reference state that AWG is indeed a serious threat.
I pointed such out to Bookworm a couple of months ago, and now The Chief cites several pieces that fully support the AWG case. As for CC, he continues to post pieces from "researchers" known to be funded by oil companies.
Still, thanks for your diligence. I've learned a lot because of it.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2011 - 05:17pm PT
|
Yep, responding to those folks in any meaningful way is a huge waste of time.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!