Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 07:16pm PT
|
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 07:19pm PT
|
So the claims made about the inaccuracy of the Hockey Stick are inaccurate?
What do you think about McIntyre and McKitrick's claims and their data analysis?
What about the failure to respond to FOIA requests? Why not put this all in the open for all scientists to analyze and discuss?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 07:33pm PT
|
Also, the arrogance/condescension that you and others bestow on 'skeptics' is getting old.
And it doesn't really help your argument. Maybe you could focus on refuting solar effects on our solar system, or historical trends in the history of human record.
It seems to me, along with common sense, that a natural trend is in place. I think the work the Canucks did is pretty evident of that coupled with solar cycles.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 07:36pm PT
|
from today's wsj:
"Meanwhile, the BBC carries an extraordinary interview with Phil Jones, director of the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia and the central Climategate figure. In the interview, Jones admits that the periods 1860-80 and 1910-40 saw global warming on a similar scale to the 1975-98 period, that there has been no significant warming since 1995, and that the so-called Medieval Warm Period calls into question whether the currently observed warming is unprecedented.
And then there's this exchange:
When scientists say "the debate on climate change is over," what exactly do they mean--and what don't they mean?
It would be supposition on my behalf to know whether all scientists who say the debate is over are saying that for the same reason. I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists think this. This is not my view. There is still much that needs to be undertaken to reduce uncertainties, not just for the future, but for the instrumental (and especially the palaeoclimatic) past as well."
sooooooooo, PHIL JONES, he of the cru, claims, "the VAST MAJORITY" of "CLIMATE SCIENTISTS" do NOT think the debate over climate change is over?
REALLY???????
ed, what do YOU think? are you part of jones' "vast majority" or are you part of the alleged minority of scientists who think "the debate is over", the "science is settled", and skeptics are just a bunch of "deniers"?
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 07:39pm PT
|
Also, the arrogance/condescension that you and others bestow on 'skeptics' is getting old.
Actually, what's arrogant are the lay skeptics who somehow feel supremely qualified to opine about very technical aspects of a rather sophisticated discipline.
But as the saying goes, opinions are like as#@&%es...
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 07:49pm PT
|
Actually, what's arrogant are the lay skeptics who somehow feel supremely qualified to opine about very technical aspects of a rather sophisticated discipline.
Look, I'm citing scientists who have looked at the (computer) code used to process data that is obviously going to give a 'hockey stick' type trend. It denies past (pre-fossil fuel) warming trends and expands current temperature readings.
I'd like to hear a scientist here deny this. It has been proven! By more than 1 or 2 scientists.
It doesn't take a f*#king scientist or computer programmer to understand this! THAT IS WHAT THE DISHONEST ONES WANT YOU TO BELIEVE!!!!
Again, this guy is an AGW 'believer' who calls Mann's models manipulated for a Hockey Stick result. FROM M.I.T.!
http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13830/?a=f
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 08:09pm PT
|
Maybe you could focus on forming a testable hypothesis. How the hell do I "refute solar effects on our solar system?" What does that even mean?
It may seem to you, and your common sense, that "a natural trend is in place," only because you have no fuking idea what "a natural trend" even means.
The sun is a very measurable trend in our solar system. It varies a bit, but the trend is there.
Care to answer questions about Mann's models? Why was the medieval trend left out? Solar activity?
Care to answer the Canuck assertions?
Let me guess, your career is based on GW scare tactics....
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 08:34pm PT
|
I will answer any well-posed question you ask. I will not spend my time "refuting solar effects" because that is a retarded request.
But your requests of me are better (all of which I responded to)? I understand it ain't your field, but shouldn't it be considered as an obvious cause of 'WARMING'????
What is it about Mann's model that has your panties in a wad? I will do my best to untie them, because clearly you are incapable. What is the "Canuck assertion?" I must have missed that in the recent literature.
He used algorithms that discounted past warming (w/o human influence) and emphasized current warming. You must obviously know this too, so you're being a disingenuous liar.
My career doesn't depend on GW... or even global climate change. I will continue to learn and teach for the rest of my life, regardless of global weather.
Wow! you're such a humanitarian, and hence, have way more credibility than me. Jeez, I wish I could be as humane as you!!!!
Let me guess, your current lifestyle depends on fossil fuels and you feel threatened by the mere suggestion that you MAY want to alter your lifestyle for the sake of future generations...
Yep, you nailed it because you are such an awesome and admirable scientist!!! I'm exposed as someone who wants to drive a car on gas and work to promote more electronic technology manufacturing her in the U.S.
You go me there, dude, I'm so selfish. Sorry. Let's keep pushing it off to the Chiners and Malaysia, that'll work better.
You're a f*#king disingenuous putz, your kind should be more open if you really care about the 'environment'.
putz!~!
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 08:40pm PT
|
Sure Weschrist
Try this.
How many of the temperature monitoring stations in California violate the
100 foot distance rule from infrastructure (buildings, concrete slabs,
asphalt parking lots & roads, other man made heat sources- electric powered
devices and air conditioning air outlets, recently parked cars
bar-b-ques... etc?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 09:35pm PT
|
I guess I'll wade in again...
One of my favorite weather tracking sites. The urban heat islands can be clearly seen here during warmer months. They're very faint today but become obvious during the warmer months. The warmer months show the amount of water vapor emitted from the cities due to seasonal warming.
http://radar.weather.gov/Conus/full_loop.php
I don't think it's so much that people don't believe in climate change, it's the cause that gets everyone stirred up. My most humble opinion is that the sun's activity and volcanic emissions dwarf any impact man has on the planet's climate from an air emissions standpoint. And the idea of us reversing it is absurd. From what I've read, it would take 100 years to reverse the CO2 level and 1000 years to reverse the temperature 1 degree. If it's the sun and volcanic activity causing climate change, is this a potentially misguided effort in today's troubled world? To many of my eco-minded friends, overpopulation is by far a more urgent concern for our planet.
Review the current regulations (40 CFR 98) for industry to collect GHG data. The US has to report GHG emissions for 2010 by next Oct. The level of accuracy allowed for some of the requirements is 5%. This is beyond what the agencies require for hazardous air pollutant calculations. The reason for such accuracy is that eventually money will be tied to these emissions and no one wants to be off when it comes to millions of dollars being passed around. Typical.
I personnally don't agree that CO2 is a 'dangerous' pollutant. I hope after all this work and climate study, we can come to a sensible conclusion (not political consensus) and direct the huge amount of money that will be gleaned from the emitters to a good cause such as infrastructure redesign/relocation for coastal communities subject to sea level rise, if this is really the case. I think the jury's still out on what our climate is really doing long term.
As I've said before, bad policy usually results in the passing of bad regulations. Transportation contributes +40% of GHG emissions while industry contributes
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 09:36pm PT
|
I will not spend my time "refuting solar effects"
That's good, because you can't.
When I was in about the 6th grade and we really started in with geography a couple of us noticed that a lot of the continents fit together like a big jigsaw puzzle. We of course were told that it was nonsense that there had once been one big continent and the guy that had proposed that theory was some sort of science heretic.
By the time I was in high school plate tectonics was accepted as fact.
What was obvious to children had been disputed for hundreds of years.
Are the Greenland ice cores or the solar trends wrong?
Don't they pass Ocam's razor a bit more gently?
The tail at the Before Present line fits the "hockey stick" almost perfectly and given this winter the next 5-10 years will prove that hypothesis one way or another.
I have a third acre lot in the middle of what is now a city. It also happens to have its own micro climate due to the topography. I typically get a week or two (or even a month)more frost than even a hundred yards away. That changed radically 20 years ago as the surroundings developed and then stabilized as the area built out. I grow stuff. I pay attention to this stuff.
A yearly average temperature reading in my back yard would show no change from 30 years ago, or a very slight warming, (due to the surrounding up slope areas being built out). The reading from the San Gabriel fire station, (one of the official ones) would show a radical warming as would one from one hundred yards from my house.
Wasting fuel is an unwise waste of resources. Polluting and littering are both crimes against nature and should be avoided purely on ethical grounds as well as economic self interest. But, the anthropogenic component of climate change doesn't even rise to the level of noise on events that are driven on an astronomical scale.
AD 2400?
Well, I'm kinda glad I won't be around for that one, but given the historical record, not only will we survive, we will thrive.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 09:42pm PT
|
“The temperature records cannot be relied on as indicators of global
change,” said John Christy, professor of atmospheric science at the
University of Alabama in Huntsville, a former lead author on the IPCC.
The doubts of Christy and a number of other researchers focus on the
thousands of weather stations around the world, which have been used to
collect temperature data over the past 150 years.
These stations, they believe, have been seriously compromised by
factors such as urbanisation, changes in land use and, in many cases,
being moved from site to site.
Christy has published research papers looking at these effects in three
different regions: east Africa, and the American states of California and
Alabama.
“The story is the same for each one,” he said. “The popular data sets show
a lot of warming but the apparent temperature rise was actually caused by
local factors affecting the weather stations, such as
land development.”
//CO2: as a business model…..
1) hype it’s dangers.
2) prey upon guilt.
3) hype some more.
4) create a market.
5) sell new technology to counteract it.
(repeat steps 3,4 and 5 as needed.)
6) get out before the bubble bursts.
7) if you’re still reading, go back to #1.//
|
|
enjoimx
Big Wall climber
SLO Cal
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 09:54pm PT
|
Its like Avatar. The earth will find homeostasis on its own.
The only thing legislation and human prevention of CO2 rises will do is increase the human population even more. Now, why would the natural order, or mother nature, want an increase in the species that causes environmental destruction?
Global warming is a natural response of the earth designed to kill off a large part of the human population. I dont see any problem with that. Over the next few thousand years (or maybe few million), the earth will naturally lower the human popluation to sustainable levels, at which time CO2 levels will then drop, and the ocean levels will decrease, and so on and so forth.
We dont need to necessarily spend buzillions of dollars to prevent the earth from running its natural course of homeostasis-maintenance.
Realize, as high and mighty we humans think we are, we are just another species subject to the same laws as all other animals. The earth will naturally keep us in check.
|
|
willie!!!!!
Ice climber
honolulu, hawaii
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 10:14pm PT
|
one more post and this will fit on my screen!
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 10:16pm PT
|
LOL! That graph is a doozy (sp?). It fits my monitor perfectly. Right up to the edges.
|
|
willie!!!!!
Ice climber
honolulu, hawaii
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 10:20pm PT
|
OK, two posts. Thanks Mimi.
TGT-
How many times in history has the human population ballooned to 7 billion thanks to 80+ million barrells of oil burned each day?
The only thing history tells us is that some of us will f*#k over others to survive.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 10:22pm PT
|
Wow, Wes, I must be right. You're all f*#king up in arms with no retorts to my questions. You just discount the validity of the question without answering it....again and again.
You still have yet to refute Dr. Mann's manipulation of code to propose his Hockey Stick. And you know damn well what I'm talking about. If you don't, you're even a bigger GW dick-smoker than I thought.
Tell me me why the Canucks (McIntyre and McKitrick) are wrong and Mann is right.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 10:22pm PT
|
Survival of the fittest, Willie. Let's hope we can transcend our genetic predisposition to be this way and become more altruistic.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 10:56pm PT
|
If you wanted to, you could send in questions and I think that by the rules of the report writing they would have to be considered and responded too. I don't think there is any evidence that there was a "distortion" or that it was "intentional."
What, you don't "think" that?
It's f*#king super-clear , Ed! They manipulated models! All of you scientists have yet to dispute that claim. You would do yourselves better by jettisoning these hacks as frauds and get back to real work.
I can't see how you can dispute this...they are frauds.
Ed said;
McIntyre and McKitrick's claims are not considered serious, and they don't publish anyway...
what are you saying there? Their theories are wrong? Their calculations are less accurate?
How so?
Oh, and "sending in questions" for answers...kinda like requesting FOIA requests for the data of 'scientists' (propagandists).
Ed, do you see where your field is headed? As an honest scientist, I'd expect you to refute these undocumented frauds.
Otherwise, science fails...at least the trust does.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 16, 2010 - 11:05pm PT
|
Hello Ed. Thanks for the summary of articles. I look forward to reading more of them. I am especially interested in the solar forcing issue due to a limited amount of reading and a NatGeo program. Definitely limited info. but it was convincing to me.
I briefly scanned your thread on this topic and the Scafetta article seems to support the apparent solar influence. We get NatGeo mag. I find it to be an 'activist' publication toward environmental concerns. They should be, the environment is their central focus. A documentary awhile back on their channel, called Solar Storm, offered a very strong argument for solar influence on the earth's temperature. I was very surprised that they would present this position since it downplayed the anthropogenic one.
Your take? Have you seen this program?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!