Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 7361 - 7380 of total 17219 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

bobinc

Trad climber

Portland, Or

Sep 13, 2013 - 01:41pm PT

Ron A: I responded, if you're referring to the ClimateDepot link. The guy that runs that site used to write shite for Rush and also was a staffer for Senator Inhofe, a charter member of the Flat Earth Society from the great state of Oklahoma.

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 13, 2013 - 01:45pm PT

it doesn't matter if I posted a scientific reviewed article or words from God herself, you will believe what you want to believe, and nobody is going to change your mind.

Why don't you try me, The chief. Post a peer-reviewed article where the reviewers are bona-fide climate scientists, and you will see me take that as data that I use in my opinion about AWG.

From what I've seen so far, you haven't been able to produce such an article. So no, it ain't the kettle calling the pot black, because I do look at what the scientists conclude.

Can you say the same??

bobinc

Trad climber

Portland, Or

Sep 13, 2013 - 01:52pm PT

Ron-- did you actually read the paper? Care to tell us what you think it said?

It's funny how Tea Partiers who get their SS check (even those who are double or triple-dippers) never send those checks back... even if they end up taking out $000,000s more than they paid in. I guess that's not hypocrisy in their book.

dave729

Trad climber

Western America

Sep 13, 2013 - 02:24pm PT

And don't forget that quiet Sun conditions let cosmic rays penetrate
deeper into the atmosphere making more clouds and cooling the Earth.

bobinc

Trad climber

Portland, Or

Sep 13, 2013 - 02:51pm PT

So you're saying you actually paid $38 to get the paper, Ron? Or did you just read the Abstract? Do you think Morano actually read the paper himself?

bobinc

Trad climber

Portland, Or

Sep 13, 2013 - 02:55pm PT

Abstracts are condensed (typically limited to 250-400 words) so one can't always tell a lot about the actual conclusions the authors draw. In this case, the abstract doesn't use any direct language about how the research results relate to modern climate. That language comes from ClimateDepot itself.

Thanks for further proving my point with the next post...

Is there invisible ink here, or...?

k-man

Gym climber

SCruz

Topic Author's Reply - Sep 13, 2013 - 03:00pm PT

Again the Chief posts crackpot science, and claims it's the real thing.

The Chief, we've been over this before. The articles you post don't hold up under scrutiny.
From a quick search on Wikipedia:

The editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing, Wolfgang Wagner, later resigned over publication of Spencer and Braswell (2011),[20] stating, "From a purely formal point of view, there were no errors with the review process. [...] the problem I see with the paper by Spencer and Braswell is not that it declared a minority view ...but that it essentially ignored the scientific arguments of its opponents. This latter point was missed in the review process, explaining why I perceive this paper to be fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal."[21] Wagner added he, "would also like to personally protest against how the authors and like-minded climate sceptics have much exaggerated the paper's conclusions in public statements".[20][21]

Yep, a minority view that the editor-in-chief of Remote Sensing actually resigned his position because he allowed of the publication of such nonsense.

Par for the course The Chief. Like I said, post up something that is accepted by real scientists...

PS. How much money from the $65,000,000+ of the Koch brothers do you think your "scientists" receive?

Elcapinyoazz

Social climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 13, 2013 - 03:21pm PT

NOT ONE word about those or rebuttals

Ronald, try to follow along. I'll type slowly, so maybe you can get it.

In fact, I did write more than "one word" when the fraud Sumner posted his initial drivel, claiming -falsely- that the entire "notion of AGW" was predicated on never having seen warm periods in the past or having seen rapid warming in the past. Again, that is a strawman argument that has f*#k-all, zero, nothing to do with the science behind AGW. Nada, nothing, zilch, bupkiss.

The papers that you are so eager to discuss have NOTHING TO DO WITH AGW. Nothing. They concern historical climate records pre-dating man's modern levels of extensive use of carbon fuels and the resulting effects on the climate.

The mechanism of how it causes warming is proven, well know, and if you doubt it, go sit in a greenhouse in winter sometime. If you doubt burning hydrocarbons in an enclosed atmosphere will alter the climate, go out to your garage, close the doors, crank up the F250, crack a beer and sit a spell...we'll have your memorial service the following week.

The open questions for science are how to best model those effects, how to isolate the antropogenic effects from natural effects, and when models stray from observations to determine why. Is it the model itself? Modeling chaotic systems is extremely challenging...ask any stormwater channel designer, they might get within 10% on the hydraulics if they're lucky. Did we overlook something? Like heat storage at depth in the oceans, etc.

So your little papers on medieval warming are nice for the historic global climate record, but again they have zero to do with AGW. Neither it's causes, effects, or how to model them.

This is basic, 3rd grade level stuff. Stop embarassing yourself please.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Sep 13, 2013 - 03:32pm PT

Bizarre conclusion, Anderson.

That conclusion was added by the blog, not the paper.

rick sumner

Trad climber

reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska

Sep 13, 2013 - 03:38pm PT

Complete b.s. Capintheazz. First off, to sell this crock it was necessary to advance the myth that the degree and rapidity of the warming of the late 20th century was unprecedented in recorded history. Of course, the community had the problem of the many, many historical accounts of the severity of the LIA and the warmth of the MWP to deal with. Study after study was devoted to adjustment of these periods, to separate and distinguish as unusual the 20th century. If you deny this perhaps you are ignorant. Second the atmosphere is not an impenetrable shield allowing escape of only conducted heat. You have a lot of escaping IR, and convection, and oceanic and landmass storage, as well as the variable amount of cloud and aerosol deflected radiation reaching the earth from our variable star. I think it was Spencer or Lindzen that indentified the atmosphere more as a holey blanket than a glass shield.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Sep 13, 2013 - 03:39pm PT

LOL, Anderson, most reefs are in terrible shape from several causes, including acidification caused by FFC.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Sep 13, 2013 - 03:42pm PT

LOL, the Chief demands 100% proof. Classic denier.

nature

climber

Boulder, CO

Sep 13, 2013 - 04:04pm PT

http://apps.seattletimes.com/reports/sea-change/2013/sep/11/pacific-ocean-perilous-turn-overview/

Norton

Social climber

the Wastelands

Sep 13, 2013 - 04:25pm PT

very cool all electric bike, chief!

Elcapinyoazz

Social climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 13, 2013 - 04:43pm PT

Ref or Cite that 100% "proves" the mech/source of the current warming.

Chief Moobs, again: Head out to your garage, close the doors, crank up that F250, crack a seltzer water, and sit a spell. You'll get your proof, and we'll not have to listen to your inane babbling, or keep paying for your pension anymore. How tough are you, little feller? Can you make it two hours? Go find out. I won't wait for the report back, just scan the obits in a day or two.

Ronald: In 1930, before there were any cars in town, my great uncle kicked his dog and the dog yelped like a mofo. Four years later, the dog was clipped by a passing car, and yelped but a little softer. Two years later, great uncles dog got flattened by a car he never saw coming, never had a chance to yelp at all. Therefore cars cannot hurt dogs, because the dog yelped louder when it was kicked than when the car brushed him and didn't yelp at all before he was killed by the car. Make any sense? Neither do you or the other yelping dog on this thread.

monolith

climber

SF bay area

Sep 13, 2013 - 06:53pm PT

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v410/n6826/abs/410355a0.html

Harris et al, 2001:

Our results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Elcapinyoazz

Social climber

Joshua Tree

Sep 13, 2013 - 07:51pm PT

get off those sites you normally go to, and type in climate change scam or global warming scam

Ron, why would I do that if I had any desire to read actual climate science research, rather than the blogs of bloviating idiots like Sumner, who want to play at using words and concepts he doesn't understand, in an attempt to misrepresent both the science and conclusions of the studies?

Yes, I'm sure there are tens of thousands of pages of deniers posting about "scams", and the unifying feature behind all of them is a lack of understanding of the science, along with a closed mind looking for a per-determined outcome.

Ron, do you think any impartial, straightforward scientific studies of climate will contain the word "scam" in the paper title, the title of the journal it was published in, or the research institution where it originated?

Then you have blowhards like "MadDog", crying about peer review. Hello? You need to actually be a peer to perform the review, someone with relevant standing and understanding, not a random lab tech flunkie.

Im no scientist

Understatement of the year.

been involved a bit in more rudimentary aspects with flora and fauna. And thus far the doom predicted to said flora and fauna by GW has been to date, 100% false

Izzat rite?

"Root and her colleagues analyzed 143 scientific studies involving a total of 1,473 species of animals and plants. Each study found a direct correlation between global warming and biological change somewhere in the world. For example, several studies revealed that, as temperatures increased in recent decades, certain species began breeding and migrating earlier than expected. Other studies found that the geographical range of numerous species had shifted poleward or moved to a higher elevation -- indicating that some plants and animals are occupying areas that were previously too cold for survival.

Were these biological and behavioral changes isolated events, or did they reflect a worldwide pattern consistent with global warming? After exhaustive statistical analyses of all 143 studies, Root and her co-authors concluded that global warming is, in fact, having a significant impact on animal and plant populations around the world.

Root and her co-workers revealed that nearly 1,200 species -- roughly 81 percent of the total number analyzed -- have undergone biological changes that were "consistent with our understanding of how temperature change influences various traits of a variety of species and populations from around the globe.

The North American tree swallow offers a good example. Field biologists, who kept track of some 21,000 tree swallow nests in the United States and Canada over the last 40 years, concluded that the average egg-laying date for female swallows has advanced by nine days a phenomenon that mirrors other North American studies confirming higher temperatures and the earlier arrival of spring.

Similar long-term observations of flowering plants in Wisconsin revealed that wild geraniums, columbine and other species are blooming earlier than before. Studies in Colorado also showed that marmots are ending their hibernations about three weeks sooner than they were in the late 1970s.

Other studies confirmed that a variety of species -- including butterflies and marine invertebrates -- have shifted their ranges northward as temperatures increased. Measurements taken in Alaska revealed that growth in white spruce trees has been significantly stunted in recent years another expected consequence of a rapidly warming climate, Root said.

"Climate change models predict that the poles will warm more quickly than the equator, so it's not surprising that we're getting the strongest signals of biological change from Alaska and other northern regions," she added."

Source: http://news.stanford.edu/pr/03/root18.html

wilbeer

Mountain climber

honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys

Sep 13, 2013 - 08:35pm PT

www.accuweather.com/en/weather-news/more-than-3000-temperature-rec/67593

Chef ,this was just last years temperature records broken.

I could continue and give you the rest of the story .But no.

Nature,that was a very good post back there.