Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2010 - 02:51am PT
|
The funny thing is that I can do whatever I want with regard to responding to your nonsense on the ST. It was much more pleasant when I ignored you, that's for sure. It'll be easy doing that again.
Less Wes is more.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2010 - 03:05am PT
|
Wow, so Wes is still hurting about his funding????
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2010 - 03:22am PT
|
I thought you were all about posting links to back-up your vomiting of facts?
I hear the world is getting warmer...
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Feb 27, 2010 - 05:03pm PT
|
Hey BASE, you remember what flattery gets you? LOL! You should consider the Woodson gig. It would be great to see you.
Don't normally delete my posts, but Wes is like a greasy turd on your new shoe, even the best grass won't get it off. Thought by deleting my posts, he'd go away. Yeah, right. I knew it was a mistake responding to him. Lesson learned.
The post that I did delete that should have stayed was:
Who/what country donates the most to US environmental groups?
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2010 - 09:01am PT
|
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Feb 28, 2010 - 12:54pm PT
|
Since we're starting a new page:
Figure based on Lean and Rind (2009) in Geophysical Research Letters; adapted for Spencer Weart's
good introduction to "The Discovery of Global Warming."
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Chiloe,
Since we're starting a new page, how about responding to the link provided by bookworm on the last page with something better than an "are you sure" or some other snide, smart-alecky, non-responsive nonsense. Don't worry, I'm not holding my breath.
Ed H.,
Maybe you can use your science skills to invent a prosthetic humor detector (viz-a-viz the graph posted by TGT).
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
prosthetic humor detector
LOL
Thanks for a new route name!
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
GlacierGate
The IPCC report led environmental activists to sound the alarm about a drama that could be unfolding at the “world’s third pole.” (Himalayan glaciers
gone by 2035 claim ipcc report)
“This prognosis is, of course, complete nonsense,” says John Shroder, a geologist and expert on glaciers at the University of Nebraska in Omaha. The results of his research tell a completely different story.
For the past three decades, the US glaciologist has been traversing the majestic mountains of the Himalayan region, particularly the Karakorum Range, with his measuring instruments. The discoveries he has made along the way are not consistent with the assessment long held by the IPCC. “While many glaciers are shrinking, others are stable and some are even growing,” says Shroder.
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/category/ice/
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
"Almost as revealing as the leaked documents themselves, however, was the recent interview given to the BBC by the CRU's suspended director, Dr Phil Jones, who has played a central role in the global warming scare for 20 years, not least as custodian of the most prestigious of the four global temperature records relied on by the IPCC. In his interview Jones seemed to be chucking overboard one key prop of warmest faith after another, as he admitted that the world might have been hotter during the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years ago than it is today, that before any rise in CO2 levels temperatures rose faster between 1860 and 1880 than they have done in the past 30 years, and that in the past decade their trend has been falling rather than rising."
here's the whole article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/7332803/A-perfect-storm-is-brewing-for-the-IPCC.html
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
maybe bookworm could look at the nearly uncountable links that have been provided for him to look at, maybe you should take a look at those too, blahblah... and report back here...
Nope, they're not gonna do that.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Hey, shooting the messenger is not a valid method. Just look at the data.
I agree. But it would be great step forward if folks even listened to the messenger before they shot him.
For example, here is the actual BBC interview with Phil Jones. His comments have been badly mangled in sensational press accounts, like the one bookworm quotes above.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8511670.stm
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
As for data ... one of the things that first struck me as I began hearing more about climate change at science meetings in the 1990s was the fact that across so many different fields, researchers with observations on different domains -- glaciers and ice sheets, snow sampling, permafrost, lake sediments, sea ice, ocean circulation, plants and animals, surface temperature, storms, wildfires, river flows among many others -- were looking at their data with surprise at the scale and directionality of changes.
Each data source has its strengths and weaknesses, including random noise that becomes better identified as time series lengthen, and sources of error that motivate continuing efforts to improve. The picture always gets more complicated as scientists learn more. But a striking thing for me was the step-back view of so many separate lines of evidence all pointing toward a similar direction.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
Each data source has its strengths and weaknesses, including random noise that becomes better identified as time series lengthen, and sources of error that motivate continuing efforts to improve. The picture always gets more complicated as scientists learn more. But a striking thing for me was the step-back view of so many separate lines of evidence all pointing toward a similar direction.
If that's true, then why did they need to change it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" a few years ago?
That was one of the first signs to me (and many others) that something fishy was going on.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
If that's true, then why did they need to change it from "Global Warming" to "Climate Change" a few years ago?
That was one of the first signs to me (and many others) that something fishy was going on.
Well, one answer is "they" didn't change it. A journal named Climatic Change has been publishing research since 1977. So far as I know there is no research journal named "global warming."
But another answer is that although "global warming" refers to something real, the term confuses a lot of nonscientists, who think it must imply that every place on the globe is warming. Which of course is not so. The novelist Michael Crichton was one of millions to make this mistake.
Referring to "climate change" rather than "global warming" invites less confusion on this point, and also makes sense when describing regional climate and shifts in such things as precipitation, ocean currents, seasonality and so forth that are not well described as "global warming" -- although they might be related to it.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
On the way back from the Monument yesterday it occurred to me that the IPCC approach was a bit like trying to deduce which came first the chicken or the egg from a Denver omelet.
Had anyone made direct measurements of the absorption characteristics of CO2 in the atmosphere.
I envisioned a 5km tube (height of the Troposphere) with an energy source spectra representing either the sun or the earths black body temperature and a detector at the other end.
It seems it's been done.
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
You don't need a 5km long tube because CO2 at atmospheric levels absorbs to extinction in about 10M. In other words almost ALL the CO2 contribution to GW happens in the first few hundred feet and you'd have to get CO2 to toxic levels for it to have any real effects on climate.
CO2 also re-emits from bond stretching as a black body NOT at it's spectral peak so it isn't a self reinforcing event.
There are plenty of IR satellites looking at the earth. It should be easy enough to confirm this on a global level.
OK, "Pros" Have at it!
After all I'm just a dumb sparky.
A bit simpler explanation
http://www.nov55.com/ntyg.html
Edit to add an other experiment;
Everyone that's spent some time outdoors knows first hand how much warmer a cloudy night is than a clear one due to water vapor's greenhouse effect.
On a clear windless night measure the heat sink ability of the night sky.
At a distance above the extinction level (30M) release a cloud of CO2.
Measure what happens.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!