Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 08:41am PT
|
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 08:46am PT
|
You have no idea what I know or understand.
I have read many of your posts and your knowledge and understanding is pretty clear from those.
But it is obviously a complete wast of time to try to have a discussion with you.
edit:
"But you said it was a dishonest lie? Which is it?"
I actually changed my mind based on the rest of your posts. You should considered that possibility yourself sometimes.
I don't believe that you were dishonest anymore. I just believe that you don't know how meaningless your claim where.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 09:37am PT
|
He's not a native english speaker, Sketch.
How well can you communicate in Hindi?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 09:44am PT
|
And you should stick with meaningless semantic twisting.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 25, 2013 - 10:06am PT
|
For me, I'd need to see a minimum above the long term average before I start getting excited.
I just have a basic understanding of statistics and how they apply to scientific research...
 Sketch
So Sketch, you don't really understand statistics. Yet you completely discount the people who do understand how to analyze trends, the ones who are getting excited.
It's like a physicist who gets excited about the God particle. They know what the implications are and they try to describe the math behind those findings to a sixth-grader. The sixth-grader doesn't get too excited.
Time to step out of the way, Sketch, and let those who do understand how to analyze data do their thing. And the thing they're doing is telling us that we are dumping way too frigging much CO2, and it's wreaking havoc on the systems we rely on for life.
Talk about prattling on. Sketch, a true rebel without a clue.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 12:07pm PT
|
I just have a basic understanding of statistics and how they apply to scientific research No, you don't. You've shown that over and over. And the lack of any knowledge is why you so quickly shift back to flinging insults, your first and last resort.
Are you still drunk? You should stick with your cute little propaganda pics.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
|
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 12:43pm PT
|
Works for the surface too, Anderson.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 01:39pm PT
|
Let us know when arctic sea ice has a clear upward trend, Chief.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 01:55pm PT
|
Either way, let us know when the trend reverses.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 01:57pm PT
|
New research just published in Nature Geoscience doubles previous estimates (by the same team) of how much methane is presently escaping due to permafrost thaw in the East Siberian Sea (emphasis added).
Ebullition and storm-induced methane release from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf
The coastal area permafrost is still thought to be the most stable in the ESAS (refs 14, 15); however, our data show that coastal subsea permafrost is being degraded, forming migration pathways for seabed gaseous CH4 and increasing the role of bubble-induced fluxes in annual atmospheric emissions from the ESAS. As >75% of the total ESAS area is <50 m in depth, the water column provides bubbles with a very short conduit to the atmosphere. Storms enable more CH4 release because they destroy shallow water stratification and the mixed layer thickness increases many times owing to deep water mixing, thus increasing gas exchange across phase boundaries. As a result, bubble-mediated, storm-induced CH4 ‘pulses’ force a greater fraction of CH4 to bypass aqueous microbial ‘filters’ and reach the atmosphere. These results have important implications for CH4 atmospheric emissions from all Arctic seas that are underlain with subsea permafrost. Increasing storminess31, 32, 33 and rapid sea-ice retreat34, 35, 36 causing increased CH4 fluxes from the ESAS are possible new climate-change-driven processes. Continuing warming of the Arctic Ocean9, 37, 38 will strengthen these processes.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 02:41pm PT
|
How much impact has it had on global mean temps?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 04:54pm PT
|
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 09:40pm PT
|
It was 1998 Ed, for the big ENSO event. The models, from the objective analyses ive read, don't forecast well in short term, long term, or reverse. Sure there were occasional triumphs earlier on when the sun had some umph, but for the last 15 plus years they've diverged increasingly from accuracy. It also seems something is awry in the physics since the more honest climate scientists are lowering their estimates of sensitivity to a doubling of CO2. Besides this, you can't put in guesstimates to a model that complex and expect it to reflect anything like reality. On the whole, the enterprise of climate modeling has been one the greatest and most expensive scientific hoaxes in history. The pols behind it started with a not completely true conclusion that hijacked a generation of true believer scientismists to reach their twisted goals of collective utopianism. Never has worked before and won't work this time.
|
|
raw
Mountain climber
Malibu
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 09:47pm PT
|
"the physics of the climate"
The physics of the climate is quite complicated. the models are quite poor.
I'll stick with Freeman Dyson here. We cannot even model clouds,
let alone a patch of savanna. EVEN when the science is exact, we cannot
predict any substantial period of time (except for those nifty Newtonian points). A few generations of computational error and things go haywire.
MEANWHILE, back in the real world, we do know of technologically-understood problems that would make life much, much better for most of the third world, like clean drinking water. Take care of these things: known problems, known solutions--that are economically feasible. Too much about the anticipated consequences of global warming, climate change (whatever) simply unforeseeable. It might well be good. Make Canada a bigger country....
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2013 - 09:56pm PT
|
Where reality resides Ed-the blogs (populated by many non-consensus scientists) of course, and to a lesser extent those contrary papers that survive the climate nazi gauntlet.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Nov 26, 2013 - 01:37am PT
|
Ron sez:
Ok, ive researched,, and Yeah,, it hasnt gone up YET after two years or more of this threads existence. Still not one whole degree of warming.
Ron, what are you talking about?
According to an ongoing temperature analysis conducted by scientists at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) and shown in this series of maps, the average global temperature on Earth has increased by about 0.8°Celsius (1.4°Fahrenheit) since 1880. Two-thirds of the warming has occurred since 1975, at a rate of roughly 0.15-0.20°C per decade.
The results aren't quite in yet, but it's looking like 2013 might stack up to be one of the warmer ones. What do you think it would take for 2014 to be cooler?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!