Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 10:53am PT
|
I'm not going to argue with you Ed, but you are wrong on your answer. I appreciate you taking the time anyway.
I read a little further, hoping that Rick would explain to us how Ed was wrong in his answer.
Rick, in a real discussion, you need to follow up and explain why you counter somebody's stance. Why is it you never do that??
[Actually, that's a rhetorical question because I believe I already know the answer. It's because Rick has no clue how Ed could be wrong, other than he just doesn't feel he's right.]
But Rick, here's your chance to foster a real discussion. Please help us understand your stance. I would appreciate you taking the time.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 10:58am PT
|
Cairo is farther north than New Orleans and even more so compared to Miami.
A little bit south of LA.
And Tahoe is West of LA.
I had a teacher who once said that reality was somewhere between Santa Cruz and Las Vegas. I said, "Bakersfield? Buck Owens has been right all along!"
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 10:59am PT
|
Why do you guys continue to talk to these morons? Who's the bigger moron?
You are a moron, k-man.
This post will be deleted with 24 hours.
And Randisi, by your logic, you too are a moron for addressing me.
Go figure.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 11:02am PT
|
The Chief agrees, K-Man is a moron for responding to morons.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 11:07am PT
|
Someone's gotta rule the morons, Chief.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 11:12am PT
|
Let this thread die the ignominious death it richly deserves.
This is worth a comment. I've contemplated whacking this thread after seeing how several folks use it only to spew nonsense and berate other SuperTopians. It's clear that some folks are not here to learn, but instead are here to dump their trash.
What has kept me from doing so is the fact that this thread has had many posts from people who really know their business, and I've learned a head-load of stuff. That's why I keep coming back--to hear the current state of the science and to see if perhaps we can address where to go from here.
The truth is, without various knuckleheads posting every AWG attack-angle they can muster from their favorite blogs, this thread would wither. But, what's interesting to see, every attack has been roundly rebuffed. And that teaches me things.
Randisi, all you might see is morons bickering. But if you cared, you could also find extraordinary posts about real-world science. And sucks, you gotta admit--seeing pics of the pyramids with snow on them is pretty damn cool!
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 11:12am PT
|
The World is Waking Up to State Crimes of Climate Warming and Violent Weather
by Combinations of Powerful Electromagnetic Energy Weapons and Aerosol Geoengineering
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 11:15am PT
|
Here you go Chuck. I'll e-mail it as well.
For the rest of you guys- I bought my place in the Pah Rah range north of Reno 5 years ago. At the time the trunk of the pictured tree was 4-5 inches from the glass. This fall the separation decreased to mere millimeters. It was clear either the tree went or the greenhouse went. I pondered removing it myself and even cut several of the branches off the roof while imagining the rigging and techniques i would need to employ to remove the rest. In the end the "uncertainty factor" prompted me to call in the experts. I contacted my friend Norwegian and a week later he and his mentor, my old friend Paul Crawford, graciously made the 3 hour drive to safely remove the offending tree. They professionally removed the uncertainty factor and zero quanta impacted the glass. This picture of the Norwegian, his smile showing his love of his element, shows him near the end of the process. Behind him on the hillside is my local bouldering area. Thanks again Chuck and Paul.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 11:45am PT
|
Deletion of this thread Kelly would signal the defeat of the hysterical CAGW crowd. Please go ahead, make our day.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 14, 2013 - 11:56am PT
|
Deletion of this thread Kelly would signal the defeat of the hysterical CAGW crowd.
There really is no substitute for Rick. Priceless. Thanks for being there, m'friend. You help to define my knowledge of human nature.
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 12:03pm PT
|
This thread gets a lot quieter without the often annoying baiting, especially when Rick Poedtke, the Chief, takes his periodic breaks from posting. Ironically the thread would more or less die on its own without them.
I tune in because of the educational value but also because there's something mesmerizing about the stupidity. I mean, WTF? Can these guys be for real? It's scary and fascinating at the same time.
If it's nuked the argument will just resurface in some other thread(s).
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 12:08pm PT
|
I don't know enough about the subject to effectively argue Ed. I just know an electrical engineer that is charged with debugging the latest generation chips. Solutions are engineered to acceptably get around the problem. Now your blessed climate models-have they ever been rerun on the same equipment with identical inputs? I don't think it is possible, given the volume of computations and compounding variables to ever get identical results. It is the nature of the reality we live in, that even in some imagined future when we have perfect knowledge of all current physical processes and values, that computer generated predictions of the future state of a system will be variable. But as stubborn as you are you would not acknowledge the variability of results from climate models.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 12:11pm PT
|
But as stubborn as you are you would not acknowledge the variability of results from climate models.
Nonsense. On graphs variability is well understood and represented by error bars. A standard part of modeling. It's been that way for decades.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 12:21pm PT
|
I don't know enough about the subject to effectively argue...
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 12:48pm PT
|
I take it you are no fan of string theory and the multiverse Ed. Proof of the multiverse, however, exists on the pages of this very thread. I.E.- You guys see the trends of more severe winters in many regions of the globe, cold temp records far outpacing warm records, Antartic and now Arctic ice expansion, slight decrease in global average atmos. temps over the last 10-17 years, decrease in sea surface temps, the slowing of sea level rise to almost imperceptible levels,historically low levels of tornado, hurricane, and fire events, world record low temps in Antartica of -135.7f and world record low temps in Siberia pf -96.1f in 2013, snow on the pyramids,in Israel, in the south american tropics, in Australia during the summer, people dying of cold related events in the thousands, and much more- as proof of catastrophic anthropogenic climate change. We, on the other hand, see it as a natural shift to a cooler global climate caused by natural variations in the primary drivers of climate change, specifically and primarily as a result of substantial weakening in solar activity. There you have it-two universes. Which is real, or do they both exist, much like interpretations of historic events? EDIT: i see from your post below that you deny ignorance in science and scientists, that all is known and knowable.Sometimes your foolishness is astounding Ed Hartouni.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 14, 2013 - 01:37pm PT
|
My life, which i don't care to fully share, has been an exercise in careful examination of the best route forward and often deferring to expertise of true professionals.It has worked for me time after time after time in building and business. Climate science, which is still more unproven theory than practical application, lacks the true expertise of practicing professionals. I engage here because the solutions of the non problem advanced by you proponents; taxation, limited mobility, forced retreat from industrialization and abandonment of our proven energy production system, among the more extreme suggestions ,would be disastrous for my family and the population as a whole. After 20,000 plus posts it is more apparent than ever that AGW is an over hyped problem looking for a predetermined solution- propaganda directed towards an ideological goal.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:05am PT
|
Chiloe, you should talk to some of the solar scientists at the convention, maybe Leif Svalgaard from Stanford.
I haven’t met Leif but have heard about his work on bias in historical sunspot records. IIRC correctly, removing that bias lead Leif (and others) to conclude that the supposed “modern maximum” in sunspots was a measurement artifact. And that recent minima may not be any higher than the Maunder Minimum once believed to trigger the Little Ice Age? These corrections incidentally seem to undermine claims that recent warming reflected increased solar activity. Leif has also written about measurement-based (downward) corrections for an index of total solar irradiance (TSI PMOD). He organized sessions at last week’s AGU that sound related to this work.
Has Leif published articles specifically about climate? I haven’t worked with sunspot data though his analysis certainly looks reasonable. I did look casually at TSI, and can show you one way that a Svalgaard-suggested correction works out there.
According to my notes (I’d double check this if publishing), Leif suggested adjusting TSI PMOD index as follows. Let’s call his correction tsi_Sval:
tsi_Sval = tsi_pmod - (.002836*t) + (.00093266*t^2) - (.00010134*t^3) if t > 0
In this equation,
t = year - 1996
The cubic adjustment lowers TSI numbers for recent years.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:08am PT
|
How does that correction affect our understanding of climate? Some pages back I mentioned an AGU talk given last week by Judith Lean, building upon the Lean & Rind (2008) paper in which they used multivariate statistics to model surface temperature as a function of solar, volcanic, ENSO and anthropogenic factors. Foster & Rahmstorf (2011) subsequently updated and extended this work with an empirically-derived lag structure. I was impressed by the elegance of the L&R/F&R approach and, being skeptical, decided to try reproducing something like it for myself. One difference I checked out was the impact of a Svalgaard-adjusted TSI.
Volcanoes affect surface temperatures directly by injecting aerosols into the stratosphere, where they block sunlight and so cool the surface. “Aerosol optical depth” at upper left in the graph below captures this effect, showing the impacts of El Chichon and Pinatubo eruptions. Unadjusted TSI is at upper right, a multivariate ENSO (El Nino/Southern Oscillation) index is lower left, and globally averaged CO2 anomaly at lower right. Global surface temperatures are, to a substantial degree, the consequence of all four of these factors acting together. The lower ENSO (persistent La Nina conditions) and, less importantly, the TSI of recent years are largely responsible for the ballyhooed “pause” in surface temperature rise.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Dec 15, 2013 - 11:42am PT
|
So based on your graphs above it would seem a reasonable prediction that within the next 5 to 10 years we should see a pretty steep hike in Global average temperatures as TSI looks to begin climbing again?
Seems interesting that global average temperatures have remained fairly high with that dip in TSI.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!