Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Moderators: Mick, TheGingerMan

Forum rules
IP is the place for boisterous political discussion, but please remember, the Rules still apply, especially with regards to Personal Attacks. These and other inappropriate posts will be removed without notification.

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby fred smith » 16 Apr 2012, 14:30

What is it about the climate change movement that reminds me of the Occupy Wall Street crowd? The productive must PAY us for caring...

Heading into travel mode. I will thus be out of commission for a week or more...
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16508
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
54 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby Jack Burton » 16 Apr 2012, 14:35

fred smith wrote:You still do not know and neither does anyone else.

Jack: Still waiting for the reason why only ONE scientist could be named and all of your evidence is subject to a $39.95 fee to access. Got anything else? Surely with all the information out there we don't need to rely on this one site? :)


these guys seem to know: http://www.skepticalscience.com/news.ph ... =93&&n=150

also, these guys: http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

they have observed 3mm/year so far (global mean), but again, the other links, those guys argue the trend will not be linear. Acceleration will result from ice dynamics ie increasing glacier loss, and it is argued, not on a linear level.

err, what fee are you talking about? everything I read so far is free on the net.

again, the limitations of the IPCC report (which it qualified in its footnote which I highlighted which you seem to overlook or ignore):

the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in 2007 issued only a partial prediction. The panel said that sea level could be expected to rise 11 to 23 inches by the year 2100 but this number, they pointed out, included mainly thermal expansion and did not include the meltwater contribution from the great ice sheets. Unfortunately, many groups have mistakenly assumed the 11-to-23-inch prediction to be the total anticipated sea level rise
Jack Burton: I don't get this at all. I thought Lo Pan...
Lo Pan: Shut up, Mr. Burton! You are not brought upon this world to get it!
Forumosan avatar
Jack Burton
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6256
Joined: 01 Apr 2003, 11:35
Location: living in bland suburbia
4 Recommends(s)
35 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby fred smith » 16 Apr 2012, 14:51

The western tropical Pacific is usually considered as one of the most vulnerable regions of the world under present-day and future global warming. It is often reported that some islands of the region already suffer significant sea level rise. To clarify the latter concern, in the present study we estimate sea level rise and variability since 1950 in the western tropical Pacific region (20°S–15°N; 120°E–135°W). We estimate the total rate of sea level change at selected individual islands, as a result of climate variability and change, plus vertical ground motion where available. For that purpose, we reconstruct a global sea level field from 1950 to 2009, combining long (over 1950–2009) good quality tide gauge records with 50-year-long (1958–2007) gridded sea surface heights from the Ocean General Circulation Model DRAKKAR.


More modeling as a response to Morner? Again, Gray/Morner suggest taking out the 1996 and 1997 cyclone anomalies and you show no sealevel increase at all. Your study admits to the variabilities mentioned. This in my view does NOT refute Morner/Gray. This reconstructing is precisely what Morner was attacking as inaccurate. Hence using the same study to show that his claim of inaccuracy for the very same is wrong is just repeating the original study like Morner never said anything in criticism. Isn't this what the peer review process is supposed to be all about? Anything else?
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16508
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
54 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby fred smith » 16 Apr 2012, 14:53

they have observed 3mm/year so far (global mean), but again, the other links, those guys argue the trend will not be linear. Acceleration will result from ice dynamics ie increasing glacier loss.


Have they OBSERVED a 3 millimeter rise? OBSERVED or PROJECTED one?

err, what fee are you talking about? everything I read so far is free on the net.


Click on the links within your pasted section to find out.
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16508
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
54 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby Jack Burton » 16 Apr 2012, 15:03

fred smith wrote:
they have observed 3mm/year so far (global mean), but again, the other links, those guys argue the trend will not be linear. Acceleration will result from ice dynamics ie increasing glacier loss.


Have they OBSERVED a 3 millimeter rise? OBSERVED or PROJECTED one?


The datapoints are from 1993 - 2012. so its not projected, but it combines measurements subtracting variations to estimate global mean levels. so the satellite data and tidal gauges are measured ie observed. err, weren't you the one talking about the quality of the altimeter data?

Since 1993, measurements from the TOPEX and Jason series of satellite radar altimeters have allowed estimates of global mean sea level. These measurements are continuously calibrated against a network of tide gauges. When seasonal and other variations are subtracted, they allow estimation of the global mean sea level rate. As new data, models and corrections become available, we continuously revise these estimates (about every two months) to improve their quality.

from http://sealevel.colorado.edu/

the net must not like you. the links I used never charged me $39.95

how about this article? http://www.pik-potsdam.de/~stefan/Publi ... r_2011.pdf
Jack Burton: I don't get this at all. I thought Lo Pan...
Lo Pan: Shut up, Mr. Burton! You are not brought upon this world to get it!
Forumosan avatar
Jack Burton
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6256
Joined: 01 Apr 2003, 11:35
Location: living in bland suburbia
4 Recommends(s)
35 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby BigJohn » 17 Apr 2012, 02:56

Hey all,

For those interested in checking out charts and graphs on the Earth's temperature, this site http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/15/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-quarterly-update/ is a treasure trove.
Forumosan avatar
BigJohn
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
National Security Advisor (guójiā ānquán gùwèn)
 
Posts: 4560
Joined: 25 Jun 2005, 01:45
Location: Lost in time, lost in space...and meaning
97 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby Jack Burton » 17 Apr 2012, 16:07

fred smith wrote:
Models used to date do not include uncertainties in climate-carbon cycle feedback nor do they include the full effects of changes in ice sheet flow, because a basis in published literature is lacking. The projections include a contribution due to increased ice flow from Greenland and Antarctica at the rates observed for 1993 to 2003, but these flow rates could increase or decrease in the future. For example, if this contribution were to grow linearly with global average temperature change, the upper ranges of sea level rise for SRES scenarios shown in Table SPM.3 would increase by 0.1 to 0.2 m. Larger values cannot be excluded, but understanding of these effects is too limited to assess their likelihood or provide a best estimate or an upper bound for sea level rise.


Translation: We don't know.


they didn't know in 2007. apparently, there's much more data/science now than before to address this issue better.
Jack Burton: I don't get this at all. I thought Lo Pan...
Lo Pan: Shut up, Mr. Burton! You are not brought upon this world to get it!
Forumosan avatar
Jack Burton
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6256
Joined: 01 Apr 2003, 11:35
Location: living in bland suburbia
4 Recommends(s)
35 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby Jack Burton » 27 Apr 2012, 16:47

Durack and team combined salinity data from 1950-2000 and the relationship between salinity, rainfall and evaporation in climate models to find that for every degree Celsius of warming at the Earth's surface, the water cycle strengthens by 8 percent.

Temperature data shows the planet heated up by 0.5 deg C between 1950-2000. But climate models suggest the world is on track to warm by 3 deg C by the end of the century unless the current growth of greenhouse gas emissions is quickly halted.

A warming of that magnitude would mean the water cycle intensifying by up to 24 percent, with wet regions getting wetter and dry regions drier.

"This has big implications for dry regions, such as Australia, which are already dry," Durack said in an email to Reuters.


Sea change in salinity heralds shift in rainfall
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/ ... 8C20120426
Jack Burton: I don't get this at all. I thought Lo Pan...
Lo Pan: Shut up, Mr. Burton! You are not brought upon this world to get it!
Forumosan avatar
Jack Burton
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
Thinking of Staging a Coup (xiǎng yào gǎo zhèng biàn)
 
Posts: 6256
Joined: 01 Apr 2003, 11:35
Location: living in bland suburbia
4 Recommends(s)
35 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby urodacus » 27 Apr 2012, 18:38

How can you predict stuff without models? And in the absence of prediction, all you can do is wake up one day and say: Fuck me! Where did all that water come from?

You use models all the time, though you don't notice it. You model the way others normally drive, and fit your reactions into what you predict the majority of people will do. Sometimes you encounter something that runs counter to your model, and you may crash. Other times you move to a place where your model isn't valid anymore, and you may crash. What is so wrong when a scientist models stuff bigger than what fits into a small brain and predicts larger things based on that?
The prizes are a bottle of f*!@#$% SCOTCH and a box of cheap f!@#$#$ CIGARS!
Forumosan avatar
urodacus
Maitreya Buddha (Mílèfó)
 
Posts: 10950
Joined: 04 Nov 2004, 23:20
Location: banished by the Illudium Q-36 demodulator
169 Recommends(s)
216 Recognized(s)

6000

Re: Climate Change VI - Warmists and their Demise

Postby fred smith » 28 Apr 2012, 12:28

How can you predict stuff without models? And in the absence of prediction, all you can do is wake up one day and say: Fuck me! Where did all that water come from?


Or. Fuck me where did your dumb-ass argument come from? The issue is not models but ones that are accurate and correctly predict outcomes. Would you say this is the case with the ones that we have er predicting the climate? no weather? no atmospheric, er sunspots, water vapors no it was CO2 but only during the summer and months with J not the one with an A, er but mountains, southern Hemisphere, no polar ice cap, no polar bears, it is polar bears that I want to focus on because the fish stocks, no the penguins, er was it the ice bergs...

You use models all the time, though you don't notice it. You model the way others normally drive, and fit your reactions into what you predict the majority of people will do. Sometimes you encounter something that runs counter to your model, and you may crash. Other times you move to a place where your model isn't valid anymore, and you may crash. What is so wrong when a scientist models stuff bigger than what fits into a small brain and predicts larger things based on that?


Precisely and when I get my hand burned three times touching the same red spot on the stove, I have probably figured out that, even when drunk, not to touch the "hot spot." So, likewise, when my dumb-ass friend who has a terrible record of losing on investments tells me yet again that he has found the new way to make millions fast, do I even reach for my wallet? do I even bother to spend half an hour listening to this variation on and endless theme of failures? Or should I start modeling my life on the horoscope in the daily newspaper because I, like the climate change alarmists, am desperate to fit my reality into generic predictions? Or better yet... endless tarot card readings? or perhaps the food of the week to stop cancer? to stop eating because it causes cancer? or or OR.... you talk about models, but you forget to differentiate between those that are tried and true and those that are endlessly recalibrated to fit whatever reality is to be shoved down our throats... which do you think that the climate change alarmists are using? and which are you buying? and based on the model of intelligence that I have used to get through my life to a fairly successful degree, I would like to raise with you now the best way to make a million bucks... but before I send you my secret models, you should send me $10,000 to prove your sincerity and to demonstrate that you can be trusted. Deal?
Forumosan avatar
fred smith
Guan Yin (Guānyīn)
 
Posts: 16508
Joined: 11 Oct 2002, 17:14
54 Recognized(s)

6000

PreviousNext




 
 
 x

Return to International Politics



Who is online

Forumosans browsing this forum: Majestic-12 [Bot], NeonNoodle and 1 visitor

When you're filling in the boxes on a Web page (like City, State, Zip), you can press the Tab key to jump from box to box, rather than clicking. Add the Shift key to jump through the boxes backwards.
More tips from David Pogue