Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Climate Change in the Coloradan Mind

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by chadta View Post
    data since 1980 eh ?

    Wow you sure have me convinced that this isnt a totally normal fluctuation that happens every few hundred years or so.

    Whats a matter did the data from 1960 to 1980 show a rapid climb ? and therefor have to be left out.
    This is their process in a nutshell. Show peak to valley. Or valley to peak as needed. Pretend that's all there is.

    They keep trying to frame the debate as "if the earth warmed, we caused it"

    Any reasonable look at the known facts throughout human history proves beyond any doubt that the earth warms and cools significantly (in this scale) constantly, and with or without our help.

    The real question is how much we contribute to changing the natural cycle, and what we can reasonably do about it.

    Unfortunately, they'll keep leaning back on charts showing that ice melts as temperature rises as irrefutable proof of something. But it's only a matter of time until the predictions of their apocalyptic models fall off the charts. As I said, Wagsy's hero Hansen is already within the window where he said there would be no arctic summer ice. Without significant change in 5 years, we can assertively say that his view of climate changiness is fundamentally flawed. Although looking at his earlier predictions, we could already easily make that case. No doubt, like most apocalyptic hustlers, JH will follow up with a small 'correction' on his end-of-world predictions, and Wagsy will continue to lap it up unquestioningly.
    Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 09-11-2013, 08:24 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by houghtam View Post
      This.

      He's not worth the time.
      I find it remarkable, the capacity these right wingers have for ignoring overwhelming evidence that conflicts with their ideological preconceptions. As Spock would have said, "Fascinating."

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by chadta View Post
        data since 1980 eh ?
        The era of satellite observations.

        Wow you sure have me convinced that this isnt a totally normal fluctuation that happens every few hundred years or so.
        There are no indications that such a claim is supported by the evidence.

        Do you have observations to support your hypothesis?

        Whats a matter did the data from 1960 to 1980 show a rapid climb ? and therefor have to be left out.
        No.


        Average July through September Arctic sea ice extent 1870-2008 from the University of Illinois (Walsh & Chapman 2001 updated to 2008) and observational data from NSIDC for 2009-2011, (blue), with a fourth order polynomial fit (black solid line).

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
          This is their process in a nutshell. Show peak to valley. Or valley to peak as needed. Pretend that's all there is.
          You've got it exactly backwards. It's the deniers who draw straight lines from one point to another, carefully cherry-picked to make their best "argument", and ignore all the rest of the data.

          They keep trying to frame the debate as "if the earth warmed, we caused it"
          No. AGW is more than just "the surface is warmer". There are many kinds of observations and many lines of evidence that point directly at our burning of fossil fuels as the cause of the changes we're observing.

          If our use of fossil fuels had very little impact on the climate system, we wouldn't be observing ocean acidification (as we are), cooling in the upper part of the atmosphere (which we are) and the various other changes.

          You're basically trying to claim that climate science has gotten it entirely wrong over the last 100 years. That's a very extraordinary claim (on par with the idea that the earth is really flat or that evolution is entirely wrong) and requires extraordinary evidence. So far, the deniers have provided absolutely no evidence for their claims. None. Nada. Zero. Zilch.

          Any reasonable look at the known facts throughout human history proves beyond any doubt that the earth warms and cools significantly (in this scale) constantly, and with or without our help.
          Wrong. Outside of the random impact or mega-eruption, global climate has never changed with the scale and rapidity we've observed in the history of our species, and for much longer periods than even that.

          CO2 has not been at 400ppm for at least 800,000 years, likely at least 3 million years. We've increased it ~40% in under 200 years.

          The real question is how much we contribute to changing the natural cycle, and what we can reasonably do about it.

          The percentage contribution to global warming over the past 50-65 years is shown in two categories, human causes (left) and natural causes (right), from various peer-reviewed studies (colors). The studies used a wide range of independent methods, and provide multiple lines of evidence that humans are by far the dominant cause of recent global warming. Most studies showed that recent natural contributions have been in the cooling direction, thereby masking part of the human contribution and in some cases causing it to exceed 100% of the total warming. The two largest human influences are greenhouse gas (GHG) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions, mostly from burning coal, oil, and natural gas (sulfur emissions tend to have a net cooling effect). The largest natural influences on the global temperature are the 11-year solar cycle, volcanic activity, and the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO).

          The studies are Tett et al. 2000 (T00, dark blue), Meehl et al. 2004 (M04, red), Stone et al. 2007 (S07, green), Lean and Rind 2008 (LR08, purple), Huber and Knutti 2011 (HK11, light blue), Gillett et al. 2012 (G12, orange), and Jones et al. 2013 (J13, pink). The numbers in this summary are best estimates from each study; uncertainty ranges can be found in the original research.


          If it wasn't for us, the planet would be cooling. We're overwhelming the natural forcings.

          Unfortunately, they'll keep leaning back on charts showing that ice melts as temperature rises as irrefutable proof of something. But it's only a matter of time until the predictions of their apocalyptic models fall off the charts.
          That's a statement of faith, unsupported by the evidence and observations.

          There's no reason to believe that suddenly all the metrics by which we observe anthropogenic climate change to reverse themselves. Again, such an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary evidence. Where is yours?

          As I said, Wagsy's hero Hansen is already within the window where he said there would be no arctic summer ice. Without significant change in 5 years, we can assertively say that his view of climate changiness is fundamentally flawed. Although looking at his earlier predictions, we could already easily make that case. No doubt, like most apocalyptic hustlers, JH will follow up with a small 'correction' on his end-of-world predictions, and Wagsy will continue to lap it up unquestioningly.
          Provide a link to a reference in which Hansen makes this prediction, please. I won't take your word for it - I think like a scientist, and always have doubts about hearsay. I'm skeptical that what you claim Hansen said and what he actually said are one and the same.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Rohirrim View Post
            I find it remarkable, the capacity these right wingers have for ignoring overwhelming evidence that conflicts with their ideological preconceptions. As Spock would have said, "Fascinating."
            You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

            http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...s-fear-debate/

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
              You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...s-fear-debate/
              "Why alarmists fear debate..."

              A statement posted by someone who has repeatedly said he doesn't like graphs and charts, hyperlinks, anecdotes and anything else that goes against his line of thinking, which he conveniently can never really back up on his own.

              Excuse me while I

              You're right, Roh..."Fascinating."

              Comment


              • #37

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                  Provide a link to a reference in which Hansen makes this prediction, please. I won't take your word for it - I think like a scientist, and always have doubts about hearsay. I'm skeptical that what you claim Hansen said and what he actually said are one and the same.
                  http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/...lwarming_N.htm

                  Two decades later, Hansen spent his time on the question of whether it's too late to do anything about it. His answer: There's still time to stop the worst, but not much time.

                  "We see a tipping point occurring right before our eyes," Hansen told the AP before the luncheon. "The Arctic is the first tipping point and it's occurring exactly the way we said it would."

                  Hansen, echoing work by other scientists, said that in five to 10 years, the Arctic will be free of sea ice in the summer.
                  Written 6/23/2008

                  But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.

                  I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/tech/...lwarming_N.htm



                    Written 6/23/2008

                    But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.

                    I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.
                    http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                      You should reevaluate who you're listening to.

                      http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestay...s-fear-debate/
                      A personal attack on Mike Mann by a Forbes op-ed writer who's a Heartland hit-man?

                      That all you got?

                      The debate is in the journals. So far, the deniers are batting about .002 in that regard.
                      Last edited by W*GS; 09-11-2013, 11:17 AM.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by BroncoBeavis View Post
                        But you'll go ahead and keep arguing that the pretty historically average amount of sea ice present 5 years later is somehow irrelevant.
                        "Historically average"?

                        What dope you smokin'? Almost 2 sigma below the long-term mean ain't "historically average".

                        I'd be more sympathetic to your arguments if you'd at least recognize MannHansen's Manhattatlantis brand of fear-mongering as fundamentally unscientific as it really is. As Hans Von Storch has repeatedly alluded to.
                        Does it really matter if Hansen is wrong about 2018 but is correct in 2021? Or 2026? Or 2029?

                        Does that mean all of climate science is utter crap? Please, explain.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Argument by hyperlink!

                          Your argument is invalid!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                            A personal attack on Mike Mann by a Forbes op-ed writer who's a Heartland hit-man?

                            That all you got?

                            The debate is in the journals. So far, the deniers are batting about .002 in that regard.
                            Lolz. Everyone not in Climate Club is a 'denier' or 'hit-man'

                            Yet even your gynecologist is welcome in Climate Club so long as they Uphold the Credo.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                              "Historically average"?

                              What dope you smokin'? Almost 2 sigma below the long-term mean ain't "historically average".
                              So long as you define "long term" as "since the 1970s"

                              Guess you guys are going to have to stop blaming Reagan for things. I mean he was basically only President at the dawn of time.
                              Last edited by BroncoBeavis; 09-11-2013, 11:49 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by W*GS View Post
                                Does it really matter if Hansen is wrong about 2018 but is correct in 2021? Or 2026? Or 2029?
                                I Concur
                                -Harold Camping

                                Does that mean all of climate science is utter crap? Please, explain.
                                No. As I've explained before. It's science mixed with social and political advocacy that is utter crap. The fact that so many worship under the high priests of that very practice only underscores the unfortunate prevalence.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X