• Member Statistics

    15,882
    Total Members
    7,904
    Most Online
    LanaM
    Newest Member
    LanaM
    Joined
Sign in to follow this  
Jonger

Climate Change Banter

Recommended Posts

can anyone explain these energy diagrams??  This one is from Stephens et al 2012. see

 

post-1184-0-54889300-1452549629_thumb.pn

 

If one looks at the error bars its outrageous!!!  The total greenhouse effect is 345.6 W/m2 according to this. But the error is plus or Minus 9 W/m2!!!!!  Doubling CO2 concentrations leads to 3.7 W/m2 barely 1% and within the error bar range!!! Also look at the surface imbalance of  .6 w/m2  plus or minus 17 W/m2!!! are you kidding??  Look at all the error bars and they are all at least as high as the effect of doubling Co2 if not much greater.  How can climate scientists explain this uncertainty? Plus a 1% change in the natural greenhouse effect really is going to spiral the climate off the rails???  The more I look into this the more I realize how bad the science is. The Earth may be warming some but it could be mostly natural as there is plenty of evidence of a medieval warm period and LIA. We are coming out of the LIA. How can you disapprove this when there is so much uncertainty in the energy balance diagram???  And to top it off the TOA imbalance is deemed as .6 w/m2 with a very small error bar of .4 w/m2? How can this be?? does anyone have access to this paper? I would like to read it. UGH.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man the denialists are out in force today.

 

Don't call people denialists. Many are the real scientists who understand enough about science to question climate change. Plus how do you know that someone on this forum did not have a relative killed in the holocaust. The idea behind denialist is to equate them to the holocaust deniers.  IMO this is a very serious ad hominem attack on certain people. This person and others should be warned IMO. This is a very serious allegation and could be quite offensive.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't call people denialists. Many are the real scientists who understand enough about science to question climate change. Plus how do you know that someone on this forum did not have a relative killed in the holocaust. The idea behind denialist is to equate them to the holocaust deniers. IMO this is a very serious ad hominem attack on certain people. This person and others should be warned IMO. This is a very serious allegation and could be quite offensive.

Ok :rolleyes:

So the word "denier" is offensive now? That's news to me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't call people denialists. Many are the real scientists who understand enough about science to question climate change. Plus how do you know that someone on this forum did not have a relative killed in the holocaust. The idea behind denialist is to equate them to the holocaust deniers. IMO this is a very serious ad hominem attack on certain people. This person and others should be warned IMO. This is a very serious allegation and could be quite offensive.

There's a significant difference between a climate denier and having legitimate skepticism of prevailing climate science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of denier   :  one who denies <deniers of the truth>

 

Simple Definition of deny

: to say that something is not true

: to refuse to accept or admit (something)

 

 

I don't see anything about the holocaust in there. Please do not make connections where none exist.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Upper ocean ohc is extremely high attm.

And what's wild is the nino ohc loss has been weak compared to similar ninos.

Maybe the heat uptake is "stronger" than before causing ohc to be higher relative to normal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Definition of denier   :  one who denies <deniers of the truth>

 

Simple Definition of deny

: to say that something is not true

: to refuse to accept or admit (something)

 

 

I don't see anything about the holocaust in there. Please do not make connections where none exist.

 

Based on your definition who defines the "truth"? The "truth" is very elusive when it comes to the atmosphere. That

is another reason why the "denier" name calling is offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your definition who defines the "truth"? The "truth" is very elusive when it comes to the atmosphere. That

is another reason why the "denier" name calling is offensive.

:baby:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your definition who defines the "truth"? The "truth" is very elusive when it comes to the atmosphere. That

is another reason why the "denier" name calling is offensive.

neil-degrasse-tysons-quotes-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on your definition who defines the "truth"? The "truth" is very elusive when it comes to the atmosphere. That

is another reason why the "denier" name calling is offensive.

 

Not you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's like deja vu with Blizz every single month.

 

 

I've tried to explain to him the sfc temp record adjustments...he listens for a brief time but then comes back weeks later as if the discussion never happened.

 

Probably 95% of the people who post on the temperature datasets don't actually know what goes into them. It takes a long time to read about them....we're not just talking about reading an abstract or a blog post at skeptical science which will probably cherry pick the parts they want to make their overall point. I think I have probably spent a collective 200 hours reading on the exact methods of what they do to the surface datasets. It's grueling what they do on these datasets...and it still ends up only being semi-accurate despite the efforts. But it's good enough for what we need with them. We get the general trends right.

 

One thing I have learned though is ignore the claims on "error bars"...they are basically garbage. The error bars are only as accurate as the data plus adjustments they do on the data. If they find some new adjustment, or previously unaccounted for data, then you can get a solution easily outside the previous error bars.

 

 

If people want temperatures with no adjustments, we have a dataset (for the U.S. only)...but it's still pretty new. It's the USCRN (different from USHCN which is the dataset currently used). USCRN is a network of stations that are placed in pristine siting locations and need zero adjustments...but it's only been around for about 12 years, so it needs another couple decades to start being useful for trends.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the climate is just a set of statistics, the average weather stats from the previous 30 years for a given area.......the climate is NOT a force, has no power and has never been the cause of any weather event........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/27/2015 at 6:33 PM, weatherpruf said:

People just don't wanna believe it because it is, as someone once said, an inconvenient truth....

Why is it inconvenient to them?  Do they own stock in fossil fuel companies?  Ironic thing is these "conservatives" should be opposing fossil fuel and pipeline companies because they are now using eminent domain to seize private property and paying police to forcibly remove people where they want to build dangerously explosive pipelines.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/24/2015 at 11:09 PM, Jonger said:

 

You could heat the globe up 20F and humans aren't going anywhere. We have people living in every climate type on earth and we are really only meant for tropics. Go outside without clothes at 40 - 45F and you will be dead by morning. That's not adaption.

And do you know what the life expectancy is in tropical regions?  Nasty infections abound!  And lol I realize your post is from 2015 and you didn't know California would be burning down from forest fires, but still.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/21/2016 at 4:50 PM, blizzard1024 said:

 

Don't call people denialists. Many are the real scientists who understand enough about science to question climate change. Plus how do you know that someone on this forum did not have a relative killed in the holocaust. The idea behind denialist is to equate them to the holocaust deniers.  IMO this is a very serious ad hominem attack on certain people. This person and others should be warned IMO. This is a very serious allegation and could be quite offensive.  

No we are equating them to tobacco causes cancer denalism.  Sadly some 'scientists' are in the pay of corporations and they spread ignorance to fuel the for profit agenda of those who employ them.  Exxon, Merck, Philip-Morris, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and a few others come to mind.  Fortunately all of these have been exposed with Freedom of Information Act requests.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, LibertyBell said:

No we are equating them to tobacco causes cancer denalism.  Sadly some 'scientists' are in the pay of corporations and they spread ignorance to fuel the for profit agenda of those who employ them.  Exxon, Merck, Philip-Morris, Monsanto, Dow, DuPont and a few others come to mind.  Fortunately all of these have been exposed with Freedom of Information Act requests.

And you think that the people getting government grants and various other forms of funding to research AGW aren't influenced by money too?  Okay then...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.