The UNREAL climate change thread

Page 6 of 25 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Doc Watson on Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:03 pm

Climate changed is not undestood by most people.

Doc Watson
Titanium Member

Posts : 1428
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 66
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:20 pm

Here's a complication:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Doc Watson on Mon Nov 12, 2012 8:10 pm

Do you know what it really means?

Doc Watson
Titanium Member

Posts : 1428
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 66
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:37 pm

Doc Watson wrote:Do you know what it really means?
The solar irradiance curve was calculated based on changes in the Earth's tilt and declination angles over the last 250,000 years.

The conclusion suggested by the graph is that, during some periods, the resulting changes in irradiance correlate with temperature changes, but during other periods (i.e., from about 14,000 to 19,000 BC) there is no correlation. Perhaps this means that there are other factors at work that are capable--at least sometimes--of negating the effect of increased irradiance.

Another complication is the fact that that temperature change does not occur as an immediate response to changes in solar irradiance. The temperature change seems to lag behind the change in irradiance by thousands of years, so we would not observe it in our lifetime.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Tue Nov 13, 2012 12:44 pm

btw--Those temperature variations are large, with maxima typically on the order of 10 degrees higher than the minima, not like the 0.3-degree variations that people are wringing their hands over nowadays.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:49 pm

This is creating quite a scandal, and understandably so. Shocked


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Doc Watson on Wed Nov 14, 2012 12:51 pm

I have found climate change is a mystery to most of the public, they think it just means global warming !!!!!

Doc Watson
Titanium Member

Posts : 1428
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 66
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  senorita on Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:46 pm

Pinz is a trouble man. He's carrying on a debate here that is should be having somewhere else with someone that may or may not be reading along here. Certainly, Pinz is infected. Good...

senorita

Posts : 362
Join date : 2012-07-11
Age : 19
Location : makgadikgadi pan

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Doc Watson on Fri Nov 16, 2012 8:53 am

senorita panties wrote:Pinz is a trouble man. He's carrying on a debate here that is should be having somewhere else with someone that may or may not be reading along here. Certainly, Pinz is infected. Good...
There is nothing wrong with the great man.

Doc Watson
Titanium Member

Posts : 1428
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 66
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Thu Nov 22, 2012 8:55 am

Finally, we get the truth:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:34 pm

Some blogger posted this here graphic:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:37 pm

First of all, it seemed that scientists classified as "publishing climatologists" (btw--how was that subgroup defined and identified) seem to be much more unanimous than those classified as simply "publishing scientists." Why the discrepancy? Isn't "science" always "science?"


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:38 pm

I thought I look into Nolan and Zimmerman's original survey, which turns out to be an "online survey."

Now I'm really suspicious. Suspect

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Nov 23, 2012 3:40 pm

Lawrence Solomon: 75 climate scientists think humans contribute to global warming

How do we know there’s a scientific consensus on climate change? Pundits and the press tell us so. And how do the pundits and the press know? Until recently, they typically pointed to the number 2500 – that’s the number of scientists associated with the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Those 2500, the pundits and the press believed, had endorsed the IPCC position.

To their embarrassment, most of the pundits and press discovered that they were mistaken – those 2500 scientists hadn’t endorsed the IPCC’s conclusions, they had merely reviewed some part or other of the IPCC’s mammoth studies. To add to their embarrassment, many of those reviewers from within the IPCC establishment actually disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusions, sometimes vehemently.

The upshot? The punditry looked for and recently found an alternate number to tout — “97% of the world’s climate scientists” accept the consensus, articles in the Washington Post and elsewhere have begun to claim.

This number will prove a new embarrassment to the pundits and press who use it. The number stems from a 2009 online survey of 10,257 earth scientists, conducted by two researchers at the University of Illinois. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers – in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change.  The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

The two researchers started by altogether excluding from their survey the thousands of scientists most likely to think that the Sun, or planetary movements, might have something to do with climate on Earth – out were the solar scientists, space scientists, cosmologists, physicists, meteorologists and astronomers. That left the 10,257 scientists in disciplines like geology, oceanography, paleontology, and geochemistry that were somehow deemed more worthy of being included in the consensus. The two researchers also decided that scientific accomplishment should not be a factor in who could answer – those surveyed were determined by their place of employment (an academic or a governmental institution). Neither was academic qualification a factor – about 1,000 of those surveyed did not have a PhD, some didn’t even have a master’s diploma.

To encourage a high participation among these remaining disciplines, the two researchers decided on a quickie survey that would take less than two minutes to complete, and would be done online, saving the respondents the hassle of mailing a reply. Nevertheless, most didn’t consider the quickie survey worthy of response –just 3146, or 30.7%, answered the two questions on the survey:
1. When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?
2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

The questions were actually non-questions.  From my discussions with literally hundreds of skeptical scientists over the past few years, I know of none who claims that the planet hasn’t warmed since the 1700s, and almost none who think that humans haven’t contributed in some way to the recent warming – quite apart from carbon dioxide emissions, few would doubt that the creation of cities and the clearing of forests for agricultural lands have affected the climate. When pressed for a figure, global warming skeptics might say that human are responsible for 10% or 15% of the warming; some skeptics place the upper bound of man’s contribution at 35%. The skeptics only deny that humans played a dominant role in Earth’s warming.

Surprisingly, just 90% of those who responded to the first question believed that temperatures had risen – I would have expected a figure closer to 100%, since Earth was in the Little Ice Age in the centuries immediately preceding 1800. But perhaps some of the responders interpreted the question to include the past 1000 years, when Earth was in the Medieval Warm Period, generally thought to be warmer than today.

As for the second question, 82% of the earth scientists replied that that human activity had significantly contributed to the warming. Here the vagueness of the question comes into play. Since skeptics believe that human activity been a contributing factor, their answer would have turned on whether they consider a 10% or 15% or 35% increase to be a significant contributing factor. Some would, some wouldn’t.

In any case, the two researchers must have feared that an 82% figure would fall short of a convincing consensus – almost one in five wasn’t blaming humans for global warming — so they looked for subsets that would yield a higher percentage.  They found it – almost — in those whose recent published peer-reviewed research fell primarily in the climate change field. But the percentage still fell short of the researchers’ ideal. So they made another cut, allowing only the research conducted by those earth scientists who identified themselves as climate scientists.

Once all these cuts were made, 75 out of 77 scientists of unknown qualifications were left endorsing the global warming orthodoxy. The two researchers were then satisfied with their findings. Are you?

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Wed Nov 28, 2012 10:57 am

This could be very confusing to folks that are used to looking back only a few hundred years. Have temperature and CO2 really been moving in opposite directions for the last 10,000 years? Shocked

Folks might think that contradicts what they've been hearing, but it really doesn't. geek


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Fri Nov 30, 2012 12:57 pm

We had ourselves quite a scare last September. affraid

But as we enter December, it looks like the red line has woven it's way back into the colored cable bundle:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Doc Watson on Fri Nov 30, 2012 1:02 pm

Looks like what is known as a normal curve to me!

Doc Watson
Titanium Member

Posts : 1428
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 66
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:31 am

Is Doc a skeptic--or a DENIER. Shocked

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Doc Watson on Sat Dec 01, 2012 10:40 am

pinhedz wrote:Is Doc a skeptic--or a DENIER. Shocked
I am neither . I am a believer in clamate change.

Doc Watson
Titanium Member

Posts : 1428
Join date : 2011-04-11
Age : 66
Location : Australia

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:02 pm

Doc Watson wrote:I am a believer in clamate change.
Me too.

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:03 pm

Some things never change--but the climate isn't one of those things.


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Dec 01, 2012 12:05 pm

If it keeps getting warmer, we might make it back to normal:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Mon Dec 03, 2012 1:36 am

Hi-lites of the IPPC website (who would have guessed they are "policy neutral?" Laughing )

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

The IPCC is a scientific body. It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change. It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. 
 


Because of its scientific and intergovernmental nature, the IPCC embodies a unique opportunity to provide rigorous and balanced scientific information to decision makers. By endorsing the IPCC reports, governments acknowledge the authority of their scientific content. The work of the organization is therefore policy-relevant and yet policy-neutral, never policy-prescriptive."

pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Yakima Canutt on Wed Dec 05, 2012 10:15 pm

sineshedz wrote:An undersea telecommunications cable used to transmit about half of the huge volume of data coming from the Aqua satellite was cut in late November off the coast of the Netherlands, delaying receipt of that data. While there were redundant data transmission capabilities, apparently both failed.


"splotching the defectives" by Hellkis Lossyello anywon?












Yakima Canutt

Posts : 8355
Join date : 2011-04-11

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  pinhedz on Sat Dec 08, 2012 11:09 am

Dr. Mann's "Hockey Stick" curve has been dropped from the IPPC report updates, since federal investigators found out that Dr. Mann cooked the data:


pinhedz
Schrödinger's Hepcat

Posts : 11694
Join date : 2011-04-11
Location : DC

http://www.balalaika.org/

Back to top Go down

Re: The UNREAL climate change thread

Post  Sponsored content Today at 12:08 pm


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 25 Previous  1 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 15 ... 25  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum