Global warming - Page 6

AlpineZone

Page 6 of 22 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 214

Thread: Global warming

  1. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by benski View Post
    2 things.



    1. Climate is long term. In terms of climate a decade is a small unit of measure.

    2. the 10 warmest years on record have all been within the last 20. so the earth is warming.
    Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?

    Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
    2012-2013 (39)
    2013-2014 (36)
    2014-2015 (51)
    2015-2016 (47)

    2016-2017 target - 50

    If you take what the mountain gives you, you will always have fun!

  2. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
    Is your name on any other bogus lists of dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable mathematical calculation?


    http://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy.../#2f7c91977c6c
    Woah now. That article that you just linked is very far from supporting the claim you just made. There are numerous surveys that have gone out that have found that 97%, 4 of them in the graph produced in that Forbes article.

    Whatever survey fbrissette signed was not of "dubious origin" or unverifiable calculation... that's ridiculous. It was a survey, and has likely been published with transparent methodology and might even be cited in that Forbes piece.

    The point of the article as I understood it was: Is the number misused? Yes. Are there actually numerous 'lists' floating around? Yes. Do whatever percent of scientists supporting the notion of anthropogenic CC have varying opinions? Yes. However there is still a story (though not as catchy) and more importantly, in the published literature with a modicum of respect (as in any journal with an impact score higher than like 0.1) there have been an exceedingly small number (I have not done a full blown systematic review so I cannot say for certain that it is 0) of studies done that cast any doubt onto the basic climate change assertions.

    Now the common rebuke of that is that the entire community is corrupt and they will never publish something in those journals that contradicts their claim. However, the same exact argument can be levied against those denying climate change. There also happens to be a lot more to gain for those denying it, as in oil companies, and a lot more money involved. So you're left with trusting your own ability to interpret arguments and studies. I personally have never seen anything even remotely resembling a study, published in a journal or not, that comes close to discrediting the primary assertions of climate change and when the topic is widely accepted and not debated in most other developed countries, the ability to defend the null hypothesis gets harder and harder.

    The scientific community, however, has widely failed in communicating this though due to reasons already mentioned by you and others (arrogance, Gore, etc). Now, just like this thread, the debate in the U.S. has degraded to nothing but name calling.

  3. #53
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
    Funny thing about science - if you're infrequently, occasionally, frequently, or often, wrong, you just may want to check your theory (or at least not be so dogmatically certain about it).
    Why do you keep talking about weather models outputs? What is it that makes them useful (despite being wrong often) but discredit them as climate models?

    (Assuming you know that a climate model is essentially the same frickin thing as a weather model minus the assimilation process)

  4. #54
    Quote Originally Posted by dlague View Post
    Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?

    Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
    Yes. Even more relevant, during the Eocene (> 30 million years ago) global temperatures were much much hotter. There are no ice core records that old, but there are records of diatoms from the bottom of the ocean floor that can give an accurate temperature approximation of the temperature of the ocean floor (that matches both today's records and ice core records for periods of overlap).

    These diatoms show a seafloor temperature of > 10C during the Eocene and a matching atmospheric CO2 approximation of > 1000ppm. For reference we currently have a seafloor temperature ~ 2C depending on which ocean you look at.

  5. #55
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,393
    Quote Originally Posted by dlague View Post
    Were there warmer years say like between 12,000 and 22,000 years ago when a major glacial retreat was happening?

    Sent from my SM-G930P using AlpineZone mobile app
    Your confusing Mikankovitch cycles with anthropogenic forcing. This is a dumb argument as these are two different well understood things.

  6. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by Jully View Post
    The point of the article as I understood it was: Is the number misused? Yes. Are there actually numerous 'lists' floating around? Yes. Do whatever percent of scientists supporting the notion of anthropogenic CC have varying opinions? Yes.
    The point of the article is that the "97%" figure is unsubstantiated at best, and an intentional canard at worst. That it's probably something more like 81% to 85%. So while a strong majority, that isn't nearly as impressive as 97%.

    But as with all things Global Warming, we must "stretch the truth" and lie about it to bolster our case. Curiously by the way, in science we dont "stretch the truth" and lie about things to bolster our case.
    President - Bicknell's Thrush Extermination Solutions (BTES), LLC



  7. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
    The point of the article is that the "97%" figure is unsubstantiated at best, and an intentional canard at worst. That it's probably something more like 81% to 85%. So while a strong majority, that isn't nearly as impressive as 97%.
    Depending on how you phrase the question, sure. But you said that the list fbrissette was on was of "dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable" which is almost certainly false... There are numerous methodologically sound surveys that have been done that have found a 97% consensus. The Forbes article cited 4 of them.

  8. #58
    fbrissette's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Montreal/Jay Peak
    Posts
    1,393
    Thanks Jully for a fair analysis of this terrible article.

    Is that the best you can come up with BG? An pseudo scientific analysis in Forbes from a retired oil industry guy ?

  9. #59
    No way 97% but it doesn't really matter. The fact is science is once you claim "science is settled", it's not science anymore.

    American Meteorolical Society survey on global warming
    http://www.alabamawx.com/?p=24574

    More than 1000 Scientists Dissent over IPCC global warming claims
    http://www.globalresearch.ca/more-th...claims/5403284
    2017/2018:
    [Mount Snow: 11/27]

    2016/2017: * = powder day
    [Berkshire East: 1/16, 2/10] [Bolton Valley: 1/1, 2/5*, 2/19] [Burke: 12/17*, 1/28*] [Heavenly: 3/5*, 3/11] [Jay Peak: 1/29*, 4/9] [Jiminy Peak: 11/26] [Killington: 12/4, 12/10, 4/8*, 4/15] [Kirkwood: 3/8] [Mad River Glen: 2/25] [Magic: 2/13*] [Mt Rose: 3/7*] [Mount Snow: 4/3] [Northstar: 4/10] [Okemo: 11/23] [Pico: 1/7*, 2/18, 3/19] [Smuggler’s Notch: 1/22] [Stratton: 2/4] [Stowe: 1/21] [Sugarbush: 1/2] [Telluride: 3/27, 3/28*] [Whiteface: 2/12]

  10. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by fbrissette View Post
    Why do you keep talking about weather models outputs? What is it that makes them useful (despite being wrong often) but discredit them as climate models?
    Because even though computer models are "wrong often", as you point out, the weather models tend to be okay inside of 5 days.

    That doesn't mean that I trust computer climate models outside of 5 or 50 years (or 500 years). Crazy I know. It's almost like I'm extrapolating that increased error magnitude might potentially grow with the variable of increased time.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jully View Post
    Depending on how you phrase the question, sure. But you said that the list fbrissette was on was of "dubious origin and ambiguously unverifiable" which is almost certainly false... There are numerous methodologically sound surveys that have been done that have found a 97% consensus. The Forbes article cited 4 of them.
    There are many sources that could be linked to to shred that 97% propaganda, it's not merely Forbes, but did you read the entire article? It also pointed out how flimsy the claim is, often based on assumptions inferred as an agreement at best. It's a silly claim, and yes, when something cannot be proven, but is stated (repeatedly) as a fact anyway, that is not mathematically sound. And simply as an aside, on its' face, I think common sense should tell you that 97% of scientists do not believe in man-made global warming.
    President - Bicknell's Thrush Extermination Solutions (BTES), LLC



Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 3:35 AM.