Page 61 of 94 FirstFirst ... 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 ... LastLast
Results 1,501 to 1,525 of 2350
  1. #1501
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,143
    Again, this is an instance of claiming that perturbations in the overall trend is evidence that the trend is invalid. Which I just don't understand as being significant mathematically or scientific.

    From the first link:

    Note, the SMB doesn’t take into account the breaking off, or “calving” of icebergs from the ice sheet’s edge, which we’ll come to later. Calving losses have averaged around 500bn tonnes of ice per year this century. This means the ice sheet has been losing mass overall across recent years

    We must wait for data from the GRACE-Follow On (GRACE-FO) satellite mission before we know how the total mass budget has fared this year – which includes calving and melting at the base of the ice sheet. However, it is likely that the relatively high end of season SMB will mean a zero or close-to-zero total mass budget this year, as last year.


    Likely?

    Again, the argument that anomalies occur in data sets does not invalidate the observed overall trends.

    In addition, one effect of warming is more moisture in the atmosphere which will account for more snow in areas not yet sufficiently affected to prevent freezing. So it actually makes some sense that certain areas will receive more snow until those areas warm sufficiently to preclude freezing.

    So. I'm still not only unconvinced by the conclusions, but am mystified that the approach is considered even remotely sensical.
    Last edited by Buster Highmen; 09-14-2019 at 10:17 PM.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  2. #1502
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    I think you understand what I'm saying, but none of your responses relate to the point I'm trying to make, so I'm not sure if you do understand. To be clear, I am saying that it is a stretch to be able to make bold conclusions about 20th/21st century warming rates compared to the warming rates of the previous 2,000 years because of the differences in proxy records vs instrumental records. I don't think that it is a coincidence that as soon as we start using instrumental records to look at warming rates, we start seeing the highest warming rates of the past 2,000 years. The authors of the Neukom paper would not begrudge me for this perspective.
    In a nutshell. you're claiming that the fundamental assumption that these records are valid is incorrect. OK.

    I disagree.

    I'd be all for a paradigm shift, I'm ready for pregnant polemics, but all this position does is attempt to nullify a theory with no replacement.

    For example, I value greatly the work of Henrik Svensmark, it' an interesting theory.

    But one thing I really don't understand is the cost argument to reacting to the AGW theory. I'd think it's a fantastic opportunity for technological growth, for new markets and upheaval in the financial status quo. People who see a threat to the status quo are not the people who lead new technologies, new ideas or growth.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  3. #1503
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The authors of the Neukom paper would not begrudge me for this perspective.
    Just the opposite is true. While acknowledging limitations inherent in the proxies themselves, their finding that modern era climate change is unprecedented in the common era still stands:

    "Neukom et al. weave all of this evidence into a detailed global portrait of surface temperatures that spans the past two millennia.
    ...
    Even when we push our perspective back to the earliest days of the Roman Empire, we cannot discern any event that is remotely equivalent — either in degree or extent — to the warming over the past few decades. Today’s climate stands apart in its torrid global synchrony." -- Scott St. George, University of Minnesota

  4. #1504
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,143
    In instance, the presumed absence of valid data destroys a theory (climate change).
    In another, it supports it (Neukoms position).

    This is dumb.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  5. #1505
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Redwood City
    Posts
    1,462
    The whole last dozen pages of this thread are dumb

  6. #1506
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    truckee
    Posts
    10,825
    Quote Originally Posted by LegoSkier View Post
    The whole last dozen pages of this thread are dumb
    And you just made it better how?

  7. #1507
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    Again, this is an instance of claiming that perturbations in the overall trend is evidence that the trend is invalid. Which I just don't understand as being significant mathematically or scientific.

    From the first link:

    Note, the SMB doesn’t take into account the breaking off, or “calving” of icebergs from the ice sheet’s edge, which we’ll come to later. Calving losses have averaged around 500bn tonnes of ice per year this century. This means the ice sheet has been losing mass overall across recent years

    We must wait for data from the GRACE-Follow On (GRACE-FO) satellite mission before we know how the total mass budget has fared this year – which includes calving and melting at the base of the ice sheet. However, it is likely that the relatively high end of season SMB will mean a zero or close-to-zero total mass budget this year, as last year.


    Likely?

    Again, the argument that anomalies occur in data sets does not invalidate the observed overall trends.

    In addition, one effect of warming is more moisture in the atmosphere which will account for more snow in areas not yet sufficiently affected to prevent freezing. So it actually makes some sense that certain areas will receive more snow until those areas warm sufficiently to preclude freezing.

    So. I'm still not only unconvinced by the conclusions, but am mystified that the approach is considered even remotely sensical.
    You seem to think that I'm implying that Greenland hasn't been losing ice in recent decades. I'm not. I only posted about this in response to WMD's article about Al Roker just getting back from Greenland and being "horrified by what he saw there," with "glaciers vanishing at an astonishing rate."

  8. #1508
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    In a nutshell. you're claiming that the fundamental assumption that these records are valid is incorrect. OK.

    I disagree.

    I'd be all for a paradigm shift, I'm ready for pregnant polemics, but all this position does is attempt to nullify a theory with no replacement.

    For example, I value greatly the work of Henrik Svensmark, it' an interesting theory.

    But one thing I really don't understand is the cost argument to reacting to the AGW theory. I'd think it's a fantastic opportunity for technological growth, for new markets and upheaval in the financial status quo. People who see a threat to the status quo are not the people who lead new technologies, new ideas or growth.
    All I am saying is that looking at proxy records combined with recent instrumental records to compare recent and past warming rates and spatial warming has data issues. Any conclusions based on this methodology should be questioned. The authors of the paper say as much: "Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the proxies themselves probably still hamper our ability to compare warm or cool intervals with each other throughout the entire Common Era. Tree-ring records, the most frequently used proxy archive in the PAGES 2k database, are sometimes unreliable in registering slow climate changes over several centuries or longer. Moreover, some other proxies — particularly records from marine and lake sediments — exaggerate variations at multidecadal or centennial timescales. It is still an open question how well we can compare global temperatures across this entire 2,000-year span."

    A better methodology would be to use the same proxies for current and past temperatures, but if they do that, they aren't able to find that the recent warming rate is unprecedented for the past 2,000 years, or that the globe is warming synchronously for the first time.

    The incentives for renewable technology growth are already immense. There is significant investment in this field. Whoever can figure out cost effective storage stands to make massive amounts of money. What I am not in favor of is government forcing costly and less effective energy systems on society. That is a certainty for failure and will do nothing to up-heave the financial status quo. It will do the opposite.

  9. #1509
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Just the opposite is true. While acknowledging limitations inherent in the proxies themselves, their finding that modern era climate change is unprecedented in the common era still stands:

    "Neukom et al. weave all of this evidence into a detailed global portrait of surface temperatures that spans the past two millennia.
    ...
    Even when we push our perspective back to the earliest days of the Roman Empire, we cannot discern any event that is remotely equivalent — either in degree or extent — to the warming over the past few decades. Today’s climate stands apart in its torrid global synchrony." -- Scott St. George, University of Minnesota
    When I see this quote from their paper, "Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the proxies themselves probably still hamper our ability to compare warm or cool intervals with each other throughout the entire Common Era." And then I see the conclusions you are quoting, that tells me these scientists have an agenda.

  10. #1510
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    In instance, the presumed absence of valid data destroys a theory (climate change).
    In another, it supports it (Neukoms position).

    This is dumb.
    MV and I are arguing about is whether the recent warming rate is unprecedented for the past 2,000 years, and whether this is the only time of the past 2,000 years where temperatures are warming synchronously across the globe. It has nothing to do with disproving the theory of climate change.

    I do not disprove the theory of climate change. I do disprove that there is a consensus on how much warming humans are responsible for and whether it is dangerous.

  11. #1511
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    MV and I are arguing about is whether the recent warming rate is unprecedented for the past 2,000 years, and whether this is the only time of the past 2,000 years where temperatures are warming synchronously across the globe. It has nothing to do with disproving the theory of climate change.

    I do not disprove the theory of climate change. I do disprove that there is a consensus on how much warming humans are responsible for and whether it is dangerous.
    You inconsistently enumerate support and denial.

    For example, you, as many respected climate scientists do, point out that the claim that the current series of hurricanes and their severity is a result of climate change is bogus. I'd agree that there's not enough data to make that assertion, but some "alarmists" do. To encapsulate, weather is not climate change.

    Then at the same time, you cite the effect of storm Nicole adding enough snow to Greenland to abate the ablation for a year or two. In this case, you're claiming weather as proof that climate change doesn't happen.

    These are inconsistent principles.

    This is only part of why I think your arguments and movement of goalposts are bogus.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  12. #1512
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    MV and I are arguing about is whether the recent warming rate is unprecedented for the past 2,000 years, and whether this is the only time of the past 2,000 years where temperatures are warming synchronously across the globe. It has nothing to do with disproving the theory of climate change.

    I do not disprove the theory of climate change. I do disprove that there is a consensus on how much warming humans are responsible for and whether it is dangerous.
    No, you're claiming that the instrumental and proxy data is inconsistent and therefore invalid. Do I have to quote you above?
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  13. #1513
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    When I see this quote from their paper, "Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the proxies themselves probably still hamper our ability to compare warm or cool intervals with each other throughout the entire Common Era." And then I see the conclusions you are quoting, that tells me these scientists have an agenda.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    The authors of the paper say as much

    A better methodology would be to use the same proxies for current and past temperatures, but if they do that, they aren't able to find that the recent warming rate is unprecedented for the past 2,000 years, or that the globe is warming synchronously for the first time.
    Yet another misrepresentation from Ron.

    Ron's quote, which is a review of the research, not the research itself, discusses issues with the proxies but does not invalidate the proxies. The review goes on to say, "We can be more certain of how and why Earth warms or cools over decadal and multidecadal timescales ... In general, physics-based climate models accurately reproduce proxy estimates of our climate’s history over the past millennium."

    Ron's cargo cult take that it's thermometers and not greenhouse gasses is his own, and his alone.

    To quote the paper itself:

    To place recent warming rates into a long-term context, we calculate 51 yr running GMST trends from the unfiltered reconstructions. The different reconstruction methods agree on the magnitudes of multidecadal trends over the Common Era, as shown by the narrow uncertainty range.

    In other words, there is uncertainty but the range of uncertainty is narrow. And Ron's review of the paper says physics-based climate models, apart from the two largest volcanic eruptions of the Common Era, accurately reproduce proxy estimates.

  14. #1514
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    "Editorial: Climate change is already here. 2020 could be your last chance to stop an apocalypse"

    The world is drifting steadily toward a climate catastrophe. For many of us, that’s been clear for a few years or maybe a decade or even a few decades.

    But others have known that a reckoning was coming for much longer. A Swedish scientist first calculated in 1896 that adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere could lead to warmer global temperatures. By the 1930s, scientists were measuring the increase, and in the late 1960s, they had documented the impact of melting ice in Antarctica. By 1977, Exxon-Mobil had recognized its own role in the warming of the ocean, the polar ice melt and the rising sea level. . .

    But today, we are at an important turning point. The changing climate is no longer an abstract threat lurking in our distant future — it is upon us. We feel it. We see it. In our longer and deeper droughts and our more brutal hurricanes and raging, hyper-destructive wildfires. And with that comes a new urgency, and a new opportunity, to act.

    Climate change is now simply impossible to ignore. The temperature reached a record-breaking 90 degrees in Anchorage this summer and an unprecedented 108 degrees in Paris. We can watch glaciers melting and collapsing on the web; ice losses in Antarctica have tripled since 2012 so that sea levels are rising faster today than at any time in the last quarter-century. Human migration patterns are already changing in Africa and Latin America as extreme weather events disrupt crop patterns, harm harvests and force farmers off their land, sending climate refugees to Europe and the United State
    https://www.latimes.com/opinion/edit...t-1-story.html

  15. #1515
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    The Bull City
    Posts
    4,330
    ^^^ Enough of that "alarmist" bunk. Here's the real deal of when the time to act will be here..

    Climate Change Deniers Present Graphic Description Of What Earth Must Look Like For Them To Believe
    Go that way really REALLY fast. If something gets in your way, TURN!

  16. #1516
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    You inconsistently enumerate support and denial.

    For example, you, as many respected climate scientists do, point out that the claim that the current series of hurricanes and their severity is a result of climate change is bogus. I'd agree that there's not enough data to make that assertion, but some "alarmists" do. To encapsulate, weather is not climate change.

    Then at the same time, you cite the effect of storm Nicole adding enough snow to Greenland to abate the ablation for a year or two. In this case, you're claiming weather as proof that climate change doesn't happen.

    These are inconsistent principles.

    This is only part of why I think your arguments and movement of goalposts are bogus.
    Once again, I am not citing the recent trends in Greenland's glaciers and SMB to claim climate change doesn't happen!!

    I am citing them to show the propaganda in WMD's hysterical Greenland article.

  17. #1517
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    It must suck to be Ron right now. For years the media didn't cover climate but now it is everywhere. It is pretty lonely to be a denier these days.

    Time Magazine is devoting their entire issue this week to the climate crisis.

    Millions of people will walk out of work and school as part of over 2500 events in over 170 countries to strike for climate action on September 20th.

    Poor lonely RJ. Expect the lies and obfuscation to get louder as he realizes people have caught on to denier bullshit.

    In the week leading up to the next big UN climate meeting in New York next month, media around the world will focus on the world's biggest issue, the existential challenges of climate change. Newsroom has joined the global effort.

    More than 170 news outlets from around the world with a combined audience of hundreds of millions of people have now signed up for Covering Climate Now, a project co-founded by CJR and The Nation aimed at strengthening the media’s focus on the climate crisis.

    All outlets have committed to running a week’s worth of climate coverage in the lead-up to the United Nations Climate Action Summit in New York on September 23. At that meeting, the world’s governments will submit plans to meet the Paris Agreement’s pledge to keep global temperature rise “well below” 2 degrees Celsius.
    https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2019/08/2...g-climate-now#

  18. #1518
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by Buster Highmen View Post
    No, you're claiming that the instrumental and proxy data is inconsistent and therefore invalid. Do I have to quote you above?
    I'm starting to think that you are missing the fact that we are talking about yearly warming rates and global synchronous warming. I'm not saying that proxy data is useless, and no conclusions can be drawn for it. What I am saying, is that trying to determine the warming rate globally for the year 1050 compared to the years 999-1049 is problematic because proxy records lack precision. This type of measurement requires excellent data. Determining the warming rate of year 2000 compared to 1949-1999 is much more feasible due to the precision of the instrumental record. Any overarching statements from this type of analysis deserves skepticism. The reviewers of the paper would not disagree with me.

  19. #1519
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Moose, Iowa
    Posts
    5,844
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    It must suck to be Ron right now. For years the media didn't cover climate but now it is everywhere. It is pretty lonely to be a denier these days.

    Time Magazine is devoting their entire issue this week to the climate crisis.
    They quote one of our local representatives in this article. A bunch of solid Iowa stuff.

    https://time.com/5669023/iowa-farmers-climate-policy/

    Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

  20. #1520
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    396
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Yet another misrepresentation from Ron.

    Ron's quote, which is a review of the research, not the research itself, discusses issues with the proxies but does not invalidate the proxies. The review goes on to say, "We can be more certain of how and why Earth warms or cools over decadal and multidecadal timescales ... In general, physics-based climate models accurately reproduce proxy estimates of our climate’s history over the past millennium."

    Ron's cargo cult take that it's thermometers and not greenhouse gasses is his own, and his alone.

    To quote the paper itself:
    To place recent warming rates into a long-term context, we calculate 51 yr running GMST trends from the unfiltered reconstructions. The different reconstruction methods agree on the magnitudes of multidecadal trends over the Common Era, as shown by the narrow uncertainty range.

    In other words, there is uncertainty but the range of uncertainty is narrow. And Ron's review of the paper says physics-based climate models, apart from the two largest volcanic eruptions of the Common Era, accurately reproduce proxy estimates.
    My mistake, the quote is from the reviewers, which doesn't make much of a difference anyway.

    I guess I should be clear in saying that I am not invalidating the research because of the proxy issue. I am saying that their conclusions deserve skepticism. Making statements like "This is the fastest the earth has ever warmed in the past 2,000 years," and "the earth has never warmed synchronously like this before," are a bit too hubristic to make given these methodological issues.

    I see quotes like this one: "Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the proxies themselves probably still hamper our ability to compare warm or cool intervals with each other throughout the entire Common Era. Tree-ring records, the most frequently used proxy archive in the PAGES 2k database, are sometimes unreliable in registering slow climate changes over several centuries or longer. Moreover, some other proxies — particularly records from marine and lake sediments — exaggerate variations at multidecadal or centennial timescales. It is still an open question how well we can compare global temperatures across this entire 2,000-year span."

    Compared to this quote: "Today’s climate stands apart in its torrid global synchrony."

    And I can't help but feel like things smell a little fishy.


    "We can be more certain of how and why Earth warms or cools over decadal and multidecadal timescales ... In general, physics-based climate models accurately reproduce proxy estimates of our climate’s history over the past millennium."
    Climate models don't have a particularly great track record....

    To place recent warming rates into a long-term context, we calculate 51 yr running GMST trends from the unfiltered reconstructions. The different reconstruction methods agree on the magnitudes of multidecadal trends over the Common Era, as shown by the narrow uncertainty range.
    And if they look at the post 1900 warming without the instrumental data, the magnitudes are very similar to the magnitudes of the rest of the common era.

  21. #1521
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    25,190
    The fishy smell is all of the dead fish from warming waters, you dimwit
    StokePimpin' ain't easy

  22. #1522
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    20,143
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    What I am saying, is that trying to determine the warming rate globally for the year 1050 compared to the years 999-1049 is problematic because proxy records lack precision. This type of measurement requires excellent data. Determining the warming rate of year 2000 compared to 1949-1999 is much more feasible due to the precision of the instrumental record. Any overarching statements from this type of analysis deserves skepticism. The reviewers of the paper would not disagree with me.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    To be clear, I am saying that it is a stretch to be able to make bold conclusions about 20th/21st century warming rates compared to the warming rates of the previous 2,000 years because of the differences in proxy records vs instrumental records. I don't think that it is a coincidence that as soon as we start using instrumental records to look at warming rates, we start seeing the highest warming rates of the past 2,000 years. The authors of the Neukom paper would not begrudge me for this perspective.
    You're using the usual ploy of claiming the data is invalid.

    And then trying to say that's not what you're saying and then saying it again.

    I don't think you understand what you're saying.

    Plus you keep citing anomalies as proof that trends don't exist but only when it supports your claims.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  23. #1523
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    3,870
    RJ has to be a tRump supporter, because there are only 2 kinds of tRump supporters left...

    Morons, and Fucking Morons, because RJ is a Fucking Moron

  24. #1524
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    1,650
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    My mistake, the quote is from the reviewers, which doesn't make much of a difference anyway.

    I guess I should be clear in saying that I am not invalidating the research because of the proxy issue. I am saying that their conclusions deserve skepticism. Making statements like "This is the fastest the earth has ever warmed in the past 2,000 years," and "the earth has never warmed synchronously like this before," are a bit too hubristic to make given these methodological issues.

    I see quotes like this one: "Unfortunately, limitations inherent in the proxies themselves probably still hamper our ability to compare warm or cool intervals with each other throughout the entire Common Era. Tree-ring records, the most frequently used proxy archive in the PAGES 2k database, are sometimes unreliable in registering slow climate changes over several centuries or longer. Moreover, some other proxies — particularly records from marine and lake sediments — exaggerate variations at multidecadal or centennial timescales. It is still an open question how well we can compare global temperatures across this entire 2,000-year span."

    Compared to this quote: "Today’s climate stands apart in its torrid global synchrony."

    And I can't help but feel like things smell a little fishy.

    Climate models don't have a particularly great track record....

    And if they look at the post 1900 warming without the instrumental data, the magnitudes are very similar to the magnitudes of the rest of the common era.
    - It makes a difference because your accusations of the researchers pushing an agenda are unfounded. Once again you default to impugning the scientific community. The paper itself focuses on the results and the results are what they are.

    -- The models didn't have a great track record but the models have come a long way since then.

    --- You are wrong about the so called methodological issues. When comparing proxy data, today’s climate does stands apart in its torrid global synchrony. I've explained this several times already but you don't seem to understand that the instrument data on the charts is there for reference. The researchers are using proxies for current and past temperatures. It's a comparison across space and time of the proxy data.

  25. #1525
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,191
    Quote Originally Posted by k2skier112 View Post
    RJ has to be a tRump supporter, because there are only 2 kinds of tRump supporters left...

    Morons, and Fucking Morons, because RJ is a Fucking Moron
    Funny thing is with the attention to climate these days I bet even Trump will come around and push an industry backed carbon tax before the election to show he is doing something on this issue. It will be an awful bill that removes regulations while putting too low a price on carbon to accomplish anything, but it will be a move to show even Trump and the GOP are on board with doing something on climate with hopes to not lose farmers and others who see climate change is real.

    Will Ron go along or will he be all alone denying the reality of AGW and making up shit to say we don't need to do anything?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •