myiW Current Conditions and Forecasts Community Forums Windsurfing Videos Buy and Sell Services
 
Hi guest · myAccount · Log in
 SearchSearch   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   RegisterRegister 
Global cooling
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 187, 188, 189 ... 323, 324, 325  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1308

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mr Gybe. .... I don't find it odd that left wing liberals pour scorn and ridicule on you for being to the right of centre. I used to work with them. Tolerance and self righteous left wing froth didn't make good bedfellows.

Once, I couldn't resist pinning a popular right wing newspaper cartoon on the staff notice board. It depicted a squat packed with freeloading non working, 'out to bring down capitalism' types, who'd spent hours printing and constructing placards for the following day's demonstration, screeching 'MAGGIE MUST GO GO GO!' An exceedingly annoyed member of the group had just rushed in and angrily snarled, 'Bugger it. The cow has just resigned!!' It didn't stay on the notice board for long.

I may not agree with your position Mr Gybe, but I would still rather hear it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
isobars



Joined: 12 Dec 1999
Posts: 13801

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 11:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

mrgybe wrote:
Another lie.

Mrgybe, I dumped these guys years ago after literally hundreds of their lies. I can only imagine how many more hundreds they've added since. They know they're being "caught on tape" lying, but don't care. It's just not something many liberals care about, any more than they care about backing up their own false accusations of others' "lies". "Liar" is nothing more than a spelling word to them, even a badge of honor to some of them, not an embarrassment.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevenbard



Joined: 11 Nov 1993
Posts: 3952

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 12:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

mac wrote:
Twenty days of sailing so far in this climate-changed new year. I might be cranky if I was stuck in Virginia where my investments in the military industrial complex were being adversely affected by the sequester! Very Happy


Shhh, don't tell him. He might move here so he can do something productive like grow marijuana, apply for welfare, or get section 8 housing like so many of your brethren.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mrgybe



Joined: 01 Jul 2008
Posts: 2544

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GURGLETROUSERS wrote:
I may not agree with your position Mr Gybe, but I would still rather hear it.

I don't believe that there is much separation between us on this topic. Contrary to the distorted version of my opinion portrayed by the usual suspect here, I have repeatedly stated that global warming may indeed be occurring, but I am extremely skeptical of the loudest voices in the warming camp, who have made outrageous claims of the likely impact, and who pour scorn on anyone who has the temerity to point out the obvious flaws in their predictions. I recently cited the UK Met Office and Univ. of East Anglia predictions in 2000, that children in the UK would no longer see snow. In the face of actual experience, these and other over-the-top predictions cause the average citizen to understandably think that it is all nonsense and to withdraw support for sensible action.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
keycocker



Joined: 10 Jul 2005
Posts: 3207

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

What would the sensible action you are concerned about losing support?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4967

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 2:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh really?
Quote:
I have repeatedly stated that global warming may indeed be occurring, but I am extremely skeptical of the loudest voices in the warming camp, who have made outrageous claims of the likely impact, and who pour scorn on anyone who has the temerity to point out the obvious flaws in their predictions.



Well, let's look in the way back machine and see if mrgybe has really said such a thing. Here is one of my posts from September 10, 2010.

Quote:
OK, time to post some science. I never write for Isobars, he won’t pay attention to anything but Fox. But this is non-IPPC science, kind of the latest on what temperatures, CO2, and ocean acidification are actually doing, with graphics and citations. To see the first graph you'll have to go to the NASA site; I can't fugure out how to copy it in here.

Line plot of global mean land-ocean temperature index, 1880 to
Source: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/

As people who play in the ocean, we ought to pay attention to the acidification of the seas, which is occurring at 10 times the rate of the past. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n3/abs/ngeo755.html)

And then there is the question of how high CO2 levels are now, and how they compare with past levels. Here’s a citation: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/326/5958/1394?maxtoshow=&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&fulltext=tripathi+CO2+climate&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&resourcetype=HWCIT
And the bottom line from their abstract:
Quote:
The carbon dioxide (CO2) content of the atmosphere has varied cyclically between ~180 and ~280 parts per million by volume over the past 800,000 years, closely coupled with temperature and sea level. For earlier periods in Earth’s history, the partial pressure of CO2 (pCO2) is much less certain, and the relation between pCO2 and climate remains poorly constrained. We use boron/calcium ratios in foraminifera to estimate pCO2 during major climate transitions of the past 20 million years. During the Middle Miocene, when temperatures were ~3° to 6°C warmer and sea level was 25 to 40 meters higher than at present, pCO2 appears to have been similar to modern levels.

Current levels are about 390 ppm and increasing rapidly.

And just in case you believe stevenbard’s myths about cooling based on his heating bill, go to the underlying NASA source and scroll up to see that July 2010 was the hottest of over 130 years of data.

Figures don’t lie, but liars figure—funded by the far right who own oil companies.


Mrgybe's response? Windpower is more expensive. Mrgybe has consistently found one tiny thing to disagree with in an ocean of data, and then leaped to the conclusion that warming is just a possibility. He has made much of the right's allegation that warming has stopped in the last fifteen years--and ignored the statistical difficulty of actually detecting what would be a 0.1 to 0.15 degree change in the average temperature. And so forth. When I claimed that the carbon industry was spending billions on disinformation he called me a liar because it was only tens of millions. Trace the money and do the math. The cost of adapting to global warming will be trillions, and global unrest. It won't make all of the world uninhabitable--just parts of it. It will increase the rate of extinction in both aquatic and terrestrial eco-systems. Mrgybe's reponse to the lack of rigorous science in his posted materials, taken largely from studies funded by the carbon industry? We don't need no stinking peer review.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1308

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 3:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mac. .... I dislike misrepresentation, from whatever source.

There has been no SIGNIFICANT temperature rise in the last 15 years. That statement (and other similar) comes from the pro global warming East Anglian Climate Research Centre, The pro warming Met Office, and the head of the I.P.C.C.

You keep insisting on TEASING OUT trends but that, to me, smacks of pro bias, exactly as you claim of the rights anti warming bias. If the world authorities on the subject state no SIGNIFICANT (meaning proof of warming) for the last 15 years, I accept their assessment.

Of course I am not saying global warming is a myth, and that teasing out trends MAY be acceptable, but it does not pass their SIGNIFICANT test.

Your argument is with them, not some right wing propaganda ploy.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
swchandler



Joined: 08 Nov 1993
Posts: 5687

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Global Warming. Climate Change. Tough to find absolute answers. Kind of like Evolution of the Human Species. Lots of skeletal remains of primates have been found that bridge the span from apelike creatures to the Neanderthals, but none of it counts to the evolution deniers. Nobody has all the detail pieces to convince us all, and certain folks will even fight with all their power and money to protect their interests, whatever they might be.

The way that I like to look at the issues of global warming and climate change is through the lens of pollution. Humanity as a whole certainly makes a lot of that. Being smart is making very little of it, and when we do that, our environment is much better for it. One only has to look at the improvements that we have seen in air quality as direct result of more stringent regulations designed to mitigate pollution. Not only have we benefited from a cleaner environment, the technical innovations that brought us here created wealth and jobs.

Right now, President Obama, through the EPA, wants to further tighten air quality regulations to remove sulfur and other contaminants in auto emissions. Frankly, its a no-brainer, because it would only require that the nation adopt the gasoline regulations that are required for California. Of course, to meet the volumes required by such a change, it would necessitate updating our oil refineries. It would require investment from private industry, and that would spur employment and development.

Why is are oil interests beginning to fight Obama on this? I would think that mrgybe is savvy enough to see the long term benefits to the oil industry in supporting the president in this. But, maybe I'm wrong.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
mac



Joined: 07 Mar 1999
Posts: 4967

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

GT--it is more than a bit tricky to use the term significant--that is a term of art in both statistics and environmental impact. So much has been made of the possible flattening of the curve, and many of the conclusions that are being drawn by deniers that are not warranted.

It is a fundamental characteristic of analyzing time series--changes over time--that you must have enough data to be able to distinguish trends from anomalies and noise. If you look at long series of temperature, or of sea level at the Golden Gate, you will see that at different times the curves appear to go up more rapidly, or down. In the case of sea level rise, where my training and experience is strong, we know why. Major events in the Pacific--El Nino and la Nina--create temporary increases or decreases in sea level that are not part of a long term trend. The heightened sea level during the 1982-3 storms was three feet--much more than the expected rise of average sea level over the next fifty years. The accepted method for detecting trends is to smooth the data, using a running average of 3 or 5 years (or other period, if warranted), and report a trend along with an error band. In other words, we don't know, even with about 150 years of sea level, how much the level at the Golden Gate has risen with precision. But that is characteristic of measurements--we need to know how exactly, or inexactly, we know something.

Before the last 15 years, the average temperature increases were available with a reasonable level of confidence for about 80 years, and the smoothed trend showed a total increase in average temperatureof about 1.0 to 1.5 degrees, with an error band of 0.5 degrees. The older temperature data is not so precise as the newer data, and the inexactitudes in the data trends were presented, by those with scientific rigor and integrity, as having a very wide error band--about one third of the total trend. If trends continued, and if our estimate of warming of 1 degree or so was correct, the increase over the last fifteen years--if the process was linear--would be about 0.1 to 0.15 degrees. Of course the process is chaotic, not linear, and there is a hot debate over whether there has been any increase at all in the last fifteen years.

My first point about looking at the data is that the temperature change during last fifteen years, whether an anomaly or not, is well within the bounds of the accuracy of our hindcasting of temperature trends in the first place. It is entirely possible that the rate of temperature increase is less than 1 degree per century, and there is no sign of acceleration of change. That would be fabulous news. But it is also possible that we are seeing a flattening of the curve for reasons unrelated to CO2 that we don't understand. My second point is that we know, with great certainty, that average temperatures have gone up by an alarming amount in the last 120 years, and the theoretical relationship to CO2 levels remains strong. In other words, we understand the physics well enough to know that CO2 increases temperature, but we have a pretty high degree of uncertainty about the rate of change. Virtually every peer-reviewed comment that I have read in the past five years is consistent on this point. The deniers draw fundamentally different conclusions, and shun peer review.

In statistical analysis of data, we use the term significant to mean that we have measured things at a level of precision to know that we can tease apart a trend and noise in the data. So I accept that the data suggests that there has been little or no temperature rise in the past fifteen years--but we remain with data that says temperature has risen about 1 to 1.5 degrees over 120 years, and that a further increase of at least one degree is pretty much inevitable, given the levels of CO2 already in the atmosphere and the ongoing emissions.

I will accept that modeling that predicted accelerated sea level rise and temperature increases have suffered the slings and arrows accorded hubris. Of course, the models that predicted greater variability in the weather have seemed to be better predictors. In either event, I have never proposed trusting the models--they fail to capture elements of the physics. I have said that consistently over the past six years. Drawing the snarky conclusion that mrgybe did last month is the kind of dishonesty that offends me. He crows about his "healthy distrust" for warming science, and then tries to skewer me by claiming. "Yet now, we discover that those same accusers have been skeptical of the data all along!! Who knew!! "

The problem remains that deniers, and apologists for the carbon industry, will seize on a detail such as weaknesses in models, long acknowledged by the modelers and commentors, to disparage the entire body of science. Reasoning by anecdote--a characteristic of those without priniciples, and those without any real training in analytical thinking.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
GURGLETROUSERS



Joined: 30 Dec 2009
Posts: 1308

PostPosted: Mon Apr 01, 2013 4:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

S.W.C. .... How do you propose making China (opening new coal power stations weekly), India (ditto), Germany (going back to coal as only current alternative to maintain their economy) and Uncle Tom Cobley and All to play ball?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    iWindsurf Community Forum Index -> Politics, Off-Topic, Opinions All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 187, 188, 189 ... 323, 324, 325  Next
Page 188 of 325

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

myiW | Weather | Community | Membership | Support | Log in
like us on facebook
© Copyright 1999-2007 WeatherFlow, Inc Contact Us Ad Marketplace

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group