• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

You must love the IPCC reports then..full of that kind of BS.

Here's one of my favorites from IPCC report AR5 (final draft). When estimating the impact of solar changes on earth climate, this is their executive summary.



They use solar cycle minimums to estimate the entire level of solar change during recent solar cycles. Now does that make any sense? That's like putting a kiddy coaster next to Top Thrill Dragster and saying they're just slightly different because the bottoms are about the same when you line them up. The actual satellite data they are using differs by more than the observed change in earth temperature too BTW, how's that for reliability.

But you got to give it to them. They don't really outright "lie" because throughout these documents, they always use "our best estimate"...choice of estimation very biased.

You will love the discussion on the 15-year hiatus in temperature changes.



Admit the 15 year hiatus. That's a start because they have no choice and it's counter all their fancy models.



Admit there are large internal climate variations...enough to eliminate the entire contribution of 15 years of GHGs. Think about that.



Love these ones. We don't in fact know if oceans continued heat uptake by actual measurement, but it's very likely because...well it just is.



Combined their models simulated a lot of warming (see previous IPCC report AR4) but some of their models "tend" to overestimate warming due to GHGs? I'm just a moron reading the actual report like probably no one else on this board, but are they not saying they may not be able to accurately model 15 years of change of GHGs?

But the winner in this chapter so far is the revelation that.....up to now they had never included the carbon cycle in their modeling.



Earlier they are less....wishy washy about it not being included so it's not "more widespread", it just wasn't done much. Now...again I'm just a moron, but when modeling the effects of global CO2, shouldn't the carbon cycle regulating it be included? That's sort of science 101 (about the same as statistical significance). This paragraph nearly made me fall out of my chair.



So....they don't really understand the carbon cycle? That was stunning. Even I assumed they had a better fix on the CO2 dynamics than that. They are just assuming things from the atmospheric observations...assuming. That's not science.

All of this is directly from the IPCC reports. It's full of....we don't really know but our best estimates are that it's a major problem that'll change global temperatures a fraction of a degree. (basically 0.2%K). Fair enough but that's what the state of the science is. It's a lot of interesting research, but THEY ADMIT full of holes.

Like Linus Pauling years ago at Wake, I think most of the change is solar with a secondary driver making up 10-15% (which was his statement, not mine). However, that driver could be anything at this point, we just don't know. Too much politics and activism interfering to tell.

The entire report is riddled with assumptions and conclusions drawn out of thin air. It's pathetic to see such a rag tag collection of initial "researchers" who will apparently receive the perpetual rubber stamp...

You talk about a bunch no. Qualified mother for ya's .An "eye, ear, nose and throat" specialist -- Wtfk

Yes sir. The tax man cometh.
 
Last edited:
You all are referencing this IPCC report right?

"IT HAS been a long time coming. But then the fifth assessment of the state of the global climate by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a United Nations body, was a behemoth of an undertaking. It runs to thousands of pages, involved hundreds of scientists and was exhaustively checked and triple-checked by hundredds of other boffins and government officials to whom they report—and whose policies are often based on what they read. The first tranche of the multi-volume report—an executive summary of the physical science—was released in Stockholm on September 27th. And it is categorical in its conclusion: climate change has not stopped and man is the main cause.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/09/ipcc-climate-change-report
 
The entire report is riddled with assumptions and conclusions drawn out of thin air. It's pathetic to see such a rag tag collection of initial "researchers" who will apparently receive the perpetual rubber stamp...

You talk about a bunch no. Qualified mother for ya's .An "eye, ear, nose and throat" specialist -- Wtfk

Yes sir. The tax man cometh.

I'm out. Go see a psychiatrist, you need help.
 
Here some embarrassment for the good carbonated captain:

In a stunning development today, the community of global climate scientists announced that the problem of global warming is actually one of global cooling, overturning decades of previously accepted, peer-reviewed science. Apparently, a few weeks ago, a graduate student at the University of California discovered, through the mistaken introduction of an erroneous "minus" sign into all climate data sets back in 1882, that all data suggesting growing concentrations of greenhouse gases, rising temperatures, increasing sea level, disappearing ice, and other changes were actually completely backward.

"We're very embarrassed," said Dr. Melissa Tonnennsen, a climate scientist with NASA, "but we must admit that sign errors do occasionally occur. We normally discover them, but this one slipped by us for over a century. The climate is still changing -- we got that right -- it's just that everything is going in the other direction."

When the error in each data set is corrected, the global average temperature can be seen clearly to be declining (Figure 1), sea level is dropping, not rising, and the amount of ice in the Arctic is really growing rapidly, not decreasing (Figure 2). Even the iconic image of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, measured for half a century at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, turns out to be wrong -- affected by the same error. Figure 3 shows that in fact, atmospheric carbon dioxide is dropping, not rising. "We now realize," said Dr. Tonnennsen, "that burning fossil fuels takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, it doesn't put it in."



Figure 1: The new 4/1/13 estimate of global temperature trends.


Figure 2: The new 4/1/13 estimate of Arctic ice volume trends.


Figure 3: The new 4/1/13 estimate of atmospheric CO2 trends.
Asked to explain the extensive photos, radar sets, and images taken from satellites that show disappearing Arctic ice, rising sea levels, and increasing storms, Dr. Eli Melloton of the National Ice Observatory acknowledged that all of these satellite data also suffered from the same sign error. "In fact, when we reprocessed the image data after correcting for the error, all of our conclusions reversed." Reporters then asked about the reports of disappearing ice from observers in the Arctic and sea-level rise evidence from coastal communities. "It turns out no one really bothered to go outside and look," Melloton said, "we just assumed the information on our computer screens was right. When our guy in Alaska went to the window, it turns out there's still lots of snow and ice there."

When asked how this simple error could have propagated through every single database of temperature, ice extent, frequency of extreme events, sea level, and all of the other indicators that so definitively showed rising global temperatures, Melloton sheepishly admitted, "Well, we just copy each other's work -- we've done it since graduate school when only one guy in the class knew the answers to the exam questions and the rest of us just copied his paper. Turns out he was wrong too."
 
Here some embarrassment for the good carbonated captain:

In a stunning development today, the community of global climate scientists announced that the problem of global warming is actually one of global cooling, overturning decades of previously accepted, peer-reviewed science. Apparently, a few weeks ago, a graduate student at the University of California discovered, through the mistaken introduction of an erroneous "minus" sign into all climate data sets back in 1882, that all data suggesting growing concentrations of greenhouse gases, rising temperatures, increasing sea level, disappearing ice, and other changes were actually completely backward.

"We're very embarrassed," said Dr. Melissa Tonnennsen, a climate scientist with NASA, "but we must admit that sign errors do occasionally occur. We normally discover them, but this one slipped by us for over a century. The climate is still changing -- we got that right -- it's just that everything is going in the other direction."

When the error in each data set is corrected, the global average temperature can be seen clearly to be declining (Figure 1), sea level is dropping, not rising, and the amount of ice in the Arctic is really growing rapidly, not decreasing (Figure 2). Even the iconic image of rising carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, measured for half a century at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, turns out to be wrong -- affected by the same error. Figure 3 shows that in fact, atmospheric carbon dioxide is dropping, not rising. "We now realize," said Dr. Tonnennsen, "that burning fossil fuels takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, it doesn't put it in."



Figure 1: The new 4/1/13 estimate of global temperature trends.


Figure 2: The new 4/1/13 estimate of Arctic ice volume trends.


Figure 3: The new 4/1/13 estimate of atmospheric CO2 trends.
Asked to explain the extensive photos, radar sets, and images taken from satellites that show disappearing Arctic ice, rising sea levels, and increasing storms, Dr. Eli Melloton of the National Ice Observatory acknowledged that all of these satellite data also suffered from the same sign error. "In fact, when we reprocessed the image data after correcting for the error, all of our conclusions reversed." Reporters then asked about the reports of disappearing ice from observers in the Arctic and sea-level rise evidence from coastal communities. "It turns out no one really bothered to go outside and look," Melloton said, "we just assumed the information on our computer screens was right. When our guy in Alaska went to the window, it turns out there's still lots of snow and ice there."

When asked how this simple error could have propagated through every single database of temperature, ice extent, frequency of extreme events, sea level, and all of the other indicators that so definitively showed rising global temperatures, Melloton sheepishly admitted, "Well, we just copy each other's work -- we've done it since graduate school when only one guy in the class knew the answers to the exam questions and the rest of us just copied his paper. Turns out he was wrong too."

lectro just posted an April Fools blog post

lolzzz

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-h-gleick/breaking-news-climate-cha_b_2994164.html

"Breaking News: Climate Change Is Real, But the Earth Is Actually Cooling Rapidly
Posted: 04/01/2013 3:47 pm

Follow: April Fools Day , Climate Change , April Fools Day , Climate Change , Carbon Dioxide , April Fools Day Pranks , Climate Denial , Sea Level Rise , Green News"
 
Last edited:
Wow, just wow. I think this just proves my point that Lectro doesn't read or understand the things he posts. No fucking way you could actually read that article and think it was legit. Some of my favorite gems

"We now realize," said Dr. Tonnennsen, "that burning fossil fuels takes carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, it doesn't put it in."

"It turns out no one really bothered to go outside and look," Melloton said, "we just assumed the information on our computer screens was right. When our guy in Alaska went to the window, it turns out there's still lots of snow and ice there."

"Well, we just copy each other's work -- we've done it since graduate school when only one guy in the class knew the answers to the exam questions and the rest of us just copied his paper. Turns out he was wrong too."

A spokesman of the Institute for Tobacco, Sugar, Climate, Rifles, and Pistols (ITSCRAP), Max Zimmerly, appeared on Fox News with Senator James Inhofe to blast the science community. "We will continue to fight against these scientists and their socialistic green agenda," Zimmerly said. "I said it was a hoax," added Senator Inhofe, "I did, I did, I did. So nyah, nyah, nyah."

Well-known climate denier, Luigi Erg, also dismissed the new report on his website, climatetrollsareus.com.
 
I was trying to help you lectro before you possibly pulled off the most epic fail in the history of this board.
 
Damn it Capt. now he's going to claim he was kidding all along.
 
You guys need to just shut the fuck up and listen to pour and Lectro (although Lectro's last post cost him some points) on this entire climate change fiasco. You need to follow the fucking money. There's over a trillion dollars of tainted money behind this whole scheme. It's just a ploy to confuse the masses. Suckers.

Big Oil Total Profits Over Past Decade (billions)

Code:
Company          Total Profits (2003-2012)

ExxonMobil              344.0
Shell                   220.8
Chevron                 176.9
BP                      154.2
ConocoPhillips          125.2
Total Profits       $ 1,021.1
 
This alarmist has a dire warning:

It’s Not Too Late To Reverse The Alarming Trend Of Climate Change,’ Scientists Who Know It’s Too Late Announce

GENEVA—With the implementation of tighter carbon emissions caps and more responsible household energy use, it is not too late to reverse the dire course of global warming, a panel of scientists who know full well that it is far too late and we are all doomed told reporters today. “If we all do our part right now to design and enforce more responsible business and environmental practices, there’s still a good chance we can avoid the calamitous consequences of worldwide climate change,” said climatologist Dr. Kevin Little, a man who, deep in his heart, knows all too acutely that it’s over, there’s not a damned thing we can do, and so we might as well just start preparing now for what is certain to be the unprecedented destruction of human civilization at the hands of a ravaged ecosystem. “It will take massive investment and cooperation on a global scale, but I’m optimistic we can be in good shape by around 2030 or so.” The researchers who awake each morning with the grim realization that they are bearing witness to mankind’s sad, inevitable endgame also suggested there is still very much a chance of stabilizing the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice.
 
This alarmist has a dire warning:

It’s Not Too Late To Reverse The Alarming Trend Of Climate Change,’ Scientists Who Know It’s Too Late Announce

GENEVA—With the implementation of tighter carbon emissions caps and more responsible household energy use, it is not too late to reverse the dire course of global warming, a panel of scientists who know full well that it is far too late and we are all doomed told reporters today. “If we all do our part right now to design and enforce more responsible business and environmental practices, there’s still a good chance we can avoid the calamitous consequences of worldwide climate change,” said climatologist Dr. Kevin Little, a man who, deep in his heart, knows all too acutely that it’s over, there’s not a damned thing we can do, and so we might as well just start preparing now for what is certain to be the unprecedented destruction of human civilization at the hands of a ravaged ecosystem. “It will take massive investment and cooperation on a global scale, but I’m optimistic we can be in good shape by around 2030 or so.” The researchers who awake each morning with the grim realization that they are bearing witness to mankind’s sad, inevitable endgame also suggested there is still very much a chance of stabilizing the rapid loss of Arctic sea ice.

How is that alarmist?:eek:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top