Page 4 of 56 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 829

Thread: OT: Duke Climate Change Study

  1. #46
    True Blue Golden Bear sycasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland
    Posts
    15,612
    Quote Originally Posted by BerlinerBaer View Post
    I'm reminded of the aftermath of the 2012 election, when conservatives just couldn't fathom how Obama got re-elected since they didn't know a single soul who voted for him...
    I'll just leave this old thread link here for amusement.

    http://bearinsider.com/forums/showth...day-s-Election

  2. #47
    True Blue Golden Bear sycasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland
    Posts
    15,612
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    other than wanting to spend my tax dollars spent on questionable projects or regulation.
    How do you suggest environmental and climate issues be addressed other than through government projects and/or regulation? Private businesses aren't going to stop polluting out of the goodness of their hearts.

  3. #48
    Quote Originally Posted by bearister View Post
    Where were your brilliant inquiring minds when you let Bush/Cheney and their Neocon posse lead our Country down the path to destruction in the Middle East? If you were toughest on your own you would push to have those responsible for chalk boarding that pretextual war tried as war criminals. Please provide the list of lies you reference at the end of your post so I can conduct some research.
    Just as a tangential statement that gets play here in Nevada, one lie Reid stating that Romney had not paid taxes for the last 12 years before the election. He has admitted that it was not true and he doesn't care that he lied on the Senate floor where he is protected from libel charges.

    But to be fair both sides lie. The above is recent and current news in Nevada...

  4. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by sycasey View Post
    How do you suggest environmental and climate issues be addressed other than through government projects and/or regulation? Private businesses aren't going to stop polluting out of the goodness of their hearts.
    All I've been asking for is have a good basis and foundation for trillion dollar programs. I'm not convinced that is present yet based on my following the debate since I did Graduate work in Meteorology many many years ago.

    In the interest of discussion, what about a change to a combination of energy sources and Storage (a BIG issue) while spending more money on mitigation of climate change issues, meaning planning for sea level rise, shifting rain patterns (hello California), better crop planning and rotation for new climate patterns, if these occur. Until China and India get on board how do we justify denying cheaper energy sources for developing countries in Africa?

  5. #50
    Not that I share their political views, but some of the loudest voices against the wars were from the libertarian wing of the GOP, like Rand Paul's dad. Bob Scheer on LR&C is always mentioning conservatives who were against, in particular, the Iraq invasion. At the time as I can recall, it seemed almost everyone was in favor of the war in Afghanistan (post 9-11 fervor) and most politicians held their nose and supported Iraq 2. It was when things went bad that people changed their minds or revised the history of what they believed.

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushinbear View Post
    Bearister, unless you've read my blog, you have no clue about my position on Obamacare (by the way, it's titled The Affordable Care Act, not the Affordable Healthcare Act, as long as we're trying for accuracy). I assume you haven't read the posting - it's a four part series analyzing the law (written after I read it, in its entirety). Here's the link to Part 1, written April 9, 2013. See for yourself and let us know. PS any others interested are welcome to read it; it's just that Bearister made the accusation.

    http://freedomsfoundry.com/2013/04/0...can-do-part-1/
    Thanks for the link Rushin, I will check out your blog. I actually printed out and read the original House Bill too. In fact I took it with me in two huge binders when I flew to D.C. To lobby my Congressman against it. I pulled it out and pointed out the wording when his aide tried to tell me something that wasn't true during our meeting.

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by sycasey View Post
    I'll just leave this old thread link here for amusement.

    http://bearinsider.com/forums/showth...day-s-Election

    Hilarious!! What a gracious loser, that Sonofoski.

  8. #53
    Quote Originally Posted by sycasey View Post
    How do you suggest environmental and climate issues be addressed other than through government projects and/or regulation? Private businesses aren't going to stop polluting out of the goodness of their hearts.
    NO, businesses that pollute a lot either buy credits and pollute or move where they can pollute. That leaves us people who are polluting. So what are you doing? Waiting for others? Wishing the government somehow would make it all go away? By extracting one sentence you avoided the issues.

    Show me one federal program that is making a substantial impact on world climate change, as our country is now turning from being the largest consumer of fossil fuels to also now being an exporter of fossil fuels.

  9. #54

    The problem is typically the quality of the data.

    To apply statistical methods the data has to be gathered consistently for the entire population of the data. Consider that - "Fahrenheit (symbol F) is a temperature scale based on one proposed in 1724 by the German physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (16861736), after whom the scale is named." indicates that starting in 1724 we had the potential for consistent observed data recording of atmospheric temperature. That's not even 300 years ago. Maybe Duke Energy provided a time machine that allowed the grad students to go back and measure (observe) global temperatures. Somehow the Duke study was able to observe temperatures in the Western Hemisphere for 500 years before Columbus. Of course in the 1700's temperature recordings were not as exact as they are today and Centigrade/Celsius even reversed the direction of it's numerical scale. For some 700-800 years of the Duke Study the "observed data" is probably guestimated by sampling some glacial ice and redwood tree rings, not many other data sources provide an un-interrupted stream of possible data, certainly not 20th temperature methodology. More likely the observed climate data probably does not include observed temperature data for 1000 years so basically they developed computer modeling "observed temperature" data for 1000 years to refute other computer modeling studies. Pot versus Kettle.

    Interesting that a Doctoral study would generate such a stir; the guy has a future after he gets his degree...


    Quote Originally Posted by Rushinbear View Post
    Ahem. A Duke study of 1,000 years of observed climate data and not climate models concluded temperature variance due to "natural variability" and that temperature shifts are because of "ocean-atmosphere interaction and other natural factors."

    http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/glo.../24/id/640540/

  10. #55
    Quote Originally Posted by NVBear78 View Post
    Thanks for the link Rushin, I will check out your blog. I actually printed out and read the original House Bill too. In fact I took it with me in two huge binders when I flew to D.C. To lobby my Congressman against it. I pulled it out and pointed out the wording when his aide tried to tell me something that wasn't true during our meeting.
    Impressive. Maybe one in one thousand who commented on it read it. Some kinda stuff in there.

  11. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by sp4149 View Post
    To apply statistical methods the data has to be gathered consistently for the entire population of the data. Consider that - "Fahrenheit (symbol F) is a temperature scale based on one proposed in 1724 by the German physicist Daniel Gabriel Fahrenheit (16861736), after whom the scale is named." indicates that starting in 1724 we had the potential for consistent observed data recording of atmospheric temperature. That's not even 300 years ago. Maybe Duke Energy provided a time machine that allowed the grad students to go back and measure (observe) global temperatures. Somehow the Duke study was able to observe temperatures in the Western Hemisphere for 500 years before Columbus. Of course in the 1700's temperature recordings were not as exact as they are today and Centigrade/Celsius even reversed the direction of it's numerical scale. For some 700-800 years of the Duke Study the "observed data" is probably guestimated by sampling some glacial ice and redwood tree rings, not many other data sources provide an un-interrupted stream of possible data, certainly not 20th temperature methodology. More likely the observed climate data probably does not include observed temperature data for 1000 years so basically they developed computer modeling "observed temperature" data for 1000 years to refute other computer modeling studies. Pot versus Kettle.

    Interesting that a Doctoral study would generate such a stir; the guy has a future after he gets his degree...
    Makes sense. 1000 years is a long way back. I'll take 300 years of observed temps and derived figures from there back, if the treatment meets standards for such things. Beats the drivel spewed by those hoping we'll fall for policy analysis-level assumptions.

  12. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    NO, businesses that pollute a lot either buy credits and pollute or move where they can pollute. That leaves us people who are polluting. So what are you doing? Waiting for others? Wishing the government somehow would make it all go away? By extracting one sentence you avoided the issues.

    Show me one federal program that is making a substantial impact on world climate change, as our country is now turning from being the largest consumer of fossil fuels to also now being an exporter of fossil fuels.
    Has there been a federal program that has become law that has the intent of making a substantial impact on climate change?

    Individuals can only do so much. I've been driving a hybrid since 2008. I looked into solar power for my house but I have too many trees on the southern side. No, I'm not taking any personal drastic action (though my wife brings her own bags to the grocery store, which I find to be pretty drastic). But I support regulations that improve fuel efficiency and that brings cleaner energy to my home and work. These are things individuals can't do on their own (short of solar power). Only collective action will change the course. Just like where I grew up in smog-infested San Bernardino, but which now has clean air thanks to government regulation.

  13. #58
    Quote Originally Posted by Rushinbear View Post
    To all my fellow skeptics: it all depends whose ox is being gored. I never said that there is no change in the climate; just that:

    1. Warming is not proven by the deception of the IPCC, Al Gore or their acolytes, to the extent that there is warming (or cooling - see 1980);

    2. To the extent that there is warming and cooling, it is first and most massively, a complex natural process that is impacted by many more forces than those being argued by the CC believers. The climate changes...all by itself;

    3. To purport to be improving temperature change by giving big money to phony environmental corps like Solyndra solely because of their campaign (and other) donations, only to have them pocket the money and declare bankruptcy, is criminal;

    4. To purport to be improving temperature change through the taxation of every form of fossil fuel use and "carbon footprint" only to have the money go to the general fund coffers of the state is criminal;

    5. To discount the skepticism of an increasing number of scientists who are bucking the arm twisting of their peers is dishonest. The scientific community not controlled by the carrot-and-stick approach of the Administration (and, to some extent, I blame the prior ones, too), is beginning to speak out in opposition yet the vilification continues, even in the face of hard data that contradicts the conventional "wisdom."

    ...

    I've read over the statements by many of you in the last thread (Glob) and those going back some time and I've found precious little hard evidence in support of your position - lots of name calling and legerdemain, but little that's objective. For example, no one has yet even recognized, let alone tried to defend, that the IPCC relies on surface temperature readings to the exclusion of historic periodicity, solar, oceanic, and electromagnetic data. May I point out that surface temps are only a symptom (and poorly detected, at that) while the causal factors are ignored (perhaps because they cannot be accounted for in your calculations or that they may prove your claims false). Even in the responses in this thread, NewsMax is attacked as an unbelievable source, despite their merely reporting on a reputable study from a reputable source.

    And, you expected the Duke people, who had up to now drunk the Kool Aid, to come out and admit that they were dead wrong, completely, unequivocally and forever more? If you believe that, you don't understand people and higher ed financing principles. It took time to convince them that they should support Gore's and IPCC's position. It will take time for them to back away from it.

    And, for the record, I am not a Koch; I'm not in any way affiliated with them; I don't know them; I don't read any of their blogs or those of their followers. I've been studying this for 30 years from the day I first read NOAA data that showed them choosing the higher temperatures in every case of anomaly. I'm not offended that you might question my efforts on this. I just continue to hope that we can have a rational discussion about it.
    I am all in favor of skepticism and rational debate. But time and time again it appears to me that these two touch stones of logic and rationality are abused by the people refuse to accept the obvious. We just had an 11 page thread on global warming ('Oceanic Blob Blocks Rain and Snow in CA").
    Each time the deniers (sorry, "Skeptics") were painted into a logical corner they changed the discussion/argument. When weak arguments were pointed out or questionable sources were uncovered, their arguments changed. But again and again we came back to the same arguments. They will remain skeptics until overwhelming and undisputable evidence is presented. when it is, they will continue to argue that the evidence is not overwhelming and undisputable enough.

    So I am reposting one of my comments from that "Oceanic Blob" thread which replied to claim of one denier/skeptic citing the "Hansen is wrong" argument:

    Being a skeptic is not all bad but at some
    Other times some people claim to be a "skeptic" merely as ruse to cover their refusal to accept a conclusion they do not want to accept.

    At some point "skepticism" becomes willful blindness and I am reminded of Upton Sinclair's comment:
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."
    I would modify that statement slightly:
    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his wealth depends on his not understanding it."

    BTW relying on the "Hansen is wrong" argument might be approaching "willful blindness".

    Google "Skeptical Science" for a scientist's debunking of that the "Hansen is wrong" myth:
    (which begins with the following conclusion but also provides the scientific data that you might want to look at.)

    Misrepresentations of Hansen's Projections
    The 'Hansen was wrong' myth originated from testimony by scientist Pat Michaels before US House of Representatives in which he claimed "Ground-based temperatures from the IPCC show a rise of 0.11C, or more than four times less than Hansen predicted....The forecast made in 1988 was an astounding failure."

    This is an astonishingly false statement to make, particularly before the US Congress. It was also reproduced in Michael Crichton's science fiction novel State of Fear, which featured a scientist claiming that Hansen's 1988 projections were "overestimated by 300 percent." Moreover, Michaels has continued to defend this indefensible distortion...Michaels erased Hansen's Scenarios B and C despite the fact that as discussed above, Scenario A assumed continued exponential greenhouse gas growth, which did not occur. In other words, to support the claim that Hansen's projections were "an astounding failure," Michaels only showed the projection which was based on the emissions scenario which was furthest from reality
    .

    Also since Rushinbear challenges the IPCC report(s) I adding the reply of TummyoftheGB to RushinBear:

    I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say "the IPCC model", but to clear things up a bit (I hope) here are few facts about the business of climate science: One part of the IPCC assessment involves comparing the projections of more than a dozen independent conceptions of the climate system, commonly known as global climate models. There is no such thing as a single IPCC model. Institutions around the world (mine included) constructed these models that are, in essence, simply extensions of weather forecasting models (they work in precisely the same way, but include the ocean and are calculated over longer time intervals). They are independent in the sense that scientists have different ideas about how best to represent certain climate processes (such as cloud cover) via a computer code. The IPCC attempts to find the common elements of the various projections and then assigns a level of confidence based on the level of agreement. For example, if 20 different climate models from scientists around the world all agree that the global average temperature will rise by 3 deg C upon a doubling of atmospheric carbon dioxide, that projection is given "high confidence". Conversely, if rainfall patterns disagree among models, the average of many different climate models is given low confidence. One can certainly take issue with this method of finding consensus (all the models could be wrong in exactly the same way, for example), but the methods and assumptions are clearly stated. The models have been charged with different tasks. In one exercise, the collection of climate models try to "hind cast" the warming of the 20th century. Solar activity (as deduced from sun spot cycles) is in fact explicitly included in the model calculations that attempt to simulate the record of warming over the 20th century. Same goes for particulates (that block the sun). Climate change simulations covering thousands of years (e.g. ice age cycles) are much more rare, because the computer time required to simulate a 1000 years of climate is enormous and extremely expensive. So more simplified models that run more quickly have been used to analyze ice age cycles. The inescapable conclusion from all these exercises is that carbon dioxide is a powerful driving force for the climate system, regardless of whether the variability was natural or man made. The inescapable conclusion from these exercises is that it is impossible to explain the rise of temperatures in the 20th century without considering carbon dioxide.
    There are some aspects of how the ocean stirs the heat around that lead to climate variability. You mentioned the Pacific Decadal Oscillation as one example. A better known example is the El Nino phenomenon. It's true that this kind of climate variability will probably never be predicted with any real skill (for reasons that are too complex to explain here), but it's also true that it won't counteract the trend towards warmer global average temperatures--it rides on top of the trend.

    As far as your other assertions are concerned--the recording of temperature, the observations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, etc.--I don't really know where to begin, they're so far off base. Where are you getting your ideas? And why do believe the sources that tell you such crazy stuff as "only the highest temperatures are retained for the analysis" and "only surface temperatures are included". It's simply not true.

    I'm sorry to seem snide, but flat-out misrepresentations with zero basis in reality are being passed off as "rational debate". This amounts to a rude insult to me and a complete dismissal of my life's work. Imagine how you would feel if someone with no training in your work said that everything that you've ever done is BS.

  14. #59
    True Blue Golden Bear sycasey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Oakland
    Posts
    15,612
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    NO, businesses that pollute a lot either buy credits and pollute or move where they can pollute. That leaves us people who are polluting. So what are you doing? Waiting for others? Wishing the government somehow would make it all go away? By extracting one sentence you avoided the issues.

    Show me one federal program that is making a substantial impact on world climate change, as our country is now turning from being the largest consumer of fossil fuels to also now being an exporter of fossil fuels.
    So your position is what? That there is nothing we can do?

  15. #60
    Quote Originally Posted by wifeisafurd View Post
    NO, businesses that pollute a lot either buy credits and pollute or move where they can pollute. That leaves us people who are polluting. So what are you doing? Waiting for others? Wishing the government somehow would make it all go away? By extracting one sentence you avoided the issues.

    Show me one federal program that is making a substantial impact on world climate change, as our country is now turning from being the largest consumer of fossil fuels to also now being an exporter of fossil fuels.
    It is difficult to have any laws passed in a Congress where the party with power to block legislation is controlled by individuals who refuse to believe that there is any global warming or that it is caused by human activity. Therefore they refuse to do anything (especially if it costs any money) about what they say is an "imaginary" problem.



Posting Permissions

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