Welcome to PatsFans.com

The hockey stick lives

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Patters, Sep 23, 2010.

  1. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    18,068
    Likes Received:
    190
    Ratings:
    +265 / 10 / -11

    The 'Hockey Stick' Lives - NYTimes.com

    Yet while the attacks continue, the “hockey stick” graph’s basic premise — that the planet’s recent warming is unprecedented over at least the last millennium — continues to draw support from a growing number of independent studies.

    Two new studies bolstering the “hockey stick” hypothesis were published just recently. One that appeared this month in the journal Geophysical Research Letters analyzed seashell deposits on the North Atlantic seafloor and determined that 20th-century warming in the region “had no equivalent during the last thousand years.”

    Another study, in The Journal of Geophysical Research, analyzed ice cores from glaciers in the eastern Bolivian Andes dating back to 400 A.D.

    “The last decades of the past millennium are characterized again by warm temperatures that seem to be unprecedented in the context of the last 1,600 years,” the researchers concluded.
  2. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    Here we go again.
  3. IcyPatriot

    IcyPatriot ------------- PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    39,119
    Likes Received:
    475
    Ratings:
    +1,048 / 9 / -19

    #87 Jersey


    Is it an old wooden stick or a newer graphite model?
  4. Stokes

    Stokes Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2006
    Messages:
    2,423
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Slightly OT but I enjoyed this article today:

    "We Can't "Fix" the Planet
    There's no easy solution for climate change. It's a symptom of our man-made world"

    http://www.slate.com/id/2268492/
    Last edited: Sep 24, 2010
  5. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ever play street hockey back in the day with kids that would bend the business end of the stick like 90 degrees? Made for a wicked wrister.
  6. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +520 / 6 / -2

    Dude, i remember those. Your buddy would shoot at his own net, and the puck/ball would fling around in a 180 degree turn, and hit the opposing goalie straight in the nutz, cuz he never knew a shot was coming to begin with. :D

    On a serious note, I just picked up a sweet arse Bauer One composite. The fugger is bad arse. I had been using my aluminum Nike for at least 12 years now (I play dek hockey in leagues), but it cracked last week, and I can't believe how much harder my shot is with this bad boy. They are expensive sticks though. Lucky I got mine on sale.
  7. Titus Pullo

    Titus Pullo Banned

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2009
    Messages:
    2,612
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    define dek hockey. they have leagues?

    [hijack]who's ready for the Horton era?

    [​IMG]

    [/hijack]

    yes, i believe climate change is real, and man's fossil fuel consumption is largely to blame.

    back to your discussion, sorry.
    Last edited: Sep 25, 2010
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13

    So lets assume that these studies are correct and the hundreds of studies showing Medieval Warming period was warmer are all incorrect. These studies in and of themselves do nothing to prove that CO2 is driving the climate currently. They are merely claims about temps over the past millennia based on temp proxies. In point of fact that is what almost all "Climate" studies do to support the hypothesis of Warming based on Human activity producing CO2.



    The entire hypothesis rest on the idea that increases on a trace gas CO2 creates a positive feedback loop with Water Vapor that causes the greenhouse effect. In the absence of the proposed positive feedback effect there is no runaway warming, if the feedbacks are negative the climate system is stable (absent outside factors ie: Changes in Solar activity, Cosmic rays in the atmosphere, the Solar System position in the Galaxy and so on).


    To review the scientific method for a moment (as opposed to claims of consensus which is a political not a scientific term). You proposed a hypothesis, in this case Human CO2 production creates a positive feedback with water vapor which causes temperature increase. Then you create a mathematical model that describes the process. This model defines boundary conditions, assumption of basic parameters and variables, initial conditions, and inputs to the model. Then you run iterations of the model to see how the system should change over time.


    When you see the results of the model, you then compare the results of the model with measurements of the system IOW you compare what your model predicts with observations of how the Real World behaves. If you model's predictions match observation you have a good model that describes the system accurately. If observation doesn't match the model then the model is wrong, some assumption or parameter is wrong and you modify the model.


    SO what is the sensitivity of the Climate to CO2, a high sensitivity indicates a positive feedback, a low sensitivity indicates a negative feedback (IOW the CO2 effect will be marginal maybe .1C)



    So how do the predictions of the Climate models match observation?

    here are 2 links with a brief summary:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/08/31/does-co₂-heat-the-troposphere/

    http://sciencespeak.com/SimpleHotspot.pdf


    So the climate model that is the basis for the Climate Disruption narrative doesn't match observation, there are errors. The predicted did not occur where it was supposed to occur if the models were correct.

    Here is a more complete paper (26 pages) on the Hot Spot predicted by the Hansen and his modeling buddies at CRU and what observation actually shows:

    http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf]Does CO? heat the troposphere ? | Watts Up With That?


    So now the question is where are the problems in the models used by the alarmist?

    These two papers deal with the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect the first deals with the assumptions made in the Hansen/CRU climate models and how the relate to boundary conditions.

    These are peer reviewed papers. The first is 40 pages:

    http://met.hu/idojaras/IDOJARAS_vol111_No1_01.pdf

    The abstract for the paper:


    The bolded area is the important the assumptions in the models overestimates the sensitivity of the climate to CO2 forcing. This paper does not deal with observations directly, they deal with mathematical issues in the models, how the green house is models and errors in the boundary conditions (ie the alarmistmodels assume the atmosphere has infinite thickness, which you can easily disprove by trying to breathe at the peak of Mt Everest).

    continued next post.
    Last edited: Sep 28, 2010
  9. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13

    Part 2 of Are alarmist climate models supported by observation?

    So in Part 1 we saw that the Alarmist Climate Models predicting high CO2 sensitivity don't match the measurements of the actual temps in the atmosphere, and a paper of mathematical problems in the alarmist models. Now we will look at physical mechanisms to show why the observed climate sensitivity is low and why the feedbacks observed are negative and not the positive one assumed by the alarmist.

    Another peer reviewed paper from Miskolczi, this paper examines the models in the context of observations of the actual behavior of the atmosphere.


    http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/E&E_21_4_2010_08-miskolczi.pdf

    The abstract for the paper:


    Spenser has just published his peer reviewed paper supporting his hypothesis that cloud formation and precipitation form a negative feed the first link is a summary and simple explanation of the mechanism.

    Five Reasons Why Water Vapor Feedback Might Not Be Positive Roy Spencer, Ph. D.

    Here is a link to the peer reviewed paper from Spenser on clouds and precipitation feedbacks:

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/Spencer-Braswell-JGR-2010.pdf

    The abstract:


    So we can see that observation is showing a scenario that there is no forcing for CO2 relative to water vapor, so climate sensitivity is low and more CO2 will have a tiny effect on Global temps.


    So all the clatter about consensus about MMGW is noise, the emperor has no clothes or if you prefer Hansen's house of cards has fallen apart. Now the modelers would have to develop new models that show high climate sensitivity and matches the observations of atmospheric temps.


    BTW the Spenser contention isn't fully proven he will tell you that BUT it is a much better explanation of what we measure in the Real World the the computer models of Hansen and CRU.

    Observation and measurement always trumps models.

    I would note all the quotes are taken from academic papers and are not commercial sites.
  10. chicowalker

    chicowalker On the Roster

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2010
    Messages:
    13,102
    Likes Received:
    126
    Ratings:
    +253 / 3 / -4

    OT: yeah, made it easy to defend them, though -- not much use for backands or handling the puck (ball)
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,121
    Likes Received:
    219
    Ratings:
    +520 / 6 / -2

    Dek hockey is basically roller hockey, or ice (minus the ice of course), without the skates. It's arguably harder than using blades, since there's no coasting, and so much stop and go. It's a work out, that's for sure.

    As for the thread topic, I don't buy doomsday propoganda. Never have, never will. When someone is schilling a book, always apply salt to whatever it is they're currently saying. That's one rule I have. Another, is the Public Enema rule, which is simple, and applies to doomsday scenario's and sellers. It goes, don't believe the hype. If the pimpers of the propoganda weren't attempting to steal hard earned dollars with crazy taxes, applying them only to the richest nations, while exempting some of the worlds worst polluters, I might not be so skeptical. That doesn't even get into the techical aspects, of data, theory, sample size, and the rest of it. :D
  12. Wolfpack

    Wolfpack Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2009
    Messages:
    9,111
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Amen, brother. The left has to sell fear to advance their agenda. They want to create an imaginary enemy that only their policies can defeat.
  13. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,858
    Likes Received:
    107
    Ratings:
    +236 / 8 / -13

    The statest around the world have trillion of reasons to push their fraud. The money from energy taxes and trading schemes.

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>