Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12161 - 12180 of total 26687 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 29, 2013 - 09:56am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#318485

Thanks Chief, now get out there on your mountain bike. You need more exercise, so get out on those fire roads.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 29, 2013 - 09:59am PT
Mono has that one photo, and he's gonna beat the world to death with it.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:02am PT
Peachy. Writing proposals for funding always makes my day happy. How about you?
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:03am PT
How do you reach the pedals when you're sitting on the Yellow Pages?

Nope. Just need my address book. Remember, I don't have any friends so go figure how thick that is.


Jealous aren't ya FRONTALOBOTME. Aren't you. I know you are. Your Old Lady won't allow anything of the sorts in your home. We know who indeed where's the britches there.

Now what was that piece of shetfk hoopty you ride daily? Oh yea...




NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!

monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:06am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#318485

You won't burn much fat in that car Chief either.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:09am PT
MONO:
You won't burn much fat in that car Chief either.

AH, guess what dumbass, it aint a "CAR". You just shot your credibility right down the shitter. A car.




What you ride MONO...


Oh yeah, forgot:




NIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIICE!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:10am PT
Now yer talking, Chief. Cavemen were not fat. You should be able to drop some pounds now.



^^ this is what you should be fantasizing about ^^

You will have to beef up the suspension first.
lysenkod

Mountain climber
Jersey city
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:15am PT
I am climate skeptic. Global warming is a fact (just check some glaciers year on year) but causality by increase of CO2 emissions is a myth. No credible scientific evidence...lots of data manipulation to get required results. Unproved human-caused climate change idea is a dangerous one..as it gives a false hope that it could be reverted by some policy action...then the right course of action will be to prepare to the inevitable.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:16am PT
Nice first ST post. Thanks for the contribution.

Maddog may have a job for you.

See ya all later, I'm heading out for the morning workout. On my road bike of course.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:33am PT
I do need to get me a cheap assed beater car with good gas mileage.

Its an economic decision, just like it is the world over....

But that van I'm keeping till it drops off the deep end of the money pit.

DMT
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:41am PT
Mad dog ..... I look at it the way - I,m the CEO of the Mother Earth corporation. I've got some decisions to make and you aren't making it easy. I don't know how you and all your pain in the ass scientist friends draw your conclusions but I do know your conclusions matter more than anything the janitor will tell me so you,ve got some explaining to do. I'm Interested so that isn't the problem. If there,s no AGW no one will be happier than me cuz I love burning fossil fuels.

BWTF man, if you are claiming both credibility and opinion contrary to a strong consensus then you gotta lay it out in a language dumb asses like I can get. You have to be persuasive. Don't pretend distraction by the pissing matches. Start explaining otherwise your ass is fired.

On this thread at least, as far as I,m concerned.
FörtMental

Social climber
Albuquerque
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:49am PT
BWTF man, if you are claiming both credibility and opinion contrary to a strong consensus then you gotta lay it out in a language dumb asses like I can get.

That's the thing.... he thinks tweaking knobs in a plane and brushing against greatness means instant credibility. I once sat at Mario Molina's table at an AGU meeting. That makes me qualified to feed his cat.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:06am PT
Bruce: Scan back a few pages to where I mentioned ocean surface temperature measurements. I believe the temperature rise over the last ~hundred years is real. My *OPINION* is that burning fossil fuels is a contributor to the temperature rise. The issue is that we don't know the relative amount of that contribution because of nature of the global energy budget estimates.

What are simple stats? Average, mean, median, standard deviation, etc. If you take the time to determine the uncertainty limits for the various components of the energy budget, you'll see how difficult it is to nail down a clear-cut cause. Our estimates are not even close to being accurate enough to draw concise conclusions.

Researchers need funding for their programs to survive. Dovetail that simple fact into your reality check.

To me, it's a moot point. We all want clean water, clean air and we want to avoid trashing the environment. The human race is not doing a good job at becoming more environmentally responsible. Not even close. Until the majority of the people on the planet are getting their energy from solar, tide, wind, etc., we're going the wrong direction.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:18am PT
"That's the thing.... he thinks tweaking knobs in a plane and brushing against greatness means instant credibility."

You really don't have a clue about what I think. So I'll try again: This science is still in its infancy. I went into those NASA projects with a slight bias towards believing the hype - that fossil fuel combustion was a major contributor to our current temperature rise. But I listened to those that are leading the research and the most consistent message I heard was that the uncertainties in the energy budget are excessive and must be minimized in order to sort out the chaos. This from the mouths of our global expertise - the same guys that in TV interviews are spreading fear - those same people in the lab are admitting how far off we are from knowing the facts.

It was the unity of voice in that global research community that was most sobering. Again, if we already know that fossil fuel consumption is the culprit, then why is so much work going into improving data quality for our energy budget?

For you armchair scientists, maybe you remember the acid-rain scare a few decades ago. If you have a large university nearby, go dig back into the 70's and 80's literature and see the gloom and doom. Now follow the research forward and find out what has been learned through improvements in measurement technology. And report back to us what those tech improvements brought to the acid-rain discussion. I suspect the future will bring significant refinements to the GW discussion, as we learn to measure and estimate the energy budget better.
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:19am PT
Yes the policy decisions are tricky but we are not there yet according to you. We are still dithering with cause. Sorry but I must not have understood the meaning of your oceans observation. DOes it have to do with capacity to absorb / mitigate CO2 warming or is it a natural cause of the warming?

You mention solar flares and some other stuff that all credible opinion so far says cannot be significant compared to Effect of CO2. You disagree with the consensus or you say the consensus is o er stated / des nt exist? Can you substantiate this?

There is no point discussing policy until we have actionable science to work off


Ok - upon retreading I think I follow what you just said about oceans etc
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:34am PT
"Sorry but I must not have understood the meaning of your oceans observation. DOes it have to do with capacity to absorb / mitigate CO2 warming or is it a natural cause of the warming?"

I think the ocean is a huge heat sink for surface heat [natural (sun), FFC, etc.] Thus the widely documented average ocean surface temperature rise is a cause for concern and makes the greenhouse debate well worth having. So we need to continue to get better at the science approaches to measuring all of the different inputs and exhausts for global energy.

But we also have to consider what we know about the past. Geologists believe they have evidence for cyclic surface temperature history - recurring ice ages interspersed with warmer times. Given that, and the fact that we're not yet good at measuring global heat flux, what makes us think we can arbitrarily point the finger at CO2, FFC, etc? The naked truth is that we do not have adequate data quality to make that call. Yet.



Ed: you are going to need to dig way deeper into acid rain than Wiki. Look at what's been learned in the last 15 years on the fate of airborne acidic contaminants. Also, find out what the global airborne acid flux has been versus time to see how effective our regs have been. Some reduction was accomplished for gasoline-fueled passenger cars, for example, but what about diesel vehicles and industrial diesel uses? Coal? The bottom line is that early studies were inadequate to fully understand the atmospheric chemistry involved. We're still not there but it's moving along much better now.

From that Wiki link:

"Governments have made efforts since the 1970s to reduce the release of sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere with positive results"

And now let's talk measurement science... At the time we were flying MIRAGE over Mexico City, a "World Record" SO2 measurement was made - over a factor of 2 higher than ever measured before. How, exactly, is that a 'positive result'? And as you do your literature research, look at what has been learned about SO2 in the upper atmosphere.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:44am PT
Putting air and surface temperatures in perspective, John Nielsen-Gammon (the Texas state climatologist and a lively, analytical blogger) reports on a keynote talk at last month's Davos Atmosphere and Cryosphere Assembly.

The Tuesday evening talk was by Greenland expert Valerie Masson-Delmotte. She started out by giving some numbers on where the excess heat (caused by the Tyndall-gas-induced radiative imbalance) was going: 1% into the atmosphere, 3% for melting ice, 3% into the land surface, and 93% into the ocean.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/07/greenland-update/


How much do we know about ocean warming, and the uncertainties in its calculation? A new paper in Reviews of Geophysics, by John Abraham and 27 others, addresses these questions in detail (emphasis added in the quotation below).

A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change

The evolution of ocean temperature measurement systems is presented with a focus on the development and accuracy of two critical devices in use today (expendable bathythermographs and CTDs – conductivity-temperature-depth instruments used on Argo floats). A detailed discussion of the accuracy of these devices and a projection of the future of ocean temperature measurements are provided. The accuracy of ocean temperature measurements is discussed in detail in the context of ocean heat content, Earth's energy imbalance, and thermosteric sea level rise. Up-to-date estimates are provided for these three important quantities. The total energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere is best assessed by taking an inventory of changes in energy storage. The main storage is in the ocean; the latest values of which are presented. Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multi-decadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflect the impact of anthropogenic warming. With respect to sea-level rise, mutually reinforcing information from tide gauges and radar altimetry show that presently, sea-level is rising at approximately 3 mm yr-1 with contributions from both thermal expansion and mass accumulation from ice melt. The latest data for thermal expansion sea-level rise are included here and analyzed.
....
Despite these potential future improvements to ocean monitoring, past and present measurements show that the Earth is experiencing a net gain in heat, largely from anthropogenic factors [Hansen et al., 2005; Levitus et al., 2001]; although, the magnitude differs among individual studies. For ocean heat content, there have been multi-decadal increases in energy content over the entire water column. Two recent detection and attribution analyses [Gleckler et al., 2012; Pierce et al., 2012] have significantly increase confidence since the last IPCC AR4 report that the warming (thermal expansion) observed during the late 20th century, in the upper 700 m of the ocean, is largely due to anthropogenic factors. For sea-level rise, despite spatial and temporal non-uniformity, the global trend is approximately 3 mm yr-1 over the past 20 years, with a large contribution from thermal expansion.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:52am PT
Your comment about research grants raises a red flag. You are implying that perpetuating a myth is advantageous to researchers for financial reasons. Is that true? You think this is a significant factor in the formation and perpetuation of the present consensus?

We don,t have time for vague allusions which can be interpreted a number of ways. If my above interpretation is correct then you at risk of being pegged a conspiracy theorist, Incidentally, I don't discount that such things occur but I doubt that they are of a significance worth weighting, much like the consensus seems to regard solar farts or what ever.

For shmoes like me it all boils down to this: Is the consensus the credible authority or not? it hinges on two things:

1) is there a consensus? Answer is yes unless you can prove otherwise.

2) Can we trust them? The answer is yes for anyone who understands the weight of historical record of scientific success given enough resource and time to form opinion such as that now represented by the AGW consensus.

The only possible problem would be the possibility of corruption, such as your allusion to persuit of research grants influencing scientific conclusions. Again, we know such things occur but to what extent? Is the 97 percent figure corrupt by 2 percent or 20 percent? If it is 2 then don't mention it again but if it is 20 then there must be evidence. Where is it?

How about the 3 percent? Might there be some corruption there as well? To what extent? Is there evidence?

As you can see you have a lot of persuading to do.
FörtMental

Social climber
Albuquerque
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:52am PT
Mad69Dog wrote:

For you armchair scientists, maybe you remember the acid-rain scare a few decades ago. If you have a large university nearby, go dig back into the 70's and 80's literature and see the gloom and doom. Now follow the research forward and find out what has been learned through improvements in measurement technology. And report back to us what those tech improvements brought to the acid-rain discussion.

I don't remember that being a scare at all, but a reality. The Adirondacks, for one, were full of dead or dying lakes and giant swaths of Pennsylvania hillsides covered in dead trees. Please, tell us what new 'tech improvements' has told us about old predictions.


The bottom line is that early studies were inadequate to fully understand the atmospheric chemistry involved.

So.... we should wait until we have more sensors.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:56am PT
"Your comment about research grants raises a red flag. You are implying that perpetuating a myth is advantageous to researchers for financial reasons. Is that true? You think this is a significant factor in the formation and perpetuation of the present consensus?"

Environmentalists always have and always will feed off of media hype to keep their grant money coming in. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Go out on missions with these top scientists and the media hype vanishes and they talk about the real issues involved to get to the point where the community truly knows cause and effect.

"As you can see you have a lot of persuading to do."

No. I have no expectations of persuading anyone of anything. That's not how this works. We're way past the point of coming to conclusions. The guilty verdict was announced long ago, yet what is being done? Very little. I'm just saying the the hype the layperson hears is very different than what active environmental scientists hear when out on research missions.
Messages 12161 - 12180 of total 26687 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews