Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 12221 - 12240 of total 25079 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:00am PT
>Mario Molina would likely call you out on that.

I spoke at length with Mario and his team. They were all advocates for increasing sensor density to improve the ability to model cause and effect. Why? To improve the ability to correlate selected variables with gross observables (such as temperature).

So, if you were to ask Mario if there is a positive trend in global surface temperature, I suspect he would say: "Yes", but if you asked if he had direct proof that greenhouse gases were the dominant factor in producing the temperature rise, you'd start hearing numerous qualifying remarks.

The reason scientists like to work in a lab is because one hopes to isolate the effect of key variables. When working in the environment, one can develop incredible analytical tools, but one also has little to know ability to control those key variables. Thus the integrity of cause and effect.
FörtMental

Social climber
Albuquerque
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:13am PT
They were all advocates for increasing sensor density to improve the ability to model cause and effect. Why? To improve the ability to correlate selected variables with gross observables (such as temperature).

So? Totally not surprised.

So, if you were to ask Mario if there is a positive trend in global surface temperature, I suspect he would say: "Yes", but if you asked if he had direct proof that greenhouse gases were the dominant factor in producing the temperature rise, you'd start hearing numerous qualifying remarks.

And what would satisfy you as "Direct Proof" that CO2 is warming an entire planet? What was Molinas "direct proof" that CFCs caused the ozone hole? I'll bet the house that the link between CFC and ozone depletion was based on way thinner data than that which links CO2 to AGW.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:19am PT
Norton, right?

He blew all the credibility he built up with that one statement ;-)
Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:19am PT
You should be bantering this stuff with Ed or Chiloe but if you,ll humor me a bit, two things:

In a nut shell, my understanding in regarding the certainty or probability of AGW is based on not just the understanding of carbon influence ( considered well understood and adequately substantiated by observation) but also that the "natural" influences are understood well enough to only account for minor variation in change over the given time, thus known to be inconsequential relative to the rate of change.

You seem to be indicating that this understanding ( of the naturals at least ) is not adequately verifiable, meaning no matter the certainty of carbon emission effects, it may yet be proven to not be the dominant force.

again, the message I am getting, and not just through the popular media is that this is not true. the "unknowns" simply cannot account for observations without completely upsetting the "well knowns" of carbon emissions. I'm not sure if this makes sense but please have a stab at it.

which leads to the "trust ability" of institutional consensus. Conspiracies aside, at some point consensus must justify action . you suggest that it isn't there yet . This makes no sense considering that the " 97 percent" and all other institutional indications of certainty strongly suggest otherwise. I think you need to expand on this a little more than a vague allusion to media. We all know to take what they say about polar bears etc with a grain of salt. You dispute the significance of the 97 percent assertion as a valid indication of actionable certainty?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:33am PT
Mario Molina very much believes CO2 is the most important and worrysome cause of global warming.

He just wants more attention paid to other items like like black carbon soot, methane, hcfs, which may help keep us from reaching the tipping point.

Bharata

Mountain climber
Pune
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:40am PT
AGW is a perfectly obvious falsehood for thinking people.

More sea ice this summer and fewer high temperatures records
proving humanities CO2 contribution is irrelevant to climate.

Your promised climate change disasters are no where to be seen.

You now need a new hobby.
Perhaps choose to find a way to prevent forest fires. Haha!



Bruce Kay

Gym climber
BC
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:44am PT
Perhaps this helps..... I consider the 97 percent as a baseline, one that is substantiated more than enough to act on. Further inputs continue to support it or are inconsequential in challenging the premise of the baseline. Is that an accurate assessment?
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:35am PT
>Mario Molina very much believes CO2 is the most important and worrysome cause of global warming.

But has his group been able to provide correlative proof? Belief in a hypothesis is part of the method, but only part. The '07 NOAA pub was the first to claim correlation and they have taken endless flack since publishing.

>so how about moving over to a discussion as to what exactly we humans can or should do about this recent warming trend we are on?

Sustained reduction of human population down to 1 or 2 billion would do wonders.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:45am PT
Sustained reduction of human population down to 1 or 2 billion would do wonders.

damn good suggestion!
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:45am PT
>A glacial core sample that stretches back 20,000 years is a sporadic
>sample? Just cuz there's one?

One should not attempt to correlate global phenomena in chaotic systems by analysis of data taken from one location.

> If everybody decided that they just didn't have enough data,
>nothing would ever get done.

It's more important to do a few things really well than a whole bunch of things to a mediocre level of quality.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:52am PT
"damn good suggestion!"

And unfortunately one that has a snowball's chance in hell of happening.

I know the limitations of photovoltaics and the use of solar-powered steam generation to drive turbine generators. I'd love to see even a fraction of global revenues be put into these techs, even if they are not efficient enough to 'pay their own way', because turning sunlight into electrical energy is effectively anti-warming. It will take decades to get all of the required infrastructure in place.

"He blew all the credibility he built up with that one statement ;-)"

With all the sh#t-slinging that goes on here, a dose of humor goes a long way.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:02pm PT
But has his group been able to provide correlative proof?

No one feels obliged to prove anything to the fringe who will always deny.

And yeah, it was quite funny, when you claimed most leading climate scientists aren't sure that fuel combustion has warmed the planet.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:51pm PT
Well, let's see you determine the composite heat budget for the planet.

While you are at it, provide a jet stream model that is accurately predictive.

Until you can get correlation on a global scale, all you have is speculation. I agree with much of the speculation, just not the claims of proof.

>No one feels obliged to prove anything to the fringe who will always deny.

Then don't call it 'science'. Peer review is the very core of science.
The Chief

climber
From the Land of the Mongols
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:05pm PT
MADDOG!!

You knew Brutus??????
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:09pm PT
Yes sir! We only met face to face on that one trip, which was Alan Steck's 75th birthday party at Red Rocks. But we 'knew' each other for years through rec.climbing.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:13pm PT
We already have a good idea of where the heat is going. Sorry it doesn't meet your standards.


You've got some funny concepts about proof going their, Mad69dog. Good luck.

BTW, what's your definition of 100% correlative proof?
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:22pm PT
Yes, proof is science's troll to the layman.

Science does not actually aspire to provide proof in its purest form. Science attempts to eliminate conflicting possibilities. In this case, we have the ability to measure greenhouse gases in the atmosphere with adequate sensitivity and precision. But drawing a graph of CO2 alongside some indicator of temperature does not correlate the two unless you remove / correct for all other contributions to global heat. This is where even the most sophisticated models struggle - the global heat budget. Thus the need for far more sensors.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:26pm PT
That's why your demand for 'correlative proof' is funny. You seem to be understanding this now.

The last assessment of the science is we are 90% sure man is causing the warming.

The leaked assessment has moved that up to 95%.

You are just going to have to dig into the reports yourself for all the details.

And yep, lots of factors contributing to the climate system have been considered, not just CO2.
squishy

Mountain climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:29pm PT
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:34pm PT
>You seem to be understanding this now.

As if you could pretend to know...

But there is no proof because the global heat budget is a gross approximation. There is no proof. Yet. So feel free to believe what you will, just don't pretend that there is proof.

>The last assessment of the science is we are 90% sure man is
>causing the warming.

That is hilarious. Based on what, exactly, is this 90%?
Messages 12221 - 12240 of total 25079 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 Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews