Climate Change skeptics? [ot]


Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 16521 - 16540 of total 20048 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Ed Hartouni

Trad climber
Livermore, CA
Oct 7, 2014 - 08:57am PT
interesting that we're deflected from discussing the papers onto the questioning the papers' legitimacy.

Dr. Robert G. Brown makes many statements that are complete speculation, yet they are taken as "true." Who knows what may have occurred if Einstein were working "today," in fact, we don't have any idea of what the state of science would be. And it is not as if Einstein himself were the essential intellect without whom all our physics would have halted.

The idea of the "lone genius" is pretty much a myth, a way we used to understand the process, but not much of an actual description of the social aspects of doing science.

And while we may debate science, we do it in a scientific manner, as Prof. Brown knows, by identifying the errors in the arguments, or the interpretation of experimental results and observations. What I find among practicing scientists who often make comments regarding the state of climate science is that they actually have never walked over to the Geology departments to have a discussion with their colleagues who are practicing the science; that is, they don't actually know what is going on.

This was Mueller's problem, he thought he knew, and in the end worked it out for himself, good for him, but what he found was not surprising to the climate science community who had worked it out much earlier.

So let's get back to the papers, what they say is our observations of the southern ocean heat content was underestimated because we didn't have a lot of observation points in that ocean. Once we did, we found the heat content was higher. To verify that, satellite measurements of the ocean surface altitude were used, along with models, to constrain the actual heat content. Water changes it volume when heated, so the surface altitude contains information about this heat content.

The measurements take into account the changes in the crust as it rebounds from the last glacial maximum, and other systematic issues.

The Northern hemisphere and the Southern hemisphere are treated "separately" and the criteria in the analysis for matching requires both to be explained using the same methods. Since the NH is better measured, it can be compared to the observations. When the SH is treated in the same way, the resolved heat content from this method is used to correct the data coverage deficiencies.

rick thinks that's bullshit because he doesn't like the conclusion, but he can't argue the science.

apparently Sketch would rather discuss what is happening in science.

Science isn't about how to do science... it's about how to predict observation and experiment, and the process of getting there isn't straight forward, and often has nothing to do with where we eventually end up.

Those discussion can be taken to other threads.

If you've got a problem with science, show where the science is "wrong." And that doesn't mean plotting a particular time series normalized to some special point and jumping up and down that the data doesn't match the models.

It's a bit more than that.
raymond phule

Oct 7, 2014 - 09:03am PT
I am curious about what you want and how you want to discuss your copy and past post.

The first very long part is about the funding of science. A subject that you know nothing about. Are you going to believe what other people tell you?

The next part is very long section about modeling with a lot of assertions that is way above your level of knowledge. It is clear that you don't understand anything at all about the details in that section. He neither give any details. It reads mostly as a name dropping some terminology that might or might not be applicable to the climate models. I also believe that it is completely useless to try to explain what he says and why it is correct or incorrect to you.

One thing is that he seems to suggest that we cant model chaotic systems with enough accuracy. Tell that to people modeling for example airplanes in flight and see if they agree.

So what do you want to discuss and how? Are you going to listen to other people that you disagree with?

Social climber
Oct 7, 2014 - 09:13am PT
I'd really like to see what some of the regulars think about the piece.... without the discussion devolving into another childish sh#t storm.

I do not intend to imply by the above that all science is corrupt, or that scientists are in any sense ill-intentioned or evil.”

The sentence has adds nothing to the essay. The piece is already long, any half-competent editor would have deleted this.

Or does it have a function?

As in, when Nixon said “I am not a crook” that put the association of Nixon and being a crook in the public’s mind. Is Brown is trying to associate the idea of scientists and corruption, scientists and ill-intentioned, scientists and evil?

All through, there's awkward phrasing and a smattering of long words so that a non-specialist scientist will stumble, can't quite understand the nuances of exactly what he's trying to say without re-reading several times or actually looking at a dictionary or a google search.

Which is stupid because he's writing for a non-technical, non-scientific audience. The idea he's trying to get across--"I reject something that is accepted by most of my colleagues. I'm right, therefore they are wrong, here's why..."--is a simple enough concept. Poor writing for a tenured professor.

Unless it's written with the deliberate intent to confuse by the use of long words and jargon. Which is the very definition of BS.

As for the content, as Raymond Phule says, the first part is about funding science and suggests that the availability (or lack) of funding can corrupt and distort findings.

Deciding what research to fund is a public policy decision. NASA has a large budget in part because it's seen as a way to train and keep scientists and engineers who maintain US superiority in space travel and rocket technology. Rocket/satellite/robotic technology in turn ensures continued US superiority in current and any future warfare. So, the needs of homeland security is a big driver of science funding. The future of the climate is also a pretty important issue for future security. Rising temperatures, drought, rising sea levels. Coupled with rising population. Huge potential stresses on the environment and on our own security.

Brown complains that current models don't work well enough to be relied on for expensive future policy decisions. So what? If we can't predict future climate we for sure can't predict the accuracy /precision of future climate models, either.

Learning what changes will happen and when they might appear (e.g., how long will CA suffer the ongoing drought? Will all of Greenland melt out? Will rising sea temps decimate fish?) is an urgent public policy issue with billions of dollars at stake.

Scientists may figure out that future climate change is far slower than earlier thought, and that effects on humans will be small and not appear for many centuries. Who knows. I think we still want to try to figure these things out.


Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 09:22am PT
Think coral reefs — many of them are thriving, some of them are not,

"It’s a real tragedy," says Dustan. "But over the past twenty years, we’ve seen a rapid decline in the vitality of coral reefs and their ecosystems worldwide." ... Since the late 1970s, reefs across the world have been dying at an unprecedented rate, and it only seems to be getting worse.

How do you get "many of them are thriving, some of them are not" from the facts?

This is just one in a long list of inaccuracies in the article. But go ahead Sketch, stand your ground.
Bob D'A

Trad climber
Taos, NM
Oct 7, 2014 - 01:32pm PT
90% Percentage of 108 climate change denial books published between 1982 and 2010 that were not peer-reviewed. The books variously denied that climate change is happening, that humans are at fault, that climate change is having a negative effect on the environment, or any combination of the three. A strong link was also found between the books and conservative think tanks. Seventy-two percent of the books were published by an author or editor with a verifiable affiliation to some such group.
Wade Icey

Trad climber
Oct 7, 2014 - 01:38pm PT
You're on top of it sketchy never miss an opportunity to be nasty

Mountain climber
Terence Wilson greeneck alleghenys,ny,
Oct 7, 2014 - 01:55pm PT
Hey ,back to the argument:

Sketch ,yes I could do better.

That article highlights the uncertainties your side of this issue clings to.
While they sound believable,like Crunch and Ed pointed out,they are not .

You will never hear me waiver.



Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 02:11pm PT
The researchers examined data on contemporary reef ecosystems as well as fossil coral reefs from two places in the U.S. Virgin Islands and Belize in the Caribbean, and from Indo-Pacific sites in Hawaii, Taiwan, Moorea, Kenya and the Great Barrier Reef off Australia to simulate future coral reef outcomes.

Some folks have all the fun.

Thanks for that reference The Chief. Hopefully the new corals are able to adjust to a more acidic ocean.

Trad climber
Shaver Springs
Oct 7, 2014 - 02:55pm PT
Be leave what you want. The facts are this natural gas, gasoline or any other hydrocarbon use as fuel is mostly carbon by weight. Fact carbon in fuels will ether be emitted as carbon, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide or unspent hydrocarbons.
So follow this: if I burn 20 gallons for fuel going to my local climbing area SF to shuteye I would have burned up 20 gallons (1 gallon of = 6.3 lbs) or emitted 126 lbs of sh_t mostly carbon into the sky. so in 8 round trips I would have dumped 1 ton of sh_t in to the sky.
So the way I see, it any commuter climber that likes to makes environmental statements just shut up!

27 years for Source Emission Testing I am an expert!

Gym climber
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 7, 2014 - 04:00pm PT
So the way I see, it any commuter climber that likes to makes environmental statements just shut up!

You mean we're not allowed to talk about the energy policies and decisions that are made at the Gov't level?

How about fuel standards, zip?

No talk of mass transit, just STFU?

Camahoo, I think you're missing the point.

Grey Matter
Oct 7, 2014 - 05:29pm PT
The entire "hypocrisy" strawman tangent is just a denier rationalization.
You will never get rid of hypocrisy as long as there is a single living human on the earth. Capitalism is founded on materialism and consumption. It is not the duty of climate policy to change human nature, even if it does help. Successful policy works with existing human behavoir, not counting on some utopian fantasy.

The point of policy to lessen climate change is to provide disincentives to continued carbon emissions and incentives for alternates, REGARDLESS of whether or not some/many/most people are "hypocrites." The policy is successful if the total emissions decrease without crippling costs, REGARDLESS of some people being sometimes hypocritical.
For instance, if a revenue neutral fuel tax doubled the cost of fuel, many climbers would carpool with someone else, or drive a hybrid, and cut emissions in half.

But what about Leo?
But what about Al?
But what about ...

Grey Matter
Oct 7, 2014 - 05:33pm PT
Here are a few thoughts on that opinion piece from Sketch and Brown:
opinionated, unbacked, projection, strawman, fact-less.

"That’s right folks. Climate is what happens over 30+ years of weather, but Hansen and indeed the entire climate research establishment never bothered to falsify the null hypothesis of simple linear response before building enormously complex and unwieldy climate models, building strong positive feedback into those models from the beginning, working tirelessly to “explain” the single stretch of only 20 years in the second half of the 20th century, badly, by balancing the strong feedbacks with a term that was and remains poorly known (aerosols), and asserting that this would be a reliable predictor of future climate."

The most immediate feedback from the initial CO2 heating is that water vapor will increase (which magnifies the greenhouse heat imbalance effect). This has already been confirmed. Brown suggests ignoring such obvious feedbacks. Another - If there is less ice, the earth will be less reflective. There are other feedbacks that could make matters even worse, but I don't think they are even built into models yet: such as GHG release from the oceans, or from tundra.

"Increasing it will without any reasonable doubt cause some warming all things being equal (that is, linearizing the model in our minds before we even begin to write the computation!)"
We have no empirical foundation for assuming positive feedbacks in the vicinity of the local equilibrium — that’s what linearization is all about!"

More unbacked assumptions. The computation is based on physics and massive efforts on new sensors and measurements, not on Brown's deluded assumption of linearity. All of the feedback effects continue to be measured and data checked against predictions. When differences are found, models are updated to make them more accurate. Climate science now have decades of measurements and model refinement to allow improved predictions. Improved hindcasts of the last 15 years validate the improved models.
Brown just doesn't like the findings, but has no facts, only gut feelings.

"Um, Steven [Steven Mosher], it is pretty clear that you’ve never been to a major physics meeting that had a section presenting some unsettled science where the organizers had set up two or more scientists with entirely opposing views to give invited talks and participate in a panel just like the one presented. This isn’t “rare”, it is very nearly standard operating procedure to avoid giving the impression that the organizers are favoring one side or the other of the debate."

Um, M. Brown, it is pretty clear that you are a Total Strawman x 10.
Of course climate scientists do have such talks. So Brown is making up this whole non-existent situation so he can argue against it.
Non-climate scientists like Brown are far too outside their own field of knowledge to be a peer in such talks.
So they resort to trying to create a non science debate in the lay media.
Little difference to the scientists hired as industry stooges to create doubt and fake a valid debate as to whether smoking tobacco was harmful.

"Most scientists are quite honest, and most of them are reasonably fair in their assessment of facts and doubt. But scientists have to eat, and for better or worse we have created a world where they are in thrall to their funding."

Again with the pure FAUX news projection. I guess solar and nuclear energy and LED lights and electric motors will never work, because those darned fraudulent scientists made it all up.
Many scientists have tenure and are not in danger of losing their jobs, unlike the ones paid by Heartland and Koch. Their biggest motivation, if they had findings that differed from the norm, would be to publish the new findings and eventually become famous as the one who "bucked the system."

" the ClimateGate letters openly revealed that it has long since become covertly corrupted."
climate-gate is as significant to Climate Science as bengazi is to World War. (in lower caps since it is a minor minor molehill)
The laughable instant a denier brings this up as an argument, you know they are deluded.

Read these responses to a similar editorial and tell us what FACTs you have to respond.


Grey Matter
Oct 7, 2014 - 05:35pm PT
Causes of California drought linked to climate change, Stanford scientists say.
The extreme atmospheric conditions associated with California's crippling drought are far more likely to occur under today's global warming conditions than in the climate that existed before humans emitted large amounts of greenhouse gases.


Grey Matter
Oct 7, 2014 - 05:57pm PT
"In other words, Nature is doing what it has done so well for a longass time. It is adapting to the ongoing infinite changes in the environment. Those species that can not do so, they will just go as so many have done for the past 100 million or so years."

As has already been discussed,
that's not an argument that human caused climate change is a good thing to be embraced. No one is disputing that life on earth will continue. Is it a good thing that in large dead sea zones, algae and jellyfish have replaced fish? for Cactus to replace trees, lizards replace deer, Sand to replace snow.
When climate changed 20000 years ago, most people of the world moved. There was generally somewhere to move to, or they killed whatever "Neanderthals" were in the way. Is that a good thing?

In order for your argument to be valid:

    humans evolve to eat toxic algea.
    200,000,000 coastal people rebuild cities on high ground.
    200,000,000 in arid zones move to wetter countries.
    half the farms of California move to ???


Grey Matter
Oct 7, 2014 - 06:47pm PT
"So who is telling the TRUTH, Splater?"

Both. Why do you immediately think one contradicts the other?

What was life like in California in the year 1190?
If they suffered and died, it's fine if we make a repeat more likely on an even bigger scale?

Which is more tragic or acceptable, if either :
those who died of drought when the cliff dwellings of the U.S. southwest were abandoned,
or those who die of drought due to 40 more years of desertification of the Sahara?

Is this your argument:
There was climate variation in the past,
therefore it's fine if we increase it now.

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 7, 2014 - 06:49pm PT
Why does this thread only have deniers that are dumbasses?

Aren't there any that can actually make a non-idiotic argument?

Grey Matter
Oct 7, 2014 - 07:59pm PT
"Hey Splater, you did totally contradict yourself.

At least you are consistent. "

Hilarious! You are very funny, if more than a little unable to follow a line of thought to its conclusion.
But that's enough amusement for today.

Social climber
Oct 7, 2014 - 08:32pm PT
For a change of pace:

Interesting reading.

Takeaway: "their adversaries were people, not 'demons'."

hahaha. Not so sure about that bit. Anthony Watts, Richard Betts and these other lightweights have never tried tangling with the Supertopo regulars.....

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 7, 2014 - 08:46pm PT
Shepherd agreed that the difference was fairly small – and said even the sceptics’ lower estimates did not justify delaying action on climate change, as the current rate of emissions will still tip the world over the catastrophic warming threshold sooner or later.
All wanted to lay to rest the idea that they don’t believe in global warming – and are withering about those who promote this “loony” view. “I don’t know anybody who doesn’t agree that the world is warming and CO2 is a greenhouse gas,” says Whitehouse.

Ice climber
great white north
Oct 7, 2014 - 09:15pm PT
Messages 16521 - 16540 of total 20048 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

Try a free sample topo!

SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews