Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:39pm PT
|
>Why would it matter, Maddog?
Because some spectate and others get down in the trench and do the work full time and beyond. I've been the guy on a ladder tweaking the instrument that sticks through the hull of the plane.
>Ed Hartouni doesn't work in climate change. Are you going to
>question his credentials too?
Peer review respects opinion but challenges the scientific basis, data integrity, etc. If all you are doing is looking at someone else's data that was dumbed down to the layman scope, are you sure you can ramp it back up to the research level if you don't actually work in the field?
>Anyone who believes, as you do, that most of the leading
>climate scientists are uncertain about combustion of fossil
>fuels causing global warming is clueless, regardless of
>their credentials.
The good thing is that leading researchers listened to Clint Eastwood and learned what the limitations were of the methods they use. At least they are trying day in and day out to get better, improve models, improve data interpretation, etc.
If we really understood what was happening, why would we be working so hard to improve our methods, instrumentation, project design, etc. ?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 12:01am PT
|
Somehow i think Mad69Dog knows that 94-97% of the greenhouse gases released into the environment are natural and independent of human causation. Good to see you here MadDog!
Bruce says; " but also 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". That's where you are very wrong Bruce. You only know what the fascist globalists want you to know . By your own admission you don't delve into the science much since you feel unqualified to interpret such a complex subject. Instead, you made the mistake of trusting the "experts", and unfortunately only the supposed experts on the pro CAGW side.Listen to Mad69Dog, when he says the overwhelming majority of scientists he has been in contact with don't support The Gore opinion and consider that the understanding of the climate system is poor and CO2 doesn't correlate well with the fluctuations.
Somebody else said the Chief is mean spirited and therefore not likely to keep or have friends. Well, i can proudly say i am honored to call him my freind and it never ceases to amaze me the patience and humor he exhibits in trying to retrieve your lost mush brained souls.
I've been collecting papers, both pro and con on this subject since last spring. When i get back to AK i'm going to start peppering you guys with a stream of science contrary to the alarmist position. I'll probably start with reconstructions of past climates like the little ice age and Medieval warm period- the pro CAGW side bogusly spent billions of dollars trying to deconstruct these periods as the magnitude of these climate swings make the the warming of the immediate past seem to be within the range of normalacy. Then we'll get into the signs of the cooling period we are entering.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 12:05am PT
|
Oh great...! A Mister Rodgers science lecture....
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 12:14am PT
|
You know it's political when people pretend that opinion equates with scientific results.'
Thanks for the welcome, Rick!
|
|
mountainlion
Trad climber
California
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 03:26am PT
|
the chief your video post of guy martin reminded me of the scene in "the big lebowski" where Jeff Bridges is in the limo...the other Jeffery Lebowski asks "what in god's name are you blathering about"...I want to know the same thing when viewing the video of Guy Martin...
seems like he must have drank a pot of coffee after taking a few hits from the bong...at least I hope that is the cause of his mindless drivel...
somehow I do understand where you get your position on things now!!!
Keep educating yourself with the blatherings of Guy Martin and his internet climate science blog cohorts I'm sure it is time well spent...or you could get off that pillow your ass has become and EXERCISE!!!
Peace
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 05:17am PT
|
Somehow i think Mad69Dog knows that 94-97% of the greenhouse gases released into the environment are natural and independent of human causation.
Yes, of course he does and all other scientists also know that that the case.
The different between the scientists and you are that they understand the implication of that fact while you obviously do not understand the implications and believe that you have found a smoking gun.
The strawmans that you and your friends attack is really some of the best ways to see that you really do not understand even the basics of the scientific theory that you claim are incorrect.
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 08:10am PT
|
>Maddog's the lawyer defending a guy holding a shovel and a chainsaw
>and covered in the victim's blood:
Who is this evil "guy" you claim I'm defending?
Some of you folks need to study the fundamentals of the scientific method so you understand the difference between hypothesis and data interpretation. While you are at it, get some background on propagation of error analysis, then go attempt to apply it to the global heat budget. If you had one tiny inkling of how little is actually known, perhaps you'd sober up enough to start seeing the fine print.
Let's break it down a bit. Take your best shot at estimating the global annual use of coal, diesel, gasoline and wood for energy production, transportation, etc. Then throw in the yield from nuclear power plants and estimate the inefficiencies of hydro, wind, wave and any other electrical generation. And be sure to put error bars on each estimate. Any other evil-man heat generating activities need to get an assigned slot so add a few calories for people thinking, going for their morning jog, etc. Once you have that covered for our horrid species, get ready to learn how to model the solar inputs, geological processes, natural greenhouse gas emissions, etc. And don't forget those error bars because when you start to see that actual data, and their associated errors, you'll find yourself between a rock and a hard place.
|
|
Mad69Dog
Mountain climber
Superior, CO
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 08:53am PT
|
Yes, much has been published from MIRAGE, Intex-B and countless other studies. Some of it has my name on it, true. Those pubs paint an ugly picture, but if you've hung around Mexico City or Hong Kong, you already knew the air quality is horrid there.
Most of the pubs are summitive and don't include many of the on-board teams in the authors list, so you can see some our data in the following link - but you won't find my name listed. I could point you at others where I am a co-author, but I won't. Some of the people on this forum know I am currently the research director at a US national lab but if your intent is to discredit or whatever, carry on.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/9/5131/2009/acp-9-5131-2009.pdf
These will keep you busy a while:
http://www-air.larc.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/IntexbDocs
http://www.atmos-chem-phys-discuss.net/special_issue32.html
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 09:29am PT
|
Vroom, Vroom....
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 09:41am PT
|
Please, more bike pics!
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 09:56am PT
|
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?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:06am PT
|
You won't burn much fat in that car Chief either.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!