Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7461 - 7480 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:59am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#318485
Reilly

Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:05pm PT
Yo, Chief, can I bring my Hayabusa and join yous guys? ;-)
(you're gonna pick up the tab for the tickets, right?)
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:10pm PT
>Maddog, was John Travolta flying that C-130? Those weren't scientists...

Your credibility is questionable.

http://mirage-mex.acd.ucar.edu/
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:25pm PT
>you claim the rather shocking statement that the majority of "scientists in >the field" dispute that carbon emissions are the primary driver of GW.

I don't think those are my precise words but the devil is in the details. Depending on which measurements you choose to interpret, you can find real research data acquired by competent experimentalists that supports 'no global warming' and 'pro global warming' stances. The problem comes when you try to knit it all together into a global heat budget kind of perspective *THEN* point the finger at an un-isolated component such as CO2. We do not have a control to compare against, so attempting to isolate variables in an uncontrolled 'experiment' is fantasy. That is why so many scientists are skeptical that the proofs are valid.

>you must be aware that this runs contrary to all institutional and popular >understanding. If you are right can you explain the gross disception that >has been perpetuated for the past few decades? Rick Sumner claims that it >is a vast global willfully organized communist plot.

I think our media loves to grasp at a thread and interpret it beyond their expertise.

Remember, I said that I believe the ocean surface temperature trend review reports are valid because the data inputs are hugely broad and competent. For the layperson, those reports alone scream 'global warming' but to the road-weary geologist, it's business as usual.

>Surely you don,t believe this but what other explanation is there? You >must be capable of expanding on this at length and in detail.

People love simple answers - so do I! But these are highly complex phenomena and we are learning to collect and interpret the data right now. The problem is that we have snap-shots taken here and there on a sporadic time scale. We need much more data density, scattered appropriately around the globe and it has to be qualified data, meaning that outside inputs such as sunspot activity, etc., has to be there to help sort and classify. This is what happens when you work with chaotic systems - you end up data-starved.

Thanks for your polite and reasoned response. You are obviously in the upper intellectual classification on this forum - which is sparsely populated.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 12:35pm PT
>Could you please state what you think Al Gore's position on climate change to be?

You mean you don't have his book memorized?

http://www.amazon.com/An-Inconvenient-Truth-Planetary-Emergency/dp/B000QEJ0WY/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1377707488&sr=8-3&keywords=al+gore

wherein the summary states:

"The truth about the climate crisis is an inconvenient one that means we are going to have to change the way we live our lives. Our climate crisis may at times appear to be happening slowly, but in fact it has become a true planetary emergency and we must recognise that we are facing a crisis. So why is it that some leaders seem not to hear the clarion warnings? Are they resisting the truth because they know that the moment they acknowledge it, they will face a moral imperative to act? Is it simply more convenient to ignore the warnings? Perhaps, but inconvenient truths do not go away just because they are not seen, rather, their significance grows. Al Gore, former Vice President of the United States, has been a passionate advocate of action to halt climate change for many years. In An Inconvenient Truth Gore writes about the urgent need to solve the problems of climate change, presenting comprehensive facts and information on all aspects of global warming in a direct, thoughtful and compelling way,using explanatory diagrams and dramatic photos to clarify and highlight key issues. The book has been described in the New York Times as one which could 'push awareness of global warming to a real tipping point'. The documentary film of the same name, based on the book, premiered at this year's Sundance Festival to great acclaim."

Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:00pm 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.
nature

climber
Boulder, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:19pm PT
Norton, right?

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

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:33pm 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.

Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 02:35pm 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 - 02:45pm 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 - 02:45pm 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 - 02:52pm 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 - 03:02pm 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 - 03:51pm 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.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 04:09pm 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 - 04:13pm 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 - 04:22pm 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 - 04:26pm 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 - 04:29pm PT
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 04:34pm 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 7461 - 7480 of total 20087 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

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews