Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7461 - 7480 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
dirtbag

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:07am PT
^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^



rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 28, 2013 - 01:18am PT
Not back in Ak. till Sept. 6. Working my ass off on two remodels here in northern NV. Rehabbing habitats for the masses of humanity, but i expect a profit for my efforts. Anyway there is nothing preventing your access to the physical proofs of all the shocking CAGW predictions. Many of the dates of doom have come and passed over this thirty year period without the natural world caring not a wit about all the make believe climate models. But what do i know? The heat is probably hiding in the nearly uniform three degree centigrade waters of the deep blue where the sun never shines.
BLUEBLOCR

Social climber
joshua tree
Aug 28, 2013 - 03:42am PT
^yes you can jus go to Vegas
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:46am PT
During 2005 - 2007, I was funded by NASA to work as a visiting scientist on two projects studying climate change - MIRAGE (Mexico) and Intex-B (Hong Kong to NW USA). We flew NCAR's C-130 stuffed full of instruments and scientists that measured all kinds of atmospheric components - gases, particles, contaminants, you name it. These weren't really fun projects to participate in since the C-130 had lousy ventilation and no A/C - and fat old scientists stink more than normal people. But the big surprise for me was that few of those onboard were sold on the Al Gore view of global warming. In fact, I did not meet a single disciple out of the 153 scientists working MIRAGE and Intex-B.

I spent much of my spare time reading the literature related to the measurement side of climate change. These are the key points I walked away with from those years:

1) Some of the most meaningful data are those published of ocean surface temperature. The thing is, many military, research and commercial vessels have collected this data for over 150 years all around the world. Thus the data set is fairly complete. Over the last 70 years, the trend has been up and the main weather correlation has been regarding the *intensity* of tropical storms (not frequency). It appears that rising surface temps makes more mass available for evaporation - logical.

2) The global research community has far too little active weather stations to feed atmospheric computational models. Some estimate that we'd need one million times more sensors simultaneously live to begin correlating parameters such as CO2 to climate change.

3) Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface. See 2) above but also go look at the publications to see how far we have to go in understanding the global heat picture. For the moment, we have more suspicion than actual real experimental data.

In reading this thread, I see all the hate dumped on the Chief and also see how different his plots look compared to that of the GW believers. Holy sh#t, can there be bias in science? Of course. I do believe the review papers on ocean surface temperature measurements are valid and that we have seen over 1 degree (C) rise over the last century. I'm not convinced that greenhouse gases have yet been correlated to that change. However, I think they will eventually be shown to be a significant component in the big picture. But when the vast majority of the world's leading scientists are highly skeptical of Al Gore's position, that should make you step back and ask if that view has excessive bias - and I believe it does. The global heat budget estimates have too much uncertainty to predict that fossil fuel combustion is the dominant contributor to global temperature rise.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 28, 2013 - 10:50am PT
Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface.

^^^Complete Bullsh#t^^^

Who cares what Al Gore thinks?



Lets see, what could possibly be causing the warming?

photo not found
Missing photo ID#312885
Degaine

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:13am PT
mad69dog wrote:
Al Gore's position,

Could you please state what you think Al Gore's position on climate change to be?
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2013 - 11:26am PT
Mad69Dog sez:

I see all the hate dumped on the Chief.


Proof positive that Mad69Dog can't see past his nose, and that he comes to the table biased. An unbiased viewer would quickly see that it is The Chief who initiates all the hate.

Try opposing one of The Chief's many views, Mad69Dog, and you will see what I mean. The angry man will begin to tear you down with his hatred, and you might not even be talking directly to him.

You worked with less than 200 researchers (153), and yet from this you claim "the vast majority of the world's leading scientists..." Your real-life observations seem to be riddled with bias. That doesn't do much to convince me of your scientific prowess.
k-man

Gym climber
SCruz
Topic Author's Reply - Aug 28, 2013 - 11:45am PT
@ The Chief,
Bro, if I were a real friend of yours, I would take you aside and let you know that the way you address people turns them into your enemies.

The fact is, you would not have a single friend if you talked in person the way you do over the internet. I imagine that you might have a friend or two, and if indeed you do, you must be a very different person in real life because nobody who acts the way you do keeps friends for very long.

Of all the people with whom I've had personal interactions, either live or via written correspondence, there are very few who I consider to be 'enemies' of mine. Out of all people I've known, or have talked to, very few fall into the bucket into which I place you. And in that bucket are the people who I have zero desire to communicate with. It's a very lonely bucket, I'm not even sure there's more than one or two other people in there.

You might hold this as an honor. But believe me, it is just the opposite.
Degaine

climber
Aug 28, 2013 - 11:51am PT
k-man wrote:
Proof positive that Mad69Dog can't see past his nose, and that he comes to the table biased. An unbiased viewer would quickly see that it is The Chief who initiates all the hate.

Honestly, why do you care what The Chief thinks (of you or of an issue)? Why is it so important to you to convince him or bring him over to your point of view?

He has the minority opinion in this particular thread. Dude, let it go, you'll never ever get 100% of people to agree with you, whatever the issue.
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.
Messages 7461 - 7480 of total 20343 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