Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7501 - 7520 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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
photo not found
Missing photo ID#318485

Vroom, Vroom....
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 29, 2013 - 09:41am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#318485

Please, more bike pics!
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 29, 2013 - 09:56am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#318485

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
photo not found
Missing photo ID#318485

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.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
And every fool knows, a dog needs a home, and...
Aug 29, 2013 - 10:33am PT
I do need to get me a cheap assed beater car with good gas mileage.

Its an economic decision, just like it is the world over....

But that van I'm keeping till it drops off the deep end of the money pit.

DMT
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.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:44am PT
Putting air and surface temperatures in perspective, John Nielsen-Gammon (the Texas state climatologist and a lively, analytical blogger) reports on a keynote talk at last month's Davos Atmosphere and Cryosphere Assembly.

The Tuesday evening talk was by Greenland expert Valerie Masson-Delmotte. She started out by giving some numbers on where the excess heat (caused by the Tyndall-gas-induced radiative imbalance) was going: 1% into the atmosphere, 3% for melting ice, 3% into the land surface, and 93% into the ocean.
http://blog.chron.com/climateabyss/2013/07/greenland-update/


How much do we know about ocean warming, and the uncertainties in its calculation? A new paper in Reviews of Geophysics, by John Abraham and 27 others, addresses these questions in detail (emphasis added in the quotation below).

A review of global ocean temperature observations: Implications for ocean heat content estimates and climate change

The evolution of ocean temperature measurement systems is presented with a focus on the development and accuracy of two critical devices in use today (expendable bathythermographs and CTDs conductivity-temperature-depth instruments used on Argo floats). A detailed discussion of the accuracy of these devices and a projection of the future of ocean temperature measurements are provided. The accuracy of ocean temperature measurements is discussed in detail in the context of ocean heat content, Earth's energy imbalance, and thermosteric sea level rise. Up-to-date estimates are provided for these three important quantities. The total energy imbalance at the top-of-atmosphere is best assessed by taking an inventory of changes in energy storage. The main storage is in the ocean; the latest values of which are presented. Furthermore, despite differences in measurement methods and analysis techniques, multiple studies show that there has been a multi-decadal increase in the heat content of both the upper and deep ocean regions, which reflect the impact of anthropogenic warming. With respect to sea-level rise, mutually reinforcing information from tide gauges and radar altimetry show that presently, sea-level is rising at approximately 3 mm yr-1 with contributions from both thermal expansion and mass accumulation from ice melt. The latest data for thermal expansion sea-level rise are included here and analyzed.
....
Despite these potential future improvements to ocean monitoring, past and present measurements show that the Earth is experiencing a net gain in heat, largely from anthropogenic factors [Hansen et al., 2005; Levitus et al., 2001]; although, the magnitude differs among individual studies. For ocean heat content, there have been multi-decadal increases in energy content over the entire water column. Two recent detection and attribution analyses [Gleckler et al., 2012; Pierce et al., 2012] have significantly increase confidence since the last IPCC AR4 report that the warming (thermal expansion) observed during the late 20th century, in the upper 700 m of the ocean, is largely due to anthropogenic factors. For sea-level rise, despite spatial and temporal non-uniformity, the global trend is approximately 3 mm yr-1 over the past 20 years, with a large contribution from thermal expansion.


http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/rog.20022/abstract
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 29, 2013 - 11:56am PT
"Your comment about research grants raises a red flag. You are implying that perpetuating a myth is advantageous to researchers for financial reasons. Is that true? You think this is a significant factor in the formation and perpetuation of the present consensus?"

Environmentalists always have and always will feed off of media hype to keep their grant money coming in. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Go out on missions with these top scientists and the media hype vanishes and they talk about the real issues involved to get to the point where the community truly knows cause and effect.

"As you can see you have a lot of persuading to do."

No. I have no expectations of persuading anyone of anything. That's not how this works. We're way past the point of coming to conclusions. The guilty verdict was announced long ago, yet what is being done? Very little. I'm just saying the the hype the layperson hears is very different than what active environmental scientists hear when out on research missions.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 29, 2013 - 12:06pm PT
"Are you saying that acid rain wasn't a problem?"

I'm saying that it is an example of media hype followed by political posturing, policy decisions, declarations of success, etc. And yet, in 2006, atmospheric SO2 measurement doubled the previous high point.

But wait... Wiki said this was a success story? With documentation of rising SO2 - which along with NO2 are the chief acid rain culprits, why are we no longer hearing about increased acid-rain induced damage? Simple - the hype didn't understand the actual chemistry involved, so it projected a future that has not been borne out by actual experimental results.

"but it better make sense or your case is lost"

I'm confident the science will move forward and that, like acid-rain hype, the new science will bring unexpected twists and turns. And what about the elephant in the room? The media hype says that greenhouse gases are the culprit and FFC is the cause. But even with a stacked agenda, what is being done and what will be done? I do not expect much.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 29, 2013 - 12:13pm PT
Was the 2006 SO2 doubling a global value or was it for the NE US, where we know acid rain was a problem?
Messages 7501 - 7520 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