Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7541 - 7560 of total 20343 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
rick sumner

Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:36am PT
The Chief, Bruce, Mad69Dog, and even Ed will surely love this peice from Richard Lindzen, just published in the journal of american physicians and surgeons. It touches on many of the things The Chief and i have had to say, new observations from MD, and may answer some of Bruce's disingenuous questioning.

http://www.jpands.org/vol18no3/lindzen.pdf
mountainlion

Trad climber
California
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:39am PT
I will paraphrase quote from you MADDOG69 "to me it is a moot point until we are all getting our energy from WIND, SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL...etc"

How can you be posting in the Chief's defense???

take a stand man...I mean the Chief at least let's everyone know:

1)he's on a fixed income and can't afford to pay the full cost of the energy he uses...

2)he is a TROLL...........

3)he doesn't care about the future of the people on this planet as long as the people in the current time frame are allowed to live within his VIEWPOINT...

4)he "thinks" he is racing in the isle of man on a plethora of bikes when in reality he is pulling wheelies while testing the breaking point of a tire under a "CHIEFS GIRTH" while at an unsafe speed...at least for someone of his girth it is an unsafe speed...for the rest of us who climb...we pedal faster than that...
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 07:52am PT
"How exactly does science fail?"

In numerous ways. The most common failing involves the corruption of the process by bias. Science was once thought to be a philosophical search for truth but the bulk of modern science has become a greedy search for wealth.

"I was so puzzled at your statement that I googled " failures of science"

Many laypeople attempt to Google their way towards some level of expertise but in science, one actually has to join the practice in order to become an expert. Supertopo is a climbing forum, not a bastion of science so if you really want to understand climate change, you are hanging out in the wrong place.

"You make some strange statements which make me start to doubt for credentials or marbles. What are your credentials and experience anyway?"

It's awesome that you feel you can assess my marbles in an anonymous climbing forum. And my intent is to remain anonymous here, so no, I will not lay my CV out in front of you. I do that when I publish at my day job, when I review submissions for environmental journals, etc., but here I'm simply speaking up in a climbing forum where a GW thread has generated over 13000 replies and my gut instinct is that most of them were made by people that have had zero involvement in the actual science itself.

I will be honest and say that I received a PhD in analytical organic chemistry over 30 years ago. My career has been diverse, ranging from research in environmental analysis, surface analysis, forensic analysis and molecular spectroscopy. The reason I was hired into the NASA programs at MIRAGE and Intex-B had to do with four research teams that were not satisfied with the analytical performance they achieved in field studies. They simply wanted to improve the accuracy and precision of their measurements. Thus I was involved in modification of the inlet systems - meaning the ports that extended through the hull of the aircraft that are designed to sample the atmospheric air column in order to deliver a subsample of the air into analytical instrumentation. I was also tasked with design and implementation of improved standardization techniques for these same 4 team's studies.

While on these missions, I actually sat at the instruments and collected data. Back on the ground, our teams evaluated and interpreted the data and then wrote publications after the studies were complete. So those are the facts - I design and modify measurement instrumentation to achieve data with minimal bias. Because those four teams saw improvement in the quality of their data, broader discussions followed amongst the scientists aboard these missions - mostly about data quality and the uncertainty associated with the measurements. As an undergrad, I'd learned how to evaluate measurement uncertainty through proper experimental design and in the years since, my contribution to science has been involved with evaluating, understanding and attempting to control the factors that add to measurement uncertainty. Many scientists are content to publish their data as tables of numbers and make no attempt to discuss what their actual in-matrix variability picture looks like. I prefer to clearly present how data quality varies across the measured concentration range and show what effects result from changes in the matrix - in this case: temperature, humidity, atmospheric pressure, particulate size and concentration, etc.

But step back a minute and tell me why the hell you feel that you can evaluate my credentials as a scientist on a climbing forum. Really?
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 08:11am PT
>I will paraphrase quote from you MADDOG69 "to me it is a moot point
>until we are all getting our energy from WIND, SOLAR, GEOTHERMAL...etc"

I see you failed your Paraphrasing 069 class. Maybe you can Google up an online class or for a faster solution, just learn to cut and paste... Let's work with the actual quote, OK? And, by the way, the handle is "Mad69Dog", so get it right. Here is the actual quote:

"Until the majority of the people on the planet are getting their energy from solar, tide, wind, etc., we're going the wrong direction."

>How can you be posting in the Chief's defense???

Simple, he goes against the popular grain. He is an independent thinker. When we all stand and salute popular misconception, progress halts and innovation is starved. The only way science can work is if we look for alternative points of view. The process has a critical element where one is forced to consider that our opinion is flawed. If the researcher refuses to consider alternate outcomes, then he or she will only see what he or she wants to see.

>take a stand man...

My stand was clearly stated when I entered this lay-opinion cesspool: The global heat budget estimates have too much uncertainty to predict that fossil fuel combustion is the dominant contributor to global temperature rise.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 08:45am PT
"Had you ever been at 140-150 mph, you'd certainly understand."

I haven't raced motorcycles since I was an undergrad, and the tech has come so far, you can't compare it to modern racing. I have been over 160 on a friend's tricked out Kawasaki, so I do know that thrill.

Most of my scar tissue was caused by crashing in my racing days so I get a bit queasy seeing crash footage. I had a high speed tank slapper on a big downhill once that still gets replayed in the brain video.

Awesome Youtube clip there, Chief!
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 10:03am PT
"As I did, the bike was end over ending and flew right over me as I turned to look back to see where it was."

Anyone that's raced knows how cruel it is to hit the deck then have the bike deliver the ultimate insult. I took a footpeg to the ribs after bottoming the suspension and going over the bars at the bottom of a steep hill. I got permanent damage to C3 out of that, and a nasty burn to boot.

"Like old John Britten showing up at Daytona with his back yard garage hand made marvel and then literally kicking the fields ass!"

I remember it well. 1991 I think. The team I rode for went to Daytona pretty much every year. I only got that brand of humble pie one time and that was '77. It was a thrill seeing the top dogs on their big dollar rides.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 30, 2013 - 10:20am PT
The global heat budget estimates have too much uncertainty to predict that fossil fuel combustion is the dominant contributor to global temperature rise.
Care to show us numbers & references?
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 10:30am PT
>Care to show us numbers & references?

I'll think about it. I mean, you'd need a few dozen big papers just to understand the foundation and hint: the Wikipedia article is not an easy shortcut. Are you willing to put 2000 to 3000 hours into reading the pubs and a few thousand more into checking the balance sheet? If you aren't willing to dig that deep, you are wasting your time. Also, depending on your education and ability, you might need a few years in grad school and a few practicing the craft to be able to understand the pubs.



Hey Chief, I do know some Harley racing history and have respect for it. The first time I saw total domination by a Harley was at a hill climb event. Good God, the power...
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 30, 2013 - 10:33am PT
Balmaseda1 and Trenberth's 2013 paper.

Credit: monolith

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/grl.50382/abstract
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 10:38am PT
>If it checks out maybe you'll gain some credibility which on top
>of your credentials might mean something.

When I want scientific credibility, I publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Experts assess my credibility in science, not a climbing forum. I'm totally comfortable having armchair scientists call me a hack, so proceed and wreak your havoc on my fragile reputation. I fear not.

I have done my best here to give some free clues about the truth (we need more and better quality data). I've stated my beliefs and biases (ocean surface temperature data base suggests earth's temperature is rising; my opinion is that FF combustion is a contributor; not enough data of adequate quality exists yet to make a *scientifically-based* call)

>Then we can move on to the really fascinating stuff. You're not by any
>chance a Christian evangelist of the dominionist persuasion are you?

Uggh, no but don't let that interrupt your fantasy.
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 30, 2013 - 10:43am PT
No need for an expert to assess your ridiculous statements, like:

Most leading researchers in the field are not convinced that fossil fuel combustion has led to warming of Earth's surface.

And yet, in 2006, atmospheric SO2 measurement doubled the previous high point.

Bruce, there is no need whatsoever to evaluate his credentials. His statements are all you need.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 30, 2013 - 10:44am PT
The following statement implies numbers:
The global heat budget estimates have too much uncertainty to predict that fossil fuel combustion is the dominant contributor to global temperature rise.
Have you actually done the calculation?
Or is it just a gut feeling?
If you have a scientific justification for your opinion, let's see it.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:00am PT
When I want scientific credibility, I publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Experts assess my credibility in science, not a climbing forum.

Well said. Can you point us toward some of your most recent peer-reviewed articles on climate? From these sweeping declarations I can't guess where you're coming from.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:06am PT
>Have you actually done the calculation?
>Or is it just a gut feeling?
>If you have a scientific justification for your opinion, let's see it.

^^^ This after he ignores my response to his call for pubs and the time commitment required to understand them. This is the craft of the armchair scientist being practiced right before your eyes. If you don't have the time to understand how the global energy budget is determined, that's fine with me. It's basically book-keeping on a very large scale.

If you need it dumbed down, just go look at the '07 NOAA pub. You, in all of your evaluative genius should be able to find that one, and since it concludes what you want it to conclude, it should make you happy. I hung out for years with the guy that did much of the intense math and engineering modeling that is at the core of that pub. Get to know him and ask him about the uncertainty in their estimates.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:11am PT
If you can't explain it to a layman, you don't understand it.

It sure sounds like it's just an opinion and not a calculation.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:14am PT
>Well said. Can you point us toward some of your most recent
>peer-reviewed articles on climate? From these sweeping
declarations I can't guess where you're coming from.

Some of my pubs have already been linked here in a larger collection of related articles. I choose to remain anonymous in this forum so feel free to discredit at will.

If you really want to dig into this, just pick one FF, say diesel or crude or refined gasoline and try to determine how much of each was burned as a function of time. Now, go draw error bars on your plots, then tell us what it means. These commodity fuel consumption rates should be easily determined right? Now start doing the more difficult parts where science plays a larger role - solar influx, radiative losses, etc. And remember, we need those error bars. Since you guys don't trust my credibility, and since you are capable of criticizing the science at the state of the art, it should be trivial for you to accomplish all of it while browsing SuperTopo.

>If you can't explain it to a layman, you don't understand it.

Thanks for the laugh. All complex phenomena are reduced to black and white in your nanoscopic view.
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:21am PT
Some of my pubs have already been linked here in a larger collection of related articles. I choose to remain anonymous in this forum so feel free to discredit at will.

Not trying to discredit you, just trying to figure out where you get this stuff. Most of your posts so far have been arm-waving and declarations that you haven't backed up. For example, you started off saying something or other about sea surface temperatures, uncertainty, and attribution. I cited two recent, substantial articles that are all about surface and deep ocean heat, uncertainty, and attribution. And invited you to comment on them. You sidestepped that invitation to look at real science, instead writing stuff that looks more like squid ink.

Since you guys don't trust my credibility, and since you are capable of criticizing the science at the state of the art, it should be trivial for you to accomplish all of it while browsing SuperTopo.

Can you engage the current science itself, not just the ego wars on ST?
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:21am PT
>I post under my own name, you can google me to see if I meet the
>your prerequisites...

Which prerequisites are those?

Ed, if you know the literature, that's great and with your background, you should be more than capable enough to perform the propagation of error for the global heat budget and all related FF combustion estimates. I'm not questioning your scientific credibility, so go for it. But until you do know what the errors are associated with the global energy budget, how can you come to conclusions regarding that big picture?

I will not apologize for posting anonymously here. This site allows this practice and if you don't like it, maybe you should be arguing your opinions on more appropriate scientific forums. Please do not pretend that the large International conferences are populated by scientists that all agree with Supertopo's consensus opinion.

>I cited two recent, substantial articles that are all about surface
>and deep ocean heat, uncertainty, and attribution. And invited you
>to comment on them.

Early on in my involvement in this thread, I pointed to ocean temperature measurements as being one of the more credible assemblies of measurement data, so I'm not arguing about that. I'm saying that the newer pubs don't really bring anything additional to the big picture. They continue to demonstrate a trend. But that is just one piece of a huge pie. Now go try to understand the basis for and error associated with the rest of the global heat budget.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:21am PT
The global heat budget estimates have too much uncertainty to predict that fossil fuel combustion is the dominant contributor to global temperature rise.
This is a verbal presentation of a mathematical statement.
Where's the math?
Or is it just another bullshlt opinion with no basis?

Are you willing to put 2000 to 3000 hours into reading the pubs and a few thousand more into checking the balance sheet?
Have YOU done this?
Show us your work.
Then Ed can check it if he desires.
That's how science works. You make a statement, you back it up.

If you were a real scientist, you would be happy to show us the foundation for your statement.
If you are a poseur, you'll continue the BS.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:36am PT
>Have YOU done this?
>Show us your work.
>Then Ed can check it if he desires.
>That's how science works. You make a statement, you back it up.

Glad you trust Ed. Were you on his committee when he defended his dissertation? If not, are educated such that you have the background to critique his research? How do you back up that trust?

>If you were a real scientist, you would be happy to show us
>the foundation for your statement. If you are a poseur, you'll
>continue the BS.

Are you a scientist? What is your degree in? How can you evaluate the scientific credibility of someone posting on a climbing forum? When did SuperTopo become certified to evaluate science credibility, you know, so you can do as you say and "back it up"?

But, yes I have taken the time to read the pubs. I spend about a thousand hours per year reading the literature and another thousand in the process of publishing research. I have looked closely at the budget model used by NOAA and have worked with their experts regarding data uncertainty.
Messages 7541 - 7560 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