Climate Change skeptics? [ot]

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 7541 - 7560 of total 20087 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
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.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:41am PT
I'm interested in having the scientific credibility of your statement evaluated.
If it was credible, you'd present it.
If it was credible, it would be published.

I thought your statement was bull.
Now I know for sure.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:45am PT
What's your educational background, Malemute?

Why are you posting anonymously here. Don't you want to back it up?
Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:48am PT
I'm saying that the newer pubs don't really bring anything additional to the big picture. They continue to demonstrate a trend.

Have you even looked at those two papers? You say you read a thousand hours per year, then wave your arms and show no knowledge at all.

Why are you posting anonymously here. Don't you want to back it up?

More squid ink.
Malemute

Ice climber
the ghost
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:48am PT
BSc Chemistry, minor in math, career as a programmer.

So I can evaluate whether
A+/-a + B+/-b + C+/-c = D+/-d
is true or not

You sure are evasive.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 11:55am PT
>Have you even looked at those two papers?

Yes I have.

>You say you read a thousand hours per year, then wave your arms
>and show no knowledge at all.

There you go again with the insults. Thanks for the laughs. I'll see you at the next series of monitoring conferences right? You do go rub elbows with the International GW research community, don't you?

Chiloe

Trad climber
Lee, NH
Aug 30, 2013 - 12:14pm PT
>Have you even looked at those two papers?
Yes I have.


Then why make false claims about what they contain?

There you go again with the insults. Thanks for the laughs. I'll see you at the next series of monitoring conferences right?

Not meant as an insult, I'm still inviting you to show rather than declare that you know something. And you're still spraying squid ink.

You do go rub elbows with the International GW research community, don't you?

Change that to "discuss research, exchange emails, attend meetings, coauthor papers or share data with scientists in the international climate research community?" Yes, pretty much every day.

But that was more of your squid ink, wasn't it? Is the Abraham et al. paper just about trends? Do Kosaka & Xie break no new ground? The editors and reviewers at Reviews of Geophysics and Nature did not think so. You do think so. Invited to back up your statement, all you've offered is sneering. Is that all you've got?
monolith

climber
SF bay area
Aug 30, 2013 - 12:23pm PT
The Chief: Quick, Maddog needs help, change the subject. Post some shiny bike pics. Hey look at me everyone. I can really draw attention to myself, all day long.
Spitzer

climber
Aug 30, 2013 - 12:46pm PT
Mad69Dog, are you Jeff McCoy, the same maddog from rec.climbing who engaged in endless, inane tit for tat rants with Bill Zaumen? If I can guess your identity you must not really be intent on anonymity.
Mad69Dog

Mountain climber
Superior, CO
Aug 30, 2013 - 01:11pm PT
>Then why make false claims about what they contain?

Specifically, what false claims? Bad is getting worse. Please show me globally consistent diesel flux.

Yes, I know people hate peer review. The drum I'm beating is that the data quality relative to the global energy balance has some question marks. Why can't people publicly admit how little is known about the composite energy balance calculation accuracy?

And again, why are we spending so much on the development of the technology if we already know the answers? Because the funding proposals justify the search for better measurement science? Post up some of your proposals that have passed your desk over the last few years and let's see why people want to spend more money.

What's so funny to me is that my premises stated have been: 1) Ocean temps are giving us the best look at the global temperature increase. Glacier recession is hard to interpret IMO but is basically consistent with ocean data. Etc. 2) I believe that part of the cause is FFC. 3) We need better estimates of all components of the global thermal balance.

So I've been calling for more work all along and lolling at all the knee jerks. Thanks for the laughs.
Messages 7541 - 7560 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 Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews