Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2013 - 08:51pm PT
|
Your getting a little testy, now aren't you Wilbeer. Hansen and Schmidt coopted the message coming out of NASA for their climate change viewpoints. Hansen retired but other true believers like Schmidt and others are still pushing their message whenever possible. Look what "The Right Stuff" had to say about the wrong stuff Wilbeer.
http://www.livescience.com/19640-nasa-astronauts-global-warming-letter.html
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2013 - 09:44pm PT
|
LOL, who on that list is a climate scientist?
No wonder it had no impact, except in the denier blogosphere.
If NASA administrators were to censor the organization's climate scientists at the behest of a few of its former employees who have less climate science experience and expertise combined than the summer interns at NASA GISS, that would really damage NASA's exemplary reputation.
Schmitt is a Heartland Institute board member.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2013 - 10:19pm PT
|
Psychology might be relevant to the understanding of why the "collective socialists" have given up reliance on reasoning by ones own mental faculties in favor of government controls and unwavering belief in it's experts. Lay down on the couch Bruce and tell us some more about when you began to lose faith in humanity and belief in directing ones own destiny.
I wasn't a very dedicated climber for very long although I still like to get a little air under my feet. I fail to see why this is relevant to protesting consensus climate change and the remedies of choice. Please explain. Did you look at the Shaviv lecture?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2013 - 10:36pm PT
|
No. Do some reading, pro and con. Pick a paper or presentation we can understand and let's argue our best understanding of the science. Our psychologies are b.s. and meaningless to the discussion. It's really not about us as Base has repeatedly said, but about generations to come, since the supposed effects won't really hit till then.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2013 - 10:50pm PT
|
http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewpr.html?pid=36679
"NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate. As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion.
"Our Earth science programs provide many unique space-based observations and research capabilities to the scientific community to inform investigations into climate change, and many NASA scientists are actively involved in these investigations, bringing their expertise to bear on the interpretation of this information. We encourage our scientists to subject these results and interpretations to scrutiny by the scientific community through the peer-review process. After these studies have met the appropriate standards of scientific peer-review, we strongly encourage scientists to communicate these results to the public.
"If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse."
|
|
Spitzer
climber
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2013 - 10:54pm PT
|
Good grief!
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2013 - 11:35pm PT
|
Who said it was a chastisement, Chief?
Didn't ya read the part where he reaffirms Nasa's commitment to climate research and following the science?
He invited them to contribute to the science, rather than trying to restrict discussion.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 18, 2013 - 11:41pm PT
|
Funny how you can bold stuff that doesn't really help you.
If you disagree, contribute science, not censorship.
Disagreement is part of scientific discourse, and it is NASA policy not to restrict such discourse. If you and your fellow authors disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists on NASA's websites or elsewhere, I encourage you to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict such discourse.
Why were you so afraid to use the rest of the paragraph, Chief Cherry Picker?
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:02am PT
|
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 12:08am PT
|
If you disagree, contribute science to support your position.
Not that difficult to understand, Chief.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:43am PT
|
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:48am PT
|
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 11:17am PT
|
welcome back Fattrad...I mean LEB...
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:12pm PT
|
For those who like their doom straight and gloomy, Jim Hansen and colleagues have a new paper in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Starting from paleo data they calculate a climate sensitivity of 3-4C per doubling of CO2 at 1-4 times 1950 CO2, rising to peak around 8C per doubling at 8-16 times 1950 CO2. Burning all fossil fuels could conceivably result in 16 times 1950 CO2.
The result would be a planet on which humans could work and survive outdoors in the summer only in mountainous regions [115,116]—and there they would need to contend with the fact that a moist stratosphere would have destroyed the ozone layer
The denialosphere will be all over this one of course, but it will be interesting to follow how other scientists respond. I expect that RealClimate will be one of the first places to read well-informed and intelligent discussion. Hansen tends to be more pessimistic than the consensus, in part because he does things like take this analysis all the way out to 16x1950 CO2. Most others think we'll stop the craziness (after disasters if not before them) long before that.
A second reason for Hansen's pessimism might be his use of paleo data, which are widely considered to give better-constrained (and sometimes higher) estimates of sensitivity than relying on observations from the past few decades. For example, the best-known of Earth's hyperthermal events, the PETM (Palaeocene–Eocene Thermal Maximum) involved CO2 concentrations of 600-1100 ppm (about 2-3.5x1950) and global warming around 5-6C.
As Base and I noted upthread, scientists with a paleo perspective often know that climate change can be large and hard to reverse. The Hansen article was forwarded to me this morning by a geologist who commented that "he has the essential background in time."
|
|
Elcapinyoazz
Social climber
Joshua Tree
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 01:23pm PT
|
Ron, let's try a simple example:
Do you think tomorrow's weather forecast will be "accurate"?
How about 2 days from now? 3? How about 10 days out?
Do you know why they can tell you, with a high, high degree of certainty that it will rain tomorrow, but not to the exact 100th of an inch of how much will fall?
In a word: Chaos. In two: Chaotic systems. Chaotic systems are notorious for small changes in initial inputs resulting in large changes in the final output. This is chaos theory 101.
Any system with a multitude of inputs, with their own senstivities and feedback mechanism, is EXTREMELY difficult to model. The fact that meteorologists can predict tomorrow's weather as well as they can is a result of refining models over decades.
Even modeling simple flows in a stormwater channel, something exponentially less complicated than climate modeling, might, MIGHT get you within 10% of what actually happens. Why? Because turbulent flow is chaotic. Just like weather, and climate, are chaotic. More so in the short term than the long term. Which is why we don't cherry pick random 10 year periods of the data to try to claim a "pause" when the much, much longer trend is clear and continues. You ever hear the term "noisy data"?
Of course the models are not 100% accurate, they are a "model". That's why we refine them, test them, try to figure out how to make them better.
In the main, they are WAY more accurate than any model proposed by your denailist crowd. I believe one of our regulars in this thread posted an animated graph that compared the projections of your deniers' model vs the climate researchers models vs observed reality. The result is comical, the AGW models are highly correlated with reality, whereas the deniers missed the boat by miles.
Do you believe the weatherman on the TeeVee when he says 90% chance of rain tomorrow? Or do you say, "well that guy don't know nuttin, cause whut about the 10% when it don't rain?"
You are downgraded, Anderson. Two brain cells left.
Derp.
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 02:38pm PT
|
Is NASA over duh hill and destined for the technological dustbin?
Private companies taking over resupply of the space station say yes.
So how can we trust their reports on climate when data manipulation is mouse clicking simple in support of the politically mandated premise that man made global warming must appear real?
But wait NASA is going to pay people $18000 to lay in bed for weeks to simulate getting weak in zero gravity. Everyone already knows this happens but not NASA.
Rather than building cost efficient rockets they want to spent money
to watch people laying in beds 24/7/70.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/crossingborders/2013/09/18/nasa-will-pay-18000-to-watch-you-rest-in-bed-for-real/
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Sep 19, 2013 - 02:39pm PT
|
The best advice I've read in the last many posts is Chiloe's: Check out RealClimate if you want relatively objective information.
That said, I think econometricians probably have more experience than even climate scientists in dealing with modeling events using nonexperimental data. If there's anything I can distil from 43 years of doing so, it's that such models have rather broad confidence intervals.
I've never seen such a model give consistently accurate point forecasts, because we know that those models are (often very crude) simplifications of systems with too many endogenous variables to model precisely. The most I think we can infer from the apparent lack of statistically significant warming in the last ten years is that there remains some uncertainty about quantity. It does not directly contradict the inference of effect.
I am aware of no evidence contradicting the prediction of CO2 concentrations relative to 1950. While we might not be able to predict precisely how warm a particular spot on earth will be at any particular time, it doesn't mean that we have a "failed" model. We still have a pretty good idea of the long-term effect. We do, however, need to avoid making decisions as if the point forecast is certain to happen.
I guess I would explain it like this. Suppose the chance of being hit by lightning at a particular spot on any given day is 1 in 1,000. Even though the probability of being struck on any single day is small (i.e. .001), I wouldn't care to live on that spot, because the probability of being struck at least once in, say, ten years is quite high (l.e. >.999). My model that says I'll be struck by lightning is wildly inaccurate on a daily basis, but extremely precise on a ten-year basis.
John
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!