Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
Previous :: Next Topic  
Author Message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11034 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Sep 05, 2019 8:59 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm wrote:
What source do you think epitomizes scientific standards?

I'll offer my tops: the US National Academy of Sciences.

To epitomize such a thing, I look at practices not claims. Science is a practice, not an institution, not a person. So long as not one element or argument is outside classical standard method, they make good argument. I examine practices, not persons, not doctorates, not authority.

Science is not about setting logical fallacies in stone..such as argument from authority.

Every observer has a much right to judge arguments within their expertise. And this includes noting logical fallacies, no matter how powerful or smart the person making them is, or claims to be.

Science is about method and process, and no one is exempt. Not even the US National Academy of Science.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11034 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostThu Sep 05, 2019 9:03 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
People, and outfits with successful careers in hard sciences.  Physics, engineering, etc.  In this specific case, the raw data reported by the national weather services of high tech civilizations is your ultimate source.

Yes. And I'll reiterate...*raw* data. Not data adjusted for modeling then reported as if it's empirical. And especially not data smeared over the 70% of the earths surface which is water, ...the lack of stations means smearing infill data over huge swathes for model inputs is the backstop.

If you disagree this is occurring, then show us the fixed stations over all the oceans reporting the data.

Remember folks, the fact that someone has chosen to make arguments made even more difficult by the lack of data in places they need it, does not validate imaginary data just because they've chosen arguments which require it. Proper method is not driven by the needs of a theory. Making empirical claims about theory is limited by proper method. That, is science.

You can have all the theory you like about fairy ghost gas raising the undead who pee global warming out of their ear canals, but you do not get to manipulate and abuse proper method to get the 'data' you claim will show this merely because your theory doesn't have the data it would otherwise require.

If you claims require data you do not have....too bad, then you don't have the data. It is scientifically and methodologically 100% irrelevant that you've chosen a theory which requires data which you don't have and cannot obtain. It does not make putting fake data into placeholder locations so your models will 'work', proper method.

It is not a skeptic's problem that a claimant has chosen an argument requiring methods outside standard method, it is the claimants problem. Just as irrelevant is how big the problem is claimed to be. It is still not proper method to shortcut proper method. There is no out for really giant scary OMG theories.

There is nothing in the above argument which does not merely stick exactly to the scientific method and logic. None of it bends or changes because of the nature of the claims made, or how hard they are to work with, or that data is unavailable due to the demands of the unique claims made. That is all irrelevant.

IF the claims have elements inconsistent with empiricism and standard method, then they have elements inconsistent with actual scientific resolution. This doesn't make it OK to go around them for convenience because otherwise you have nothing. You were already at nothing if your claims are not consistent with standard method.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Anne Elk
BrontosaurusTheorist



Joined: 07 Sep 2018
Posts: 631 | TRs
Location: Seattle
Anne Elk
  Top

BrontosaurusTheorist
PostThu Sep 05, 2019 11:54 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Not data adjusted for modeling then reported as if it's empirical. And especially not data smeared over the 70% of the earths surface which is water, ...the lack of stations means smearing infill data over huge swathes for model inputs is the backstop. If you disagree this is occurring, then show us the fixed stations over all the oceans reporting the data.

Actually, NOAA was collecting ocean data for years.  Back in the 80's NOAA was participating in world-wide climate studies and I was part of the crew on one of the ships laying track lines all over the Pacific, specifically to put out anchored weather/sea condition buoys to monitor conditions related to El Nino/La Nina phenomena.   I believe that at some point they either stopped or cut back significantly on buoy placement once satellite data collection got more sophisticated. Now they have a data collection tool called a sail drone.  NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Lab site has a lot of info and I know historical projects have published booklets on their work, which included maps of the tracks where buoys were laid.

--------------
"There are yahoos out there.  Itís why we canít have nice things."  - Tom Mahood
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sculpin
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Apr 2015
Posts: 476 | TRs

Sculpin
  Top

Member
PostFri Sep 06, 2019 7:29 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
And I'll reiterate...*raw* data. Not data adjusted for modeling then reported as if it's empirical. And especially not data smeared over the 70% of the earths surface which is water, ...the lack of stations means smearing infill data over huge swathes for model inputs is the backstop.

Yep, that is a particularly ignorant statement by facts-and-logic man.

Ocean temperature is continuously measured by a worldwide grid of buoys, and ships have been systematically measuring and recording ocean temperature and location for over 100 years.

Scientists noted that the sea surface temperature data took a non-natural jump in the 1940s.  Then they discovered that the approved measuring method changed at exactly that time.  The source of error was determined and the data was adjusted to smooth out the transition. It would be exquisitely stupid to just leave the raw data as is and throw up one's hands.

Infilling of station data has been done in the arctic, and there was a rather dubious paper written about it by a couple guys named Cowtan and Way.  Even though the science has moved on, it is still a favorite talking point for the denialosphere.*


*Unlike many others, I make a distinction between folks with scientific skepticism about climate versus the politically motivated folks who clearly couldn't care less what the science actually says.  The discussion of manipulation of temperature data to produce a more scary dataset is solidly in the denialosphere.

--------------
Even my best friends, they don't know, that my job is turning lead into gold. When you hear that engine drone, I'm on the road again, and I'm searching for the philosopher's stone - Van Morrison
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1301 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostFri Sep 06, 2019 11:10 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Thanks for that background Anne. I looked up this site and it says that they currently are collecting 60,000 measurements per month of SST, and that there are 3000 drifters in the oceans collecting measurements at various depths. The data points don't need to be fixed.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 859 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostFri Sep 06, 2019 12:24 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Ya there is some good ocean data out there.  Not as much as the land but not zero.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11034 | TRs
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
  Top

Member
PostMon Sep 09, 2019 12:33 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Sculpin wrote:
Yep, that is a particularly ignorant statement by facts-and-logic man.

Ocean temperature is continuously measured by a worldwide grid of buoys, and ships have been systematically measuring and recording ocean temperature and location for over 100 years.

Scientists noted that the sea surface temperature data took a non-natural jump in the 1940s.  Then they discovered that the approved measuring method changed at exactly that time.  The source of error was determined and the data was adjusted to smooth out the transition. It would be exquisitely stupid to just leave the raw data as is and throw up one's hands.

Infilling of station data has been done in the arctic, and there was a rather dubious paper written about it by a couple guys named Cowtan and Way.  Even though the science has moved on, it is still a favorite talking point for the denialosphere.*


*Unlike many others, I make a distinction between folks with scientific skepticism about climate versus the politically motivated folks who clearly couldn't care less what the science actually says.  The discussion of manipulation of temperature data to produce a more scary dataset is solidly in the denialosphere.


So in short, you haven't actually shown my argument is false. Love the name calling, that's a real hallmark of science. Keep it up.  up.gif

Infilling of station data is *still* done in all the places not proximate to the buoys.

Nor do you show that the adjusted data for modelling is not reported as actual temperatures.

And your own political biases do not show political bias in others, especially when the 'science' you support doesn't actually follow standard proper method. Unlike the true believers who do not demonstrate their belief with actions as they wait for everyone else to forced to, so it's easier for the believers, I have no political resistance to actual science.

IF I was convinced this science was science, and that the conclusions were solid, I'd change my own actions and choices and *still* oppose the wrong moves by govt to 'fix' what they are uniquely unqualified to do in any way, shape or form...as the unspoken necessities for such things as the Green New Deal show. They'd cause more damage fixing the problem than the problem itself. You cannot shortcut using govt that which requires change by literal choice, person by person.

Correlation is not causation, models are not evidence, consensus is not evidence, and all variations are still well within the previous bounds for this interglacial. Actual field work showing warming is consistent with natural warming.

The sole basis of claims that current variations are human caused, is models..which are not evidence.

--------------
Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 859 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostMon Sep 09, 2019 7:29 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
MtnGoat wrote:
Actual field work showing warming is consistent with natural warming.

This is not correct.  The warming we are seeing is almost certainly not natural.  There is no plausible warming mechanism other than our co2+water vapor radiative forcing changes - that could explain this.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostMon Sep 09, 2019 7:31 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead wrote:
MtnGoat wrote:
Actual field work showing warming is consistent with natural warming.

This is not correct.  The warming we are seeing is almost certainly not natural.  There is no plausible warming mechanism other than our co2+water vapor radiative forcing changes - that could explain this.

I think it's fair to say that it's unknown how much of recent warming is anthropogenic vs. natural.  Can a convincing case really be made that 100% of warming since 19xx or whenever is man-made?  I don't believe so, although on the other hand, I wouldn't want to argue the case that none of the warming is man-made.

If I recall correctly, ECS (equilibrium climate sensitivity - the atmospheric warming at equilibrium caused by a doubling of CO2 concentration) varies by a factor of 2 among major climate models, which confirms that scientists don't know the true value.  I also recall that a recent paper in the peer-reviewed literature on ocean heat content suggested that 20% of OHC could be geothermal in origin, which if true would further reduce the estimates of ECS, which have already been falling over the past decade or two, and which would leave a larger role for natural warming.  And I believe the AMO and PDO are both currently in their positive phases, so if they both flip to negative we could have global cooling for several decades even in the presence of rising CO2.

But unless somehow we're wrong that CO2 absorbs some portion of the long-wave radiation spectrum, I don't see how we can expect that none of the recent warming is anthropogenic.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostMon Sep 09, 2019 9:36 pm 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Magical solutions to climate change from the Dem candidates.

"Since decarbonization rates are highly abstract, even to us energy nerds, it is useful to consider what they mean in practice. In 2017 the United States produced more than 5,100 million metric tons of carbon dioxide emissions from the burning of coal, oil and natural gas. Using some simple math, to achieve Sandersí proposed reduction of 71% by 2030 would require the removal of about 200 million vehicles from the nationís roads by 2030, assuming proportional reductions in other fossil fuel consuming sectors. Does Sanders have a proposal to eliminate or replace ~20 million vehicles per year (more than 50,000 per day) starting in 2021? For those with less ambitious plans (a 50% reduction by 2030) that number is ~15 million per year (more than 40,000 per day) starting in 2021."

https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/09/democratic-candidates-climate-policy-commitments-are-incredibly-ambitious-but-fail-a-reality-test/

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1565 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 7:14 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2019/09/09/democratic-candidates-climate-policy-commitments-are-incredibly-ambitious-but-fail-a-reality-test/

Same tired sources. Pielke is a tool lacking credibility who has been discussed here before, used to present information exactly as you have regurgitated it, with the sole purpose of achieving political and economic goals. He's happy to do it, and may even be compensated for it. Wake up, your post before this showed some progress.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out
Member
Member


Joined: 18 Sep 2011
Posts: 394 | TRs
Location: Port Angeles, WA
Parked Out
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 7:23 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger wrote:
Same tired sources. Pielke is a tool lacking credibility who has been discussed here before

Maybe you could try demonstrating that you're capable of something more valuable than ad hominem attacks.  They contribute nothing to the conversation.

--------------
John
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
Doppelganger
Gorecrow



Joined: 09 Feb 2006
Posts: 1565 | TRs
Location: Pessimising
Doppelganger
  Top

Gorecrow
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 8:36 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked Out wrote:
Doppelganger wrote:
Same tired sources. Pielke is a tool lacking credibility who has been discussed here before

Maybe you could try demonstrating that you're capable of something more valuable than ad hominem attacks.  They contribute nothing to the conversation.

And an attempt at redirection. Your statement does not address the questions of Pielke's credibility or motives. Furthermore, these questions have been explored in previous comments in this thread (as I already stated in my prior post) and you are free to exercise the Search feature of the forum - or even the Search feature of the Internet! - to find this information for yourself, instead of crying for me to do that work for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
drm
Member
Member


Joined: 24 Feb 2007
Posts: 1301 | TRs
Location: The Dalles, OR
drm
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 8:39 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
Parked out - that's a lot of straw men. No, it's not 0% or 100% anthro, and no, scientists do not know the exact number for climate sensitivity. But they do have a probability curve that has held pretty consistently over the last decade or two.

As to the Democratic climate plans, politicians are known to reach for the stars to get attention. But so did Kennedy when he said we would get to the moon before the decade was out. Plenty of people considered that unlikely given our technology at the time, and their skepticism was well grounded. But nonetheless we did it. We need to be bold if we are going to respond to the challenges of climate change, but we also need to be flexible. Nobody can absolutely know the exact right mix of policies and technologies, so we need to get going and be ready to adjust course as we go.

Pielke says some of their plans are unattainable. That may be true, but we cannot know that for sure. And even if we do not reach their decarbonization rates, just maybe missing those targets by a touch will still be adequate. I would add that Pielke's article is not a denier piece or anything like that. It credits the Democrats with being ambitious but asks for more details on their plans. Pielke is a contrarian and sometimes makes questionable assumptions, sometimes he cherry picks, but sometimes he makes good points too. In this case he says those plans fail to pass a reality test because their decarbonization rates are far beyond anything yet achieved. Well, duh. That's what we have to do. Nobody truly knows what is achievable. So it's a case of a false assumption: that our experience so far in decarbonization defines the reality for what we can accomplish in the future. I'm glad that the early launch-pad failures in the US space program didn't convince Kennedy that going to the moon was not realistic.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Send e-mail Reply to topic Reply with quote
thunderhead
Member
Member


Joined: 14 Oct 2015
Posts: 859 | TRs

thunderhead
  Top

Member
PostTue Sep 10, 2019 9:55 am 
Reply to topic Reply with quote
While the general theme of your post is commendable, drm, there are specifically a few democrat proposals by major candidates that are completely idiotic and contrary to current science and engineering, and need to be called out as such.

The anti-nuclear stance for obvious example.
Back to top
View user's profile Search for posts by this user Send private message Reply to topic Reply with quote
  Display:     All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Forum Index > Stewardship > Global Warming
  Happy Birthday Matt!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy