|
Post by twawki on Jul 19, 2009 22:42:30 GMT
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jul 19, 2009 22:51:00 GMT
You are so correct. We are NOT there yet. Hopefully we will be at some time. The learning is a true joy.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 20, 2009 6:39:39 GMT
I did a bit of digging. I couldn't find Tripp in the main IPCC 4th Assessment reports. My best guess was that his role was in the Expert Group on SF6 emission from magnesium production.
Perhaps you could ask the guy who made the tea at the IPCC meetings next.
PS. I shouldn't be sarcastic. Perhaps people are unaware that the IPCC process is very broad and brings in expertise from a large number of areas to build up a whole picture. SF6 is a long-lived and powerful greenhouse gas so it would be important to know about it.
But Tripp could have done his very important job without meeting a single climate scientist.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Jul 30, 2009 19:22:25 GMT
I did a bit of digging. I couldn't find Tripp in the main IPCC 4th Assessment reports. My best guess was that his role was in the Expert Group on SF6 emission from magnesium production. Perhaps you could ask the guy who made the tea at the IPCC meetings next. PS. I shouldn't be sarcastic. Perhaps people are unaware that the IPCC process is very broad and brings in expertise from a large number of areas to build up a whole picture. SF6 is a long-lived and powerful greenhouse gas so it would be important to know about it. But Tripp could have done his very important job without meeting a single climate scientist. I dont know why you want to reduce the importance of the mans observations while comparing him to the tea man. Modeling has its place but if you cant build an experiment to test the model it is a bit nerdy in my view. Climate scientists who spend all day building models and who dont spend all day out there in touch with the world they live in are more or less by definition nerdy. And yet if you offer a critique of this practice you are labeled and condemned as being intellectually unworthy. And it appears you cannot even belong to a web site and offer points of view without a small army of individuals out to minimise what you say. And do they offer science? I dont see they do. It is insults and sarcasm and anything to beat the man down rather than allow him to offer a point of view he believes in. As far as man made climate change goes i have no idea but what i do see is a certain bullshit science being used by those who want to convince people they know best. One degree in one hundred years is a more or less meaningless observation in the context of mans ability to observe the change and describe what it means.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 31, 2009 5:01:28 GMT
But Tripp could have done his very important job without meeting a single climate scientist. I am not convinced that climate science is actually a real science. It certainly could be but I am referring more to how it is largely practiced. Like ecologists what most of them focus on is policy about not having the ecology/climate change. Yet change is the biggest earmark of both climate and ecology. Calling a climatologist a scientists in this day and age is about the equivalent of calling a Luddite a scientist.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2009 5:36:54 GMT
Radiant,
I did recognise this guys expertise.
My sarcasm was aimed at those who inappropriately raise the profile and hype the qualifications of people *just* because of their links to an event or process.
Do you think an expert in SF6 emission from magnesium production is necessarily qualified to comment on climate science, and vice versa?
Digging out such people seems to be a new line in denialism. James Hansen's so-called boss was another example.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jul 31, 2009 6:55:05 GMT
Radiant, I did recognise this guys expertise. My sarcasm was aimed at those who inappropriately raise the profile and hype the qualifications of people *just* because of their links to an event or process. Do you think an expert in SF6 emission from magnesium production is necessarily qualified to comment on climate science, and vice versa? Digging out such people seems to be a new line in denialism. James Hansen's so-called boss was another example. New line? Seems to me you have failed to study your history. . . .tryng to cool AGW alarmist ardor started a generation ago with Dr. Roger Revelle, The Father of the Greenhouse Effect himself. Got news for you bud but this is as old as the movement itself.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2009 7:51:48 GMT
Radiant, I did recognise this guys expertise. My sarcasm was aimed at those who inappropriately raise the profile and hype the qualifications of people *just* because of their links to an event or process. Do you think an expert in SF6 emission from magnesium production is necessarily qualified to comment on climate science, and vice versa? Digging out such people seems to be a new line in denialism. James Hansen's so-called boss was another example. New line? Seems to me you have failed to study your history. . . .tryng to cool AGW alarmist ardor started a generation ago with Dr. Roger Revelle, The Father of the Greenhouse Effect himself. Got news for you bud but this is as old as the movement itself. Is this the same Roger Revelle that wrote in 1979:
|
|
|
Post by stevenotsteve on Jul 31, 2009 8:25:04 GMT
steve. Do you think an expert in SF6 emission from magnesium production is necessarily qualified to comment on climate science, and vice versa?
Where does that leave Al Gore, a non scientist businessman/politician. Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) Diesel locomotive engineer.
So by your measure we can't trust Al Gore or the head of the IPCC, well we knew that already.
I could go on as there are loads more but I have to get some work done.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Jul 31, 2009 10:20:32 GMT
Radiant, I did recognise this guys expertise. My sarcasm was aimed at those who inappropriately raise the profile and hype the qualifications of people *just* because of their links to an event or process. Do you think an expert in SF6 emission from magnesium production is necessarily qualified to comment on climate science, and vice versa? Digging out such people seems to be a new line in denialism. James Hansen's so-called boss was another example. Steve I am very new to this topic after only recently coming across some of the videos putting forward the solar point of view. I found them interesting and began to look further. But what you are doing is telling people like me that i am not as qualified as the modelers to offer a criticism of their work. The issue here is that climate changes so why does it change. If the believers in models tells me it is changing because of something they are modelling then i want to say ok let us have a look at the evidence outside of the model. And after one minute of looking at a graph of C02 change versus temperature offered to me by a C02 believer I notice that C02 lags temperature. I was then told a few weeks ago that i am not qualified to comment, that there is a consensus, and these people know better than i do. On the one hand it is silly that such people think that consensus is relevant but on the other hand i do actually feel insulted that somebody can say i am not qualified to observe. In my view such hostility to reality is unwarranted and is being overly sensitive to the scientific process of peer review regardless of who is part of that process. The data and realities should be able to speak for themselves. If even the satellites and ice mass measurements are using models with built in assumptions and the temperature change is so small i for one need more information to form a conclusion. I was just looking at the geography of Ellesmere island since it forms a narrow channel with Greenland that is a principal pathway of Arctic water southwards. I noticed wiki mention the little ice age and how European explorers after this period were active in the area. Since the little ice age the Ice shelves around Ellesmere have become smaller. And we know that we have been for some thousands of years moving out of an ice age. But all of this is off topic to your point perhaps. The issue is that you are telling me the science is settled and that people like the SF6 guy or myself are not qualifed to say otherwise. The problem i have with that kind of view is that words are insufficient to describe the way i feel about that kind of attitude towards my ability to observe reality. I do have a chemistry degree and found i was in good company with some of these comments: pubs.acs.org/cen/letters/87/8730letters.htmlI have no idea if the magazine or the commenters are reputable but what they say resonates with me and makes me feel that science is alive and well for the time being
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2009 10:57:34 GMT
Radiant, I did recognise this guys expertise. My sarcasm was aimed at those who inappropriately raise the profile and hype the qualifications of people *just* because of their links to an event or process. Do you think an expert in SF6 emission from magnesium production is necessarily qualified to comment on climate science, and vice versa? Digging out such people seems to be a new line in denialism. James Hansen's so-called boss was another example. Steve I am very new to this topic after only recently coming across some of the videos putting forward the solar point of view. I found them interesting and began to look further. But what you are doing is telling people like me that i am not as qualified as the modelers to offer a criticism of their work. We all rely on consensuses of expert opinions in our daily lives. That doesn't mean we should accept them blindly because we take a view on people's motives as well as what they say. In this case, what would motivate an expert in SF6 to join a podium to comment on an area of science he has no experience in? There are many things that drive climate, and many things that drive CO2 levels. The primary evidence for the effect of CO2 on the climate derives from basic physics. The connection was made in the 19th Century by a scientist called Arrhenius. The role of CO2 in keeping the planet warm and, potentially, increasing the amount of warmth is undisputed even by most climate and weather scientists who are strongly of the view that the effect will be minimal or beneficial (Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy) If you are new to the subject, then maybe you should consider the evidence for a bit longer. I don't say that to patronise. Any reasonably well-educated person is capable of researching into what they are told about a lot of the climate science debate. But there is a lot of uncertainty in the science, and there is a lot of misinformation around (on both sides of the debate), and it takes time to absorb all that is going on. I was sceptical about our ability to make projections about the climate for a few years because I believed the evidence was largely model-based. When I started to look into it in more detail - about a year before the last IPCC report came out - it took me more than a year, and quite a lot of reading around, to come to my own set of basic conclusions (that it will likely be beneficial to our children and grandchildren to spend a lot of effort to reduce our fossil fuel use, and to not do so opens them to severe risks to their health and wellbeing). In part though, the side of the fence I came down on was because the evidence on the other side was so weak, and in my view relied a lot on misinformation and uncertainty. But it does help that I have met some climate scientists, so I know that they aren't evil, devious, stupid or driven by a green agenda. So I'd say take your time. Do your own reading. By all means argue from the position of the sceptic side of the debate if that is the way you prefer - I learnt a lot about the science by debating with an intelligent sceptic called Son of Mulder on another forum because he challenged me with difficult questions that I'd have to go away and research. And I think he learnt a thing or two too.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2009 11:05:07 GMT
steve. Do you think an expert in SF6 emission from magnesium production is necessarily qualified to comment on climate science, and vice versa? Where does that leave Al Gore, a non scientist businessman/politician. Rajendra Pachauri (IPCC chairman) Diesel locomotive engineer. So by your measure we can't trust Al Gore or the head of the IPCC, well we knew that already. I could go on as there are loads more but I have to get some work done. That is why I said "necessarily". It's interesting that the same people are always targeted as though undermining them is likely to undermine the science that is their job to communicate. I don't know much about Rajendra Pachauri, but Al Gore has a political mission to try and make people take seriously the *potential* threats of the scientific findings. Largely his statements are based on peer-reviewed science even if he does take the pessimistic view. Unfortunately, sometimes the pessimistic predictions come true, and if your civilisation is dependent on them *not* coming true it is good that someone is making you think clearly about them.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Jul 31, 2009 11:26:20 GMT
Steve I am very new to this topic after only recently coming across some of the videos putting forward the solar point of view. I found them interesting and began to look further. But what you are doing is telling people like me that i am not as qualified as the modelers to offer a criticism of their work. We all rely on consensuses of expert opinions in our daily lives. That doesn't mean we should accept them blindly because we take a view on people's motives as well as what they say. In this case, what would motivate an expert in SF6 to join a podium to comment on an area of science he has no experience in? There are many things that drive climate, and many things that drive CO2 levels. The primary evidence for the effect of CO2 on the climate derives from basic physics. The connection was made in the 19th Century by a scientist called Arrhenius. The role of CO2 in keeping the planet warm and, potentially, increasing the amount of warmth is undisputed even by most climate and weather scientists who are strongly of the view that the effect will be minimal or beneficial (Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen, John Christy) If you are new to the subject, then maybe you should consider the evidence for a bit longer. I don't say that to patronise. Any reasonably well-educated person is capable of researching into what they are told about a lot of the climate science debate. But there is a lot of uncertainty in the science, and there is a lot of misinformation around (on both sides of the debate), and it takes time to absorb all that is going on. I was sceptical about our ability to make projections about the climate for a few years because I believed the evidence was largely model-based. When I started to look into it in more detail - about a year before the last IPCC report came out - it took me more than a year, and quite a lot of reading around, to come to my own set of basic conclusions (that it will likely be beneficial to our children and grandchildren to spend a lot of effort to reduce our fossil fuel use, and to not do so opens them to severe risks to their health and wellbeing). In part though, the side of the fence I came down on was because the evidence on the other side was so weak, and in my view relied a lot on misinformation and uncertainty. But it does help that I have met some climate scientists, so I know that they aren't evil, devious, stupid or driven by a green agenda. So I'd say take your time. Do your own reading. By all means argue from the position of the sceptic side of the debate if that is the way you prefer - I learnt a lot about the science by debating with an intelligent sceptic called Son of Mulder on another forum because he challenged me with difficult questions that I'd have to go away and research. And I think he learnt a thing or two too. I dont know why you feel you need to educate me about C02. Or that i need to spend more time learning to be able to interpret what i observe. The issue i raised in connection to C02 was that C02 lags temperature.
|
|
|
Post by steve on Jul 31, 2009 13:50:40 GMT
I dont know why you feel you need to educate me about C02. Or that i need to spend more time learning to be able to interpret what i observe. The issue i raised in connection to C02 was that C02 lags temperature. I felt the need to say what I did because you said: Temperature rises can cause CO2 levels to rise (for example by reducing the ability for the oceans to hold CO2). CO2 rises can cause temperature rises. Other changes can cause temperature rises. So I would say that the evidence you are describing does not sound like it should enable you to conclude what you appear to have concluded after one minute of looking.
|
|
|
Post by radiant on Jul 31, 2009 14:18:28 GMT
I dont know why you feel you need to educate me about C02. Or that i need to spend more time learning to be able to interpret what i observe. The issue i raised in connection to C02 was that C02 lags temperature. I felt the need to say what I did because you said: Temperature rises can cause CO2 levels to rise (for example by reducing the ability for the oceans to hold CO2). CO2 rises can cause temperature rises. Other changes can cause temperature rises. So I would say that the evidence you are describing does not sound like it should enable you to conclude what you appear to have concluded after one minute of looking. I am not sure what you are saying here. No matter how many 'one minutes' i spend looking at the same graph the results are not going to change if the basic observations remain the same. The data shows quite clearly that C02 can at times lag temperature rises by what seems like thousands of years and C02 can remain elevated for thousands of years when temperature falls. The data also shows that C02 can at other times rise and fall at the same time as temperature. My point is that a C02 believer told me that the graph proved C02 causes global warming. But the graph does not show that. If the graph is accurate what it proves is that C02 can be very high and temperatures can fall. that observation has nothing to do with how fast i can read a graph. The only relevant issue is the accuracy of the data and what it can reveal to a person able to read a graph.
|
|