Global Warming? are humans to blame?

Discussion in 'All Things Boats & Boating' started by hansp77, Sep 11, 2006.

?

Do you believe

  1. Global Warming is occuring as a direct result of Human Activity.

    106 vote(s)
    51.7%
  2. IF Gloabal Warming is occurring it is as a result of Non-Human or Natural Processes.

    99 vote(s)
    48.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    while I appreciate the response I'm curious as to why your not addressing the calibration issue, of course our papers are going to be interconnected, means your using respectable work for your research. I can respect that. Matter of fact I can do a back flip or two, if you'd have seen some of the stuff trotted out around here you'd understand why.

    But there is still the issue of resolution given the extremely variable nature of permeability, which I'm not seeing addressed in this post. Simply saying that we think there "was" a lag in the past climate system "could" be accurate, the initial findings would appear to support that claim, but further research has indicated a substantial variable permeability issue well outside the time frames of the estimated lag.

    I think ole Realclimate said it best

    so while we discuss the resolution issue, it might be prudent to note that its irrelevant to the present warming scenario. If you were to go back and look at the figures your going to see time frames from 40 to 7k years. Those numbers depend on a wide range of variables at each individual location. Seems to put a lag of 400 to 600 years into a little better perspective.

     
  2. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    actually he ignored the issue of permeability altogether, he did make a case for past climate, but our primary concern is in the present, in which case the past climate interactions may not always be applicable. By dumping millions of tons of CO2 into the atmosphere we are bound to be altering the chemistry to a significant degree.
     
  3. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Once again I appreciate the intelligent input

    concerning the issue with ACE

    might be time to invite Kevin into the conversation, I seem to remember meeting him at one of the coffee shops a while back. I'll see if I can't dig up his E Mail.

    lets start with the resolution issue again and a snippet from Realclimate http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...imate-change-and-tropical-cyclones-yet-again/

    concerning some sorta recent papers


    Hey Jeff, I know you don't want us cutting and pasting large portions of articles but if you go check Realclimate is an open source site, Gavin is OK with me using his blog

    Tom I think these guys said it best, and the prelude is an interesting read as well.



     
  4. Boston

    Boston Previous Member


    Ya I got a lot of respect for ole Gavin, he's always responded well and even if I was questioning something always seems to realize that its the questions you weren't expecting that often lead to a better understanding.

    Recently I posted one mentioning that the organic carbon reaction to a doubling of fossil based CO2 will most likely result in a >2°C rise in temps. Which is a nuance of one of your comments we haven't really gotten into yet. How much of the "recent" warming is due to human activities. Your caveat "recent" led me to remark "all of it" but if you move beyond the artificially induced temp increase "recently" initiated by human activity you end up in a scenario where the whole system responds in an effort to find its equilibrium again. Once again I'd use the High Permian extinction event as an example. Enough CO2, regardless of its source, can result in the CH4 hydrate being released into the atmosphere. One of the guys responded immediately, I think it was Jeff and agreed completely, also mentioning the HP event and adding that its the one wild card thats even more difficult to model than clouds. Very tricky subject and one thats got a lot of there attention. Deal is they don't mention it much because of a lack of definitive work. They know there's going to be a response of organic C but when it kicks in is anybodies guess.

    Ok gotta go check the response to your work
    cheers
    B
     
  5. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    OK looks like they went over your numbers and found a flaw, I did the same thing with a paper on black body radiation that looked kinda suspicious. Found a huge error in the formula's, basically the guy changed the parameters that had been used for, oh say 40 years and dreamed up his own version of math.

    I've got a lot of mail to answer but in short, those guys really know there stuff. If they found a flaw in your logic/math I'd suggest you use the criticism to improve your work. Then resubmit the corrected paper. If its got merit it will survive the peer review process. albeit an abbreviated one.

    I'm not sure I've ever had a question or comment deleted over there but I do know that they moderate that site heavily and carefully scrutinize all work that gets posted there. If there is a flaw in your science, they'll catch it. If they thought the flaw a dishonest one, they'll ride you like a rented mule.

    Best of luck
    B
     
  6. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    In response to Boston (the comment immediately preceding this one, 11/9/11 1:13 pm mountain time)....

    I mentioned in an earlier post that a technical comment of mine was deleted by your friends over at Real climate. Boaddesign.net readers can see my deleted comment in my Boatdesign.net commet at 11-08-2011, 10:11 PM, above. They can see clearly that this comment is technical in nature. It was deleted by RealClimate.

    In Boston's comment, immediately perceding this one, he implies that he checked into this issue and says...

    Well, well, well.

    Those who follow the global warming controversy will find that in blogs where it is discussed, like RealClimate, WattsUpWithThat, and my blog ClimateSanity (admittedly a bit player), or ever here on BoatDesign.net, most of the comments are uninformed or trivial or even vitriolic. But some are very good and informative. That is OK. That is the way it goes in an open forum.

    In some instances it may make sense to remove a comment that has gone over the top. But RealClimate leaves in hundreds (thousands?) of comments that fit the description of uninformed, trivial or vitriolic. It seems to me that this is a common practice when aimed at skeptics. But my comment was technical in nature, and made a mathematical point.

    It was removed.

    If the folks at RealClimate "found a flaw," as Boston has asserted, why not address my comment and point out the flaw in a technical and mathematical way? They did not. They deleted the comment.

    Now, Mr. Boston, if you have some insight to the "flaw," please let us know what it is. If your friends at RealClimate have pointed you to some information about this flaw, please point it out me and the BoatDesign. net readers.

    You seem like a loquacious kind of guy. But your response "they went over your numbers and found a flaw" is rather skimpy and vague. Please be more explicit. You can consult your friends at RealClimate and offer up the "flaw." This seems to be a perfect opportunity for you to deliver a coup de grace.

    For those BoatDesign.net readers who are interested, you can read much more about this at ClimateSanity.wordpress.com. The issue involved is my analysis of several prominent and influential sea-level rise rate models. There is much to read on this topic at ClimateSanity, but as an appetizer I suggest this illustration of the bizarre outcome of the influential (in scientific and political circles) sea-level rise rate paper by Vermeer and Rahmstorf.

    If that whets your appetite, then go to index of posts I have written about this paper. Some of the posts are mathmatical, but if you have had high school calculus you can wade through. Others are less technical.

    One other point: My blog is highly critical of these sea level rise models, all of which include Stefan Rahmstorf as the primary author or co-author. It also turns out that he is one of the primary authors over at RealClimate. Just sayin'.

    Best Regards,
    Tom Moriarty
    ClimateSanity
     
  7. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,767
    Likes: 350, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Quam prospectum!

    hoytedow wood butcher

    Hear, hear!
     
  8. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    On 11/10/11 at 10:47 AM Boston mentioned...

    Very good. The next time you and Trenberth are discussing the end of the world over a latte, ask him about this...

    [​IMG]
     
  9. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    On 11/10/11 at 10:47 AM Boston mentioned...

    Very good. The next time you and Trenberth are discussing the end of the world over a latte, ask him about these two pictures...

    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    The top picture is a portion of a full page image, depicting a "future hurricane," (his label, not mine) from his 2007 Scientific American article. The second is a real satellite image of Katrina.

    Trenberth's "future hurricane” is bigger than the continent of North America. It is so big that it stretches from northern Brazil to southern Canada. It is as large as the North Atlantic Ocean. A little hyperbolic, wouldn't you agree. And it doesn't exactly square with the Accumulated Cyclone Energy index that he touted (see my comment 11-08-2011 08:18 PM mountain) as a metric.

    Now, decades ago I was a big fan of Scientific American. But I find it has been dumded down dramatically. My point here is that a lot of people saw the top image and took it a "gospel" because it came from Scientific American, a source they trust.

    So, as you warm your hands on your cappuccino, ask him if he really believes that "future hurricanes" will be that large, or if he has any regrets about scaring impressionable people.

    Best Regards
    Tom Moriarty
    ClimateSanity
     
  10. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,767
    Likes: 350, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Quam prospectum!

    hoytedow wood butcher

    Touché, Boston?
     
  11. Climatesanity
    Joined: Nov 2011
    Posts: 0
    Likes: 1, Points: 0, Legacy Rep: 27
    Location: colorado

    Climatesanity New Member

    at 11-09-2011, 10:47 AM mountain time Boston uses a snippet from RealClimate to somehow defuse the Accumulated Cyclone Energy problem. (Where the "problem" is that it does not show increasing energy.)

    Frankly, most of it left me scratching my head.

    The first long quote which starts with...

    Doesn't exactly hit the nail on the head. Why? Because it concerns model for making projections of the future strength and frequency of cyclones.

    But the conversation we are having is about real data, not models.

    The second long quote is a RealClimate criticism of Larry Bell. Mr. Boston seemed to be most impressed by several paragraphs near the end, which he highlighted in red, where the RealClimate team takes Bell to task for claiming that 2009 & 2010 yielded a record low accumulated Cyclone Energy. The highlighted RealClimate quote...

    With that in mind, take a good hard look at the "Accumulated cyclone Energy" again...

    [​IMG]

    It seems that Bell left out a small detail: He meant that the Accumulated Cyclone Energy was as a record low during the satellite data era, starting in 1979. And, in fact, with that caveat he was correct. But even without the caveat, 2009 & 2010 were very, very low, notwithstanding the verbiage that RealClimate used to refute it.

    It is harder to hit a moving target. It is even harder to hit one that is constantly mutating. When Accumulated Cyclone Energy is high, then it is and auger of coming disaster. When it is low it is an inconsequential point to be brushed aside. Same with total global cyclone counts. Same with Atlantic Basin cyclone counts or ACE.

    best regards,
    Tom Moriarty
    Climatesanity
     
  12. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    We don't need to know what you were scratching :p:p:p

    and again your missing the point made by Realclimate that the ACE simply doesn't show the whole picture. Its been transcended by other forms of measurement, partly because those more accurate ways to measure the storm energy model better. Partly because of maybe there data period was insufficient in any case it sounds like your complaining that they improved the system.

    Sorry but why the date and time of my post? a Gish maneuver? it doesn't make any sense nor does your argument concerning the altering nature of how climate science is conducted

    developing better methods
    yields better results
     
  13. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    big deal if it was technical in nature, if it was incorrect it was incorrect, you yourself admitted why they found it flawed on your own page. Your words not mine. You could have used the information to further your work by correcting the error and developing a better model. but instead you simply complain you got a poor grade. Fix it and resubmit it. Or is it so fundamentally flawed it simply can't be "fixed"

    your model doesn't work apparently, if it did those guys would be willing to discuss it, as it was they looked at it, found a fatal error, and deleted the flawed work from there web site. Sounds like a prudent move to me.
     
  14. hoytedow
    Joined: Sep 2009
    Posts: 5,767
    Likes: 350, Points: 93, Legacy Rep: 2489
    Location: Quam prospectum!

    hoytedow wood butcher

    Boston, I love you but you need to go out and get a bigger shovel.
     

  15. Boston

    Boston Previous Member

    Firstly let me repeat that I'm enjoying our little sparing contest. I consider it a game of intellectual find the flaw, 97% of climate scientists simply can't be wrong. So whats the flaw in the deniers argument, as of yet I've never seen a single denier who even had the basics right. Arguing minutia is there game and the Gish Gallop is there name. You can dance around the complexities of sea level rise till your blue in the face and it still doesn't change the basic facts.

    Secondly I wouldn't want to deliver a coup de grace to anyone, There was another denier on here for a while who was most entertaining and he volunteered if I could prove something he'd bail out. I didn't want him to go, hell I he was endlessly entertaining, but he insisted. Hasn't been heard nor seen since. I'd rather he'd return but if he needs a hug and kiss to keep his spirits up then he's hanging with the wrong crowd anyway.

    Third I have way more respect for Gavin and the rest of the realclimate authors to bother them with the same question twice. There busy people and don't have time to teach a class, to those who don't want to learn what they don't want to know. Maybe you could simply go read there criticisms you posted on your own site again and then go fix your paper, get it peer reviewed and published if its all that sound. I'm thinking if the worlds leading experts in computer modeling climate systems say you screwed up your model, then you screwed up your model.
     
Loading...
Similar Threads
  1. Frosty
    Replies:
    115
    Views:
    8,051
  2. upchurchmr
    Replies:
    41
    Views:
    4,503
  3. sdowney717
    Replies:
    31
    Views:
    2,980
  4. rasorinc
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,565
  5. rasorinc
    Replies:
    171
    Views:
    12,907
  6. Guillermo
    Replies:
    20
    Views:
    2,725
  7. Boston
    Replies:
    162
    Views:
    12,148
  8. Boston
    Replies:
    4,617
    Views:
    304,731
  9. masalai
    Replies:
    3,693
    Views:
    235,180
  10. rasorinc
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,907
Forum posts represent the experience, opinion, and view of individual users. Boat Design Net does not necessarily endorse nor share the view of each individual post.
When making potentially dangerous or financial decisions, always employ and consult appropriate professionals. Your circumstances or experience may be different.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.