Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Zeiss - Always on the lookout for something special – Shop now

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

AGW and rising sea levels

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rate Thread
Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 17:39   #101
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
. . .Way too many known, and unknown unknowns in the whole Carbon-CO2 system for humans to be mucking about in it in any way at all in my view, and this includes CO2 emission reductions ....
But inaction is a form of "mucking about", a thoughtless, let-it all-play-out-it's-all-too-complicated-for-poor-little-us-to-do-anything-about form. It's not as if we're starting from scratch after all, in a pristine world unaffected by human activity. We've been pouring massive and ever increasing amounts of carbon into the atmosphere for many decades now, and a successful attempt to reduce emissions would simply result in a partial return to the status quo ante. And that, given the overwhelming scientific consensus on AGW--fossil fuel industry shills and a handful of professors-emeriti notwithstanding--would be a very good thing.

But you know all this. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Wednesday 29th March 2017 at 18:19.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 19:51   #102
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
Good for China. . ..

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/29/w...ore-ipad-share
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 20:54   #103
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Lack of sediment formation is having major impacts in Chinese river deltas too.

Some of the stuff in this article makes me chuckle. The references to people being relocated from the Lockyer Valley, Queensland is one such instance. After the flash floods of 2011 killed dozens of people, and caused billions of dollars worth of damage, serious and concerted efforts were made to relocate the residents of Grantham (elevation ~100m+ above sea level, and located over 100km from the coast!) off the inland creek and river floodplains up onto nearby higher hilltop ground. Locker Valley Mayor Steve Jones said of the old town's location and the disaster, "We're stupid bastards, we just keep building in the swamp".

Nothing at all to do with climate change (whatever it's cause), and everything to do with human folly.

This to me represents the biggest threat, concreting over riparian areas and destroying their functioning (air conditioning, water flow regulation, and soil formation - that's carbon sequestration).

https://eos.org/opinions/global-sign...=EosBuzz032417

Way too many known, and unknown unknowns in the whole Carbon-CO2 system for humans to be mucking about in it in any way at all in my view, and this includes CO2 emission reductions .... (pollution reduction I'm all for - air quality and water quality - way too much plastic in the oceans).

By all means keep heading toward the solar powered future, and researching the whole system (I'm getting mighty hungry waiting for that pie), but don't pretend we're smart enough to be mucking around with fertilized ocean solutions etc.

Why is it that no-one ever mentions that water vapour (an emission from hydrogen powered engines) is a greenhouse gas thus rendering that solution nonsensical?
http://www.roperld.com/science/fuelcellspollution.htm

Chosun
Thanks for the two references, Chosun. Both are informative keepers.

Your question about water vapor is very well taken, although a few notes are in order. Water vapor is a much, much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (if you're into 'greenhouse gas' theory), but it's systematically omitted from IPCC greenhouse gas climate models, e.g., Hansen, Schmidt, etc. The whole thing is quite bizarre, but there you have it. The great physicist Freeman Dyson is equally perplexed, and commented that it's a fundamental flaw in climate models. But then, of course, he's only a pesky, throw-away emeritus professor at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton.

Maybe he's subsidized by the fossil fuel industry. Ya think?

Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 21:36   #104
litebeam
Registered User
 
litebeam's Avatar

 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Northwest U.S.
Posts: 539
I read recently about the huge amounts of oil utilized in the construction and maintenance of windmills in coastal regions. Hell, even land-based structures would require that as well, but the piece didn't address that.

The consumption statistics were staggering. I'll try to source that article for a link...
litebeam is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 21:53   #105
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
Water vapor is a much, much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 (if you're into 'greenhouse gas' theory), but it's systematically omitted from IPCC greenhouse gas climate models, e.g., Hansen, Schmidt, etc. The whole thing is quite bizarre, but there you have it.
CO2 not the only anthropogenic cause of GW. So what?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 22:02   #106
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by litebeam View Post
I read recently about the huge amounts of oil utilized in the construction and maintenance of windmills in coastal regions. Hell, even land-based structures would require that as well, but the piece didn't address that.
An odd point for a AGW-denier like yourself to be making. Or is it you that you simply prefer gas-guzzler cars, coal plants, oil refineries and devastated landscapes to windmills and solar panels?
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Thursday 30th March 2017 at 16:54.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 23:15   #107
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
CO2 not the only anthropogenic cause of GW. So what?
I'm outa here ..
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Wednesday 29th March 2017 at 23:38.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 29th March 2017, 23:46   #108
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I'm outa here ..
Try not to slam the door behind you on your way out. . ..
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Thursday 30th March 2017 at 00:53.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 30th March 2017, 03:17   #109
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
The technosphere. If the right one don't a-get you, then the left one will. . ..

http://www.slate.com/articles/techno...nofossils.html
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 30th March 2017, 09:17   #110
John Cantelo
Registered User
 
John Cantelo's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Canterbury, UK
Posts: 6,162
Whichever way you look at it the mass removal of data & citations noted in this article seems to be the administrative equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and going "La-la-la-la-la-la" and cannot be condoned - see https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...P=share_btn_tw
__________________
John

Please support Andalucia Bird Society www.andalusiabirdsociety.org Visit my website & blog on birding in SW Spain at http://birdingcadizprovince.weebly.com/
John Cantelo is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 30th March 2017, 10:17   #111
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan;3544423
Why is it that no-one ever mentions that water vapour (an emission from hydrogen powered engines) is a greenhouse gas thus rendering that solution nonsensical?
[url
http://www.roperld.com/science/fuelcellspollution.htm[/url]
Chosun
And why is it that nobody appears able to do any basic research and fact checking before making wild claims and voicing strong opinions about a topic they know virtually nothing about?

Here is a link to the actual IPCC report, Chapter 8 on climate models and their evaluation. It mentions "water vapour" 112 times.
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor...1-chapter8.pdf

Sorry to being a grumpy (and exasperated) dude about this

Joost
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 30th March 2017, 10:27   #112
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
I don't know that you'll read it, but this material by Don J. Easterbrook is very extensive and informative. He, believe it or not, is a strong environmentalist who advocates for pollution control (not including CO2).

Ed
And sorry Ed, I've read the book chapter and it's poorly referenced, selective in it's data presentation, not balanced in it's discussion and contains cases of outdated information.

Not one I would recommend people read to get a balanced view on AGW.

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 30th March 2017, 17:48   #113
Gilmore Girl
Beth
 
Gilmore Girl's Avatar

 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Northeast
Posts: 2,645
Here's an old article from Scientific American - see "Claim 1" mentioning water vapor:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rian-nonsense/
Gilmore Girl is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2013 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 30th March 2017, 19:05   #114
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gilmore Girl View Post
Here's an old article from Scientific American - see "Claim 1" mentioning water vapor:

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...rian-nonsense/
An oldie but a goodie. Thanks for the link.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 30th March 2017, 21:36   #115
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
An oldie but a goodie. Thanks for the link.
Here's another summary by James Frank:

"The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger."

Comparisons of Radiative v Effective Forcings inclusive of Stratospheric H2O are in the attachment.
MJB
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	forcings.gif
Views:	79
Size:	18.0 KB
ID:	620502  
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st March 2017, 05:51   #116
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post
And why is it that nobody appears able to do any basic research and fact checking before making wild claims and voicing strong opinions about a topic they know virtually nothing about?

Here is a link to the actual IPCC report, Chapter 8 on climate models and their evaluation. It mentions "water vapour" 112 times.
https://ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-repor...1-chapter8.pdf

Sorry to being a grumpy (and exasperated) dude about this

Joost
Joost, life's too short to be grumpy! :)

I'm not too sure who your post is directed at, but my point had nothing to do with the inclusion of water vapour as a feedback mechanism in climate models, but everything to do with the fact that one of the mooted solutions (hydrogen power) has deleterious consequences that are never mentioned in mainstream media, automotive journals, and science reporting etc. That's all.

I skimmed through the IPCC chapter 8 link you provided, and I'm sorry, but I see more questionable assumptions and holes than a block of swiss cheese for me.

Blinkered microscopic numerical analysis doesn't substitute for some well considered and verifiable big picture pie chart of ALL causative factors and their quantum for me.

I remain open to be convinced though.


Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 31st March 2017, 06:08   #117
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,399
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJB View Post
Here's another summary by James Frank:

"The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger."

Comparisons of Radiative v Effective Forcings inclusive of Stratospheric H2O are in the attachment.
MJB
MJ, what was the cause of the spike in the "Stratospheric Aerosols" graph line circa 1884?

Meanwhile back in OZ, after some record temps over summer, we have experienced 5 weeks of mild temperatures and rain. A lovely autumn.

A late season TC in North QLD has seen massive flooding all the way down to northern NSW. Newsworthy only due to all the flooded towns and silly buggers that live along the inland creeks, rivers, and floodplains. Imagine if the only thing to report was that a whole lot of carbon was sequestered due to natural hydrological functioning!


Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 31st March 2017, 11:38   #118
Nohatch
Mad scientist
 
Nohatch's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Southampton
Posts: 757
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Joost, life's too short to be grumpy! :)
Haha you're right
(I guess having the kids keep me up all night and having two grant proposals rejected put me in a confrontational mood - never post when grumpy or before first coffee!)


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
I'm not too sure who your post is directed at, but my point had nothing to do with the inclusion of water vapour as a feedback mechanism in climate models, but everything to do with the fact that one of the mooted solutions (hydrogen power) has deleterious consequences that are never mentioned in mainstream media, automotive journals, and science reporting etc. That's all.
Ah I misunderstood the gist of your comment - I guess the reason it's never mentioned is that the consequences of this conversion for atmospheric chemistry and climate are considered to be very minor. You'll find skeptics make a lot of a Caltech study from 2003 (http://www.caltech.edu/news/hydrogen...tudy-shows-722) published in Science. However, this has since been investigated further and significantly amended (toned down). A relevant quote from the journal Atmospheric Environment (Popa et al 2015):

However, it is important to consider all potential effects. In 2000s, several studies (Prather, 2003, Schultz et al., 2003, Tromp et al., 2003 and Warwick et al., 2004) drew attention to the fact that a hydrogen economy would be associated with an increase in atmospheric H2 due to leakage, and this additional atmospheric H2 could have negative effects on the atmosphere. Additional H2 in the atmosphere could enhance the stratospheric ozone hole (Tromp et al., 2003), and could indirectly increase the radiative forcing by influencing the greenhouse gases methane and tropospheric ozone (Prather, 2003). Later, more detailed studies showed that these negative effects are much smaller than feared initially, and small compared to the potential benefits (Derwent et al., 2006, Jacobson, 2008, Vogel et al., 2012, Wang et al., 2013b and Warwick et al., 2004).

I can send you copies of the primary literature if you like.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
I skimmed through the IPCC chapter 8 link you provided, and I'm sorry, but I see more questionable assumptions and holes than a block of swiss cheese for me.

Blinkered microscopic numerical analysis doesn't substitute for some well considered and verifiable big picture pie chart of ALL causative factors and their quantum for me.

I remain open to be convinced though.


Chosun
Hmm I'm sorry but you can't turn around and tell me you reject an in-depth scientific review (especially a single chapter of a much larger piece of work), calling the assumptions questionable (on what basis?) and the whole piece blinkered and full of holes (which ones?), based on a bit of skim reading!
If one of my students did that I'd tell them to quit their degree right there and then

So which specific points do you feel are unconvincing? Maybe I can provide additional material to help shape your point of view.

J
__________________
IOC Life list: 1335 (latest: Pinyon Jay @ Yoshua Tree NP, CA, USA)

Last edited by Nohatch : Friday 31st March 2017 at 11:41.
Nohatch is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st March 2017, 21:33   #119
MJB
Registered User
 
MJB's Avatar

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Holt
Posts: 4,604
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
MJ, what was the cause of the spike in the "Stratospheric Aerosols" graph line circa 1884? Chosun
Could be the aftermath of Krakatoa's 1883 eruption, but you knew that!
MJB
__________________
The fuzziness of all supposedly absolute taxonomic distinctions - Stephen Jay Gould (1977) "Ever Since Darwin: Reflections in Natural History".
Species and subspecies are but a convenient fiction - Kees van Deemter (2010), "In praise of vagueness". Biology is messy
MJB is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 31st March 2017, 23:52   #120
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,397
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nohatch View Post

Hmm I'm sorry but you can't turn around and tell me you reject an in-depth scientific review (especially a single chapter of a much larger piece of work), calling the assumptions questionable (on what basis?) and the whole piece blinkered and full of holes (which ones?), based on a bit of skim reading!
If one of my students did that I'd tell them to quit their degree right there and then

So which specific points do you feel are unconvincing? Maybe I can provide additional material to help shape your point of view.

J
Quote:
... And sorry Ed, I've read the book chapter and it's poorly referenced, selective in it's data presentation, not balanced in it's discussion and contains cases of outdated information.

Not one I would recommend people read to get a balanced view on AGW.
J,

As I interpret it, the point Chosun made (which I agree with) is the IPCC modeling enterprise presented in Ch. 8 is loaded with assumptions that potentially effect the credibility of output predictions. Moreover, most paragraphs are devoted to discussing model "improvements" since the TAR, which adds additional uncertainty about earlier predictions, like Hanson's, and as well as future ones. Early modeling efforts by Hanson, et. al. stubbed off water vapor/cloud dynamics, which was commented on by Freeman Dyson, as I mentioned.

Your annoyance at Chosun's rejection of an "in depth scientific [methodology] review," doesn't square with your own dismissive comments about of the Easterbrook paper, which is an in depth scientific review of natural climate cycles.

It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty and what courses you teach.

Thanks,
Ed
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Saturday 1st April 2017 at 06:44.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 00:30   #121
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty. . ..
Not to mention yours and (haha!) Chosun's.
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 03:11   #122
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,399
Wink

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty. . ..
Quote:
Originally Posted by fugl View Post
Not to mention yours and (haha!) Chosun's.
Sorry - no PhD in theoretical physics here, nor professorial tenure ...... think of me as the Howard Wolowitz and Amy Farrah Fowler of the group - only better looking like Penny!


Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 03:20   #123
Chosun Juan
Given to Fly
 
Chosun Juan's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Central West NSW, Australia
Posts: 5,399
Arrow

Quote:
Originally Posted by elkcub View Post
J,

As I interpret it, the point Chosun made (which I agree with) is the IPCC modeling enterprise presented in Ch. 8 is loaded with assumptions that potentially effect the credibility of output predictions. Moreover, most paragraphs are devoted to discussing model "improvements" since the TAR, which adds additional uncertainty about earlier predictions, like Hanson's, and as well as future ones. Early modeling efforts by Hanson, et. al. stubbed off water vapor/cloud dynamics, which was commented on by Freeman Tyson, as I mentioned.

Your annoyance at Chosun's rejection of an "in depth scientific [methodology] review," doesn't square with your own dismissive comments about of the Easterbrook paper, which is an in depth scientific review of natural climate cycles.

It would be helpful to know your scientific specialty and what courses you teach.

Thanks,
Ed
Yep. Thanks Ed that's pretty much it.

Joost, thanks for your reply, courtesy, and links. I will be happy to engage, and give a bit more detail later this w/e, but for now I'm off to wrangle possums out of the ceiling and do repairs ...... grrr


Chosun
Chosun Juan is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2016 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 03:42   #124
fugl
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019

 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Reno, Nevada
Posts: 14,664
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chosun Juan View Post
Sorry - no PhD in theoretical physics here, nor professorial tenure ...... think of me as the Howard Wolowitz and Amy Farrah Fowler of the group - only better looking like Penny!
Characters in a sitcom, or so Mr. Google informs me. Hmmm. . .. Nicely dodged, but the question still stands. Now, c'mon, fess up, do you have any scientific background at all, however humble? [I know Ed does as he's often said so in this and other threads but he's been so stingy with the details that I have no idea where exactly his expertise lies. Maybe he'll tell us now, maybe he won't. Whatever. . .. Same with you of course.].
__________________
Bird photos (Flickr): http://www.flickr.com/photos/fugl/
". . .Let them be left, O let them be left, wildness and wet;
Long live the weeds and the wilderness yet."

--Gerard Manley Hopkins

Last edited by fugl : Saturday 1st April 2017 at 04:29.
fugl is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Saturday 1st April 2017, 05:31   #125
elkcub
Registered User
BF Supporter 2019
 
elkcub's Avatar

 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 4,397
The public profile shows that I'm a retired NASA senior scientist with a specialty in statistical modeling. My Ph.D. is in mathematical psychology. My last 10 yrs. at NASA-Ames were spent researching helicopter vibrations using multivariate time-series analysis, and principal components decomposition. Ten+ co-authored articles in that area can be downloaded in PDF form by searching on "Edward Huff, NASA" using Google Scholar. My co-authors were all experts with a Ph.D. in computational modeling, database management, artificial intelligence, or mathematical analysis.

On an earlier thread I posted the attached article which tested critically the Existence of a “Tropical Hot Spot “& The Validity of EPA’s CO2 Endangerment Finding. My endorsement is the very last one at the end. No newspaper articles will be written about it for obvious reasons. But, if the outcome were different I'm confident it would have showed up in the NYT.

Ed
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Existance of a Tropical Hot Spot copy.pdf (1.62 MB, 85 views)
__________________
Understanding optics is child's play compared to understanding child's play.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts." Richard Feynman

Last edited by elkcub : Saturday 1st April 2017 at 06:41.
elkcub is online now  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Rising Sun Sets in the South Farnboro John Cetaceans & Marine Life 3 Wednesday 2nd April 2014 20:49
Rising to the challenge (RSPB) BF Newsroom Latest news from the RSPB 0 Thursday 29th March 2012 16:58
Camera Insurance/rising prices simon Equipment Insurance 0 Thursday 22nd January 2009 20:59
Rising sea could end bittern boom (BBC News) BF Newsroom Live Bird News from around the World 12 Saturday 8th March 2008 09:57
Cormorants rising from the ashes.... Jos Stratford Birds & Birding 9 Tuesday 30th November 2004 15:17

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.21531296 seconds with 38 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 03:22.