[Sunnyways]

The thing is I'd be a lot happier if climate change wasn't happening - there's enough to worry me already - but that seems to be where the scientific consensus is going. I take no joy in contemplating the ruin of of the world's coastal zones.

[N_Fiddledog]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

I don’t pretend Burt has no background in science just because I think he’s wrong on this subject. That’s what makes people like you and Bart different from the rest of us decent people. You don’t like what Bill Nye says therefore you say he must have no background on science. You don’t like the political opinions of John Kerry or John McCain therefore you say they must not have earned their Vietnam War decorations even though that has nothing to do with anything.

Burt Rutan is a retired aerospace engineer. He's never felt a need to have others call him "the Science Guy."

However...

$1:

"Burt" Rutan (born June 17, 1943) is a retired American aerospace engineer noted for his originality in designing light, strong, unusual-looking, energy-efficient aircraft. He designed the record-breaking Voyager, which in 1986 was the first plane to fly around the world without stopping or refueling, and the sub-orbital spaceplane SpaceShipOne, which won the Ansari X-Prize in 2004 for becoming the first privately funded spacecraft to enter the realm of space twice within a two-week period. With his VariEze and Long-EZ designs, Rutan is responsible for helping popularize both the canard configuration and the use of moldless composite construction in the homebuilt aircraft industry.

He has designed 46 aircraft throughout his career, been the co-recipient of the Collier Trophy on two separate occasions, received six honorary doctoral degrees, and has won over 100 different awards for aerospace design and development.[1][2] Rutan has five aircraft on display in the National Air and Space Museum in Washington, D.C., United States: SpaceShipOne, the Virgin Atlantic GlobalFlyer, Voyager, Quickie, and the VariEze.[3]

He also did this:

An Engineer's Critique of Globa Warming "Science‟

[N_Fiddledog]

Bill Nye did this:

[N_Fiddledog]

Here's the thing Beave: one of your fellow members of the warmageddon faith wanted to brag up Bill Nye. I noticed Bill is not the actual "the science guy," with his bachelor of science. Science Guy is a title from his standup routine.

I laugh at the suggestion of his superior science skills. You guys always want to talk about his debate with some religious zealot on creationism. Come back when you want to talk about his debate with Richard Lindzen. Dick is a for real "science guy." In fact, he's a climate science guy.

If you tell me you are the science guys cause Bill Nye I'm going to tell you about Burt Rutan and his study of the climate data then wait for you to call him a "denier."

Now if you want to show me some actual math or science I'm ready to listen. I won't be calling you or even Bill Nye "Denier."

[Thanos]

A lot of the Sept 11 "Truthers" are also engineers. Doesn't mean because they have a technical degree that they're automatically correct on what happened that day when they push their easily-disproven lies about "controlled demolitions" and "remote-controlled aircraft". And their engineering degrees do nothing to salvage their reputations or honour if they get into bed with the "Bush/Israel/JOO$ did 9/11" crowd.

[DrCaleb]

BeaverFever BeaverFever:

Bill Nye ... He was the CEO of the Planetary Society, helped develop sundials for the Mars Exploration Rover missions and has written two best-selling books on science. So kinda sounds like a “science guy” to me.

Point of order - he still is the CEO of the Planetary Society, a position that Carl Sagan steered him toward.

http://www.planetary.org/about/staff/bill-nye.html

I think they are nearly ready for their 2nd Solar Sail test too.

[Tricks]

Thanos Thanos:

A lot of the Sept 11 "Truthers" are also engineers. Doesn't mean because they have a technical degree that they're automatically correct on what happened that day when they push their easily-disproven lies about "controlled demolitions" and "remote-controlled aircraft". And their engineering degrees do nothing to salvage their reputations or honour if they get into bed with the "Bush/Israel/JOO$ did 9/11" crowd.

There are geologists that are young earth creationists.

At the end of the day, no amount of education will correct being a fucking idiot.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

He also did this:

An Engineer's Critique of Globa Warming "Science‟

That paper is rife with fundamental errors.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

While the numbers are massive and intimidating the fact remains that if true they are a vanishingly small facet of the total amount of ice on the continent.

But with the principle computer model being the RACMO2 then it can be noted that there is an acknowledged and historic bias to the model that was first noted in a study of snowfall in Greenland in September 2015. The researchers in that case noted deviations in the model from actual data ranging from .21% to .99% across nine separate measurements with the balance being weighted from .95% to .99% with .21% as a lone outlier.

After an update to the physics package in the RACMO2 model the observed variance between the model and manually observed measurements 'improved' with the variance across the same nine studies now weighted from .997% to .46% with .46% as the lone outlier and the balance now weighted from .74% to .997%.

tl;dr is that 0.011% is well within the known margin of error of the RACMO2 computer model and therefore the decision to call this a 'suggestion' instead of a 'conclusion' is wise.

It's not a suggestion, it's an inference. RACMO2 came out in the early 2000s, not after 2015. Not sure where you are getting that from. And was the variance in reference to total mass (as you imply) or within the time-series? Big diff. And with this study they used four datasets and three techniques (including SMB, which is what RACMO does), with good agreement, which added to the confidence.

But at the end of the day, it's a vast region with limited data

RACMO2 was used in this study, as well. It was the principle computer model for the study.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

He also did this:

An Engineer's Critique of Globa Warming "Science‟

That paper is rife with fundamental errors.

Well that's a stinging critique if I ever saw one.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

He also did this:

An Engineer's Critique of Globa Warming "Science‟

That paper is rife with fundamental errors.

Says the guy who got mad because somebody did the math showing his - "OMG, ice is melting - we're all gonna die" - article wasn't that big a deal.

And now you say you've found "fundamental" errors in Burt Rutan's paper, have you? I think I'd call them "mysterious" because we haven't seen them. We're left asking ourselves who should we believe - the guy who spent his life designing state of the art, high tech airplanes or Zip of the internet.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

RACMO2 was used in this study, as well. It was the principle computer model for the study.

The study used three techniques, one of which was SMB, and for SMB it used four models, one of Which was RACMO2.3. But I don't see why posting variance (is this statistical variance, or SD?) from a study in Greenland is relevant.

[BartSimpson]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

RACMO2 was used in this study, as well. It was the principle computer model for the study.

The study used three techniques, one of which was SMB, and for SMB it used four models, one of Which was RACMO2.3. But I don't see why posting variance (is this statistical variance, or SD?) from a study in Greenland is relevant.

Because these models have been and remain of questionable accuracy. Meaning that a finding that falls within the historic margin of error is not a trusted finding.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

He also did this:

An Engineer's Critique of Globa Warming "Science‟

That paper is rife with fundamental errors.

Says the guy who got mad because somebody did the math showing his - "OMG, ice is melting - we're all gonna die" - article wasn't that big a deal.

And now you say you've found "fundamental" errors in Burt Rutan's paper, have you? I think I'd call them "mysterious" because we haven't seen them. We're left asking ourselves who should we believe - the guy who spent his life designing state of the art, high tech airplanes or Zip of the internet.

It doesn't really matter to me what you believe. Zip of the internet has an undergrad in engineering and graduate degrees in science, and about 25 years as an environmental scientist. But you believe what you want to believe.

This guy's paper has little acquainted with science. It's a screed, and that is evident from the opening paragraph. I don't even know where to begin with the pretzel logic he's presenting. At one point he's saying that CO2 measured pre-Mauna Loa are unreliable, and then uses CO2 ice core data to prove a point he's making a little later. He's constantly using terms like "Co2 is good"--how is that science. We aren't arguing whether CO2 is good or bad. That's a policy or moral issue, not an informational one. he uses the US as a proxy for global temperatures--the US is one specific spot on the globe. His findings would have been drastically different had he used the Arctic for the same comparison. His understanding of radiation physics is extremely limited. He claims that CO2 has reached its saturation point, and that adding CO2 would not cause warming--I mean I don't even know where to start with that one. I don't think he understands that CO2 absorbs photons at certain frequencies, it also re-emits them. He criticizes modelers for changing their models based on real-world observations, but I guarantee that every model, from FEA to fluid mechanics, to friction loss, that he ever used was developed the same way. That's what you are supposed to do.

I could go on, but there's a reason this guy is just a fringe presence on the interwebs. For skeptics they'd be better off with Judith Curry or Roy Spencer. This guy is a fool.

[Zipperfish]

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

BartSimpson BartSimpson:

RACMO2 was used in this study, as well. It was the principle computer model for the study.

The study used three techniques, one of which was SMB, and for SMB it used four models, one of Which was RACMO2.3. But I don't see why posting variance (is this statistical variance, or SD?) from a study in Greenland is relevant.

Because these models have been and remain of questionable accuracy. Meaning that a finding that falls within the historic margin of error is not a trusted finding.

Newsflash: Models have uncertainty. All of them. Science isn't about certainty, it's about uncertainty. Science, at its essence, is building of models--abstract representations--and refining them through observation. It's difficult to test your premise because you don't provide any details on study you're discussing.