Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 71 of total 71 in this topic |
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Mar 18, 2009 - 02:49pm PT
|
..and its also worthless.
Reducing our use of consumer products that are produced by CO2 releasing energy sources is less than useless when looked at globally.
Saw this recent satellite map of fires on the Earth.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff319/12eric/firemap2009061-20090702048x1024.jpg
Mostly started by people for cooking, warmth, light, and predator
protection.
This fire map accumulates the locations of the fires detected by MODIS on board the Terra and Aqua satellites over a 10-day period March 2009. Every 10 days a new map.
500 million fires? Maybe. Everyday. Made me laugh at the ridiculous idea that CO2 releases can be reduced.
And anyway the sun drives climate change not CO2.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 02:53pm PT
|
The detectors in the satellites cannot see fires inside homes,
with smoke vented up chimneys, unless the viewing angle was exactly down the chimney with a view of the flames. So assume
there are many times the fires we see in this map.
Just saying CO2 reduction is hopeless.
Just think that while we slept last night another coal fired power plant probably came online somewhere in the world. It would not show up on this map either.
a link to a hi res image of the fire map
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/firemaps/firemap.2009061-2009070.8192x4096.jpg
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 03:08pm PT
|
That's a really interesting map on many levels. The fire map.
The air travel one too!
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 03:11pm PT
|
Awesome!
We better hope they are right that the sun drives climate change because nothing short on an asteroid collision is going to stop this.
edit - if we run out of wood to burn that would stop it. uh-oh!
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 03:45pm PT
|
I'm sure your grandchildren will appreciate the fact that you are going to great lengths to do nothing to avert the climate change disaster.
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 03:57pm PT
|
Chop that cornice off behind you and reduce our carbon load by one nihilistic CO2-spewing windbag.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 03:57pm PT
|
dirt
I know you're serious but there is a good chance that the extra
CO2 will save our butts by moderating the global cooling
that's happening now.
If the sunspot numbers remain close to zero for the next several years we'll have an ice age.
Extra greenhouse gases will only help growing crops by keeping
the planet a little warmer.
Hungry screaming kids annoy like nothing else.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 04:03pm PT
|
DR - I'll belay you from the summit while you chop. Always a good vid when it lets go.
You can trust me to hold you. Promise.
|
|
tolman_paul
Trad climber
Anchorage, AK
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 04:08pm PT
|
Some scientists have a hypothethis than human produced CO2 is causing "global warming". It has been anything but proven.
When they start consistantly nailing 24 hour weather reports then maybe I'll give them some credence. But, all they can do now is note that there has been a trend in global temperatures and produce a hypothethis that man made CO2 is the leading factor in that trend.
I could use a bit more of that global warming, it's been a more normal (i.e. cold) winter.
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 04:11pm PT
|
ya'll's that haven't need to get off the term "Global Warming". It's "Global Climate Change".
If you don't believe it's real you should adopt "Global Climate Change" because it will give you more validity when discussing with the ones that know it to be the correct term.
If you do believe it's real you should adopt "Global Climate Change" because it will give you more validity when discussing with the ones that know it to be the correct term.
So no matter what your stance if you keep tossing around "Global Warming" you simply look out of touch with either side of the science.
|
|
GDavis
Trad climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 04:12pm PT
|
ANGRY HIPPIE ANGRY HIPPIE ANGRY HIPPY
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 04:14pm PT
|
dr f - you reject the NASA data because it does not support your
views.
When was the last time you admitted to a mistake?
|
|
hooblie
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 04:43pm PT
|
there's a study under way, as reported in the ny times couple of weeks ago, that is trying to quantify the amount of greenhouse gases released by the thawing of permafrost across the arctic. the best approach is to inventory the bubbles of methane released and then trapped under the ice of frozen lakes in siberia. it is more difficult to measure the methane released in the tundra alongside the lake. the decomposition of organic matter previously held out of the accounting is on a scale that dwarfs any effect we might accomplish by lifestyle changes. it represents a contribution to a feedback loop that once triggered will overwhelm the current estimates of carbon release.
on an equally dreary note, i believe that every btu of hydocarbon that can be developed will be developed. the petroleum era will not end with sizable resources at hand if i know human nature.
consider that the first oil well was drilled by our great-grand parents, and that our grand children will live to see the endgame as the oil era plays out. i'm astounded to realize that in the context of the geologic timescale i personally laid eyes on every generation that participated in the transfer of the available carboniferous deposits from the earth to the sky.
let's redeem ouselves by designing and implementing a new, SUSTAINABLE (why is this just a word and not an organizing principle?) energy economy. we should go down swinging, and demonstrate that our time on the planet (as a species) has not been an abject blunder. at least we should veer toward an enlightened path. or even survive.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 04:44pm PT
|
I agree with that photo.
Deniers are a bunch of baboons.
|
|
Doug Robinson
Trad climber
Santa Cruz
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 04:46pm PT
|
OK Corniss, on belay? Got me?
Sorry about the flame job, but the good Dr. came along behind with the sobering facts I was thinking of. I came to your thread after spending a couple of hours contributing to a friend's blog about reducing our carbon footprint as climbers by driving more efficiently and flying less.
Did you check the air traffic link? I personally have not gotten on an airplane in over a year. I wanted to go climbing in Chattanooga this winter, but held off because of global warming. Last summer I went to Wisconsin and back by train. There is some multiplier of the greenhouse damage from injecting CO2 directly into the stratosphere where it does the most damage. Anyone here heard a number for that?
I'm trying, here. Actually sacrificing to lower the footprint. I'm teaching my kids that it matters.
So from where I sit, voting with my actual habits, MY carbon footprint is actually down. It's about 62 degrees in my house right now and I'm wearing a jacket as I type. The heater hasn't been on in days.
My kids are on the line here. If you have kids, my actions are helping their future. Please, you could do the same to help out.
I agree with you that the problem is mammoth. Titanic. And we haven't begun to budge it yet. BUT the global awareness is rising. People who care are starting to respond. Compact florescent lightbulbs -- got any? And LED lighting is on the horizon that's what? -- 3x better? My friend Bill has put his money where his heart is and installed a solar-panel roof. He did it before the current tax credits kicked in, because he knew it would help and he has kids too. I can't afford that yet, or even a house to put it on.
It's only hopeless if you give up.
|
|
mooser
Trad climber
seattle
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 05:30pm PT
|
Inspiring post, DR. Thanks for that. You've encouraged me on a couple of fronts.
|
|
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 05:49pm PT
|
DR F you are the only idiot on this thread
Any person that declares a scientific hypothesis a closed case on a subject that we have only been studying for a very short time is not only a fool but also an obstructionist to the evolution of human intellect.
How does your resume compare to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Gray
on this subject?
Oh Willliam must be paid by Exxon, right?
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:12pm PT
|
"William Gray is wacko with no credibility in Global Climate Change science"
That's a slightly harsh (and frankly untrue) assessment. Bill Gray is a bit out of touch, and is considered to be a bit extreme even amongst the tiny but voluble skeptics of anthropogenic climate change. (He's about the only atmospheric scientist left who contends there is no climate change; most just dispute its anthropogenic origins). But to claim that he has no credibility in climate science is a bit disrespectful.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:12pm PT
|
From the link...
Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus."
|
|
Bamm_Bamm
Social climber
I'm lost, Please help me!!!
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:15pm PT
|
Dr F.
What kind of Dr are you? You don't sound like any type of Dr. that I know.
You owe it to the rest of us to let us know your area of expertise.
You sound like a fraud and act like a child.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:19pm PT
|
"Any person that declares a scientific hypothesis a closed case on a subject that we have only been studying for a very short time is not only a fool but also an obstructionist to the evolution of human intellect. "
Anthropogenic forcing of the Greenhouse Effect hasn't been considered a hypothesis for 15-20 years; it's reached the lofty heights of a 'theory'.
It will remain probably remain a theory (at least for the next 50 years when we'll know one way or another), because the climate system is not so simple as to allow some kind of incontrovertible 'smoking gun' that says "ha! There it is; it's all about CO2".
However, being a 'theory' is not so bad. Newtonian mechanics is just a theory (we used to call it a 'law' until Einstein came along and showed that the Newtonian model breaks down in some situations). But your car and power plant and cam has been designed by Newtonian rather than quantum mechanics, so it can't be completely useless.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:34pm PT
|
"....Of 528 total papers on climate change, only 38 (7%) gave an explicit endorsement of the consensus. If one considers "implicit" endorsement (accepting the consensus without explicit statement), the figure rises to 45%. However, while only 32 papers (6%) reject the consensus outright, the largest category (48%) are neutral papers, refusing to either accept or reject the hypothesis. This is no "consensus." "
That's a bit disingenuous, Mr bluering. If you put a search on any article database for the keyword 'Climate Change', I'll bet you a brand new C4 to a cold beer that the large majority of the resultant articles will be concerned with the local effects of climate change, rather than with attribution. There's no reason for a study on, say, sea ice trends in Antarctica (to take my own subject area) to make any endorsement, explicit or otherwise, of whether observed changes are anthropogenic or otherwise.
Anyway, I must off and make up more leftist, Godless, American-hating lies about climate change.
The fun you can have with stats, eh.
|
|
nature
climber
Tucson, AZ
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:35pm PT
|
I rest my case about those that continue to refer to it as "Global Warming".
LOL!!!!1111
though I suppose there is another reason it continues to be used. In lots of places the data shows it's colder. Therefore the rightwinged propaganda spew can point this out and state "but but it's colder over there. So much for your global warming yadda yadda".
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 06:42pm PT
|
The term climate change is used to differentiate changes in the actual climate system rather than a global-average increase in surface air temperature (ie Global Warming).
"Global warming" isn't that important really. What's important for humans are the effects on precipitation regimes, snowpack, winds and to a lesser extent local temperature that occur dynamically from altering the Earth's radiation budget. And that's called Climate Change.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:03pm PT
|
All I'm trying to illustrate to Dr. F is that there IS NOT a consensus regarding anthropogenic climate change.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:19pm PT
|
And all I'm trying to do is pointing out to you that you're wrong, there IS a consensus amongst climate scientists that observed late 20th century trends are anthropogenically forced.
There is a small minority of atmospheric scientists who disagree, which is good because it keeps everyone on their toes. There is a slightly larger contingent of scientists with no specific expertise in meteorology or oceanography who, for whatever reason, have become vocally skeptical. But no purely frequentist statistical study (like the one you quoted) is going to illustrate that fact, and no experienced statistical practitioner would claim that it would.
|
|
bobinc
Trad climber
Portland, Or
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:22pm PT
|
This argument is kinda like the one made by the "intelligent design" crowd. You can show them 9,999 pieces of evidence that prove evolution but they hold out until the 10,000 piece is shown. (Actually, then we start on the next 10,000...)
|
|
just passing thru
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:34pm PT
|
Dr. F
I am very happy for you !!!
You won!
Yeah! Higher taxes & more government control !
(and the world's carbon emissions will continue to increase as the US flogs itself)
Nice work liberal environmentalists, way to walk the talk you f*#king hypocrites
:)
|
|
Bamm_Bamm
Social climber
I'm lost, Please help me!!!
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:43pm PT
|
I am a Doctor in Biology with an Emphasis on Evolution.
But my job is in Air Pollution Environmental Science
My title is Senior Scientist of the Air Pollution Compliance Division
And yes, this is an area of my expertise
So lets get this straight. You are a biologist with an emphasis in Evolution that works for the Air Pollution Compliance division of some unnamed region.
And this makes you "expert" enough to proclaim that everyone that doesn't agree with you "doesn't have a brain."
What have you ever written on this topic that demonstrates you know the reason behind any type of climate change? One that shows you are an expert.
NOT on the effects, the actual reason behind it.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 07:46pm PT
|
Well argued points made by you all, with a bit of flame to add that zesty feeling!
If I can direct your attention back to the global map again and ask you if changing 1 or 1 million light bulbs to CFL will have
any effect on the slope of CO2 increase being fed by this
world wide firestorm? I think not.
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/ff319/12eric/firemap2009061-20090702048x1024.jpg
But my theory is that CO2 really does not matter.
Our air: 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon,
0.038% carbon dioxide.
Its not the economy stupid, its the Sun stupid...
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 07:47pm PT
|
There is a small minority of atmospheric scientists who disagree, which is good because it keeps everyone on their toes.
So, now only 'atmospheric scientists' are the qualified ones? Everyone else is wrong about climate change or cyclical patterns of climate?
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:00pm PT
|
"So, now only 'atmospheric scientists' are the qualified ones? Everyone else is wrong about climate change or cyclical patterns of climate? "
Are you honestly trying to say that e.g. a geologist (or some random blowhard on the internet) has as much familiarity and expertise with atmospheric dynamics and radiative transfer as a specialist in the field?
Although they're both MDs, if I were unfortunate enough to have a serious neurological condition then I'd want to see a brain surgeon rather than a proctologist. (Cue cheap gag about having your head stuffed up your arse...)
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:03pm PT
|
(or some random blowhard on the internet)
Someone calling for me?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:05pm PT
|
Will, answer my question.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:08pm PT
|
"But my theory is that CO2 really does not matter.
Our air: 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon,
0.038% carbon dioxide. "
OK, this is getting ridiculously obtuse now, so I'm going to duck out. I have no problem with having a reasoned debate, and I would even be prepared to explain why your reasoning is spurious. But I have a feeling this is just going to degenerate into some childish spat along left/right political divisions, and frankly I find that tedious.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:13pm PT
|
"Will, answer my question. "
I believe I did. I made the not unreasonable statement that on any subject the opinion of an experienced professional carries more weight than that of even a moderately informed lay-person.
Need medical advice? Get an MD, not an epidemiologist.
Need to remodel your house? Get a builder, not a realtor.
Want to know about climate dynamics? Ask an atmospheric dynamicist, not a seismologist.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:18pm PT
|
Will, thanks.
There was certainly a consensus on mechanics prior to 1903, in fact maybe even for a short time after.
Back to the original topic of hopelessness...
Do you think that the 50 year projections offered by GCC scientists are really just science? Do they bear any relationship to what will really transpire over 50 years?
How much non-science is modeled in? How much economics, politics, population projection, types of energy consumption, quantities of concrete production, etc., are in those models and what is their role in the "science"?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:23pm PT
|
So only atmospheric scientists are credible in determining athropogenic climate change?
Quit being evasive, Will.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:37pm PT
|
Dr. F do you believe GCC is anthropogenic?
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:47pm PT
|
In reply to TradIsGood:
Good questions.
"Do you think that the 50 year projections offered by GCC scientists are really just science? Do they bear any relationship to what will really transpire over 50 years?"
Hell, I don't know, none of us do for sure. If you look at predictions from all the different models then they all show slightly different magnitudes of response. However, the general pattern that they show is pretty robust. They all show a global-mean warming; they all show big sea ice melt in the Arctic with consequent changes in ocean circulation; they all show a 'relatively' stable Antarctic for the next 30 years until the ozone hole repairs itself, and then rapid change. They all show significant sea level rise, and they all show significant environmental degradation in sub-Saharan Africa.
Some stuff, especially at a regional level, is still really uncertain. El Nino for example is a bitch to model, and its not made any easier by the fact the ocean's El Nino response to CO2 forcing is the opposite in effect to that of the atmosphere's, and we don't know which will 'win'. And a good water vapor parameterization is pretty much the 'holy grail' of modeling.
But this is a new science; we've only been doing this for about 40 years, and we're learning a phenomenal amount. The improvement between each major model's iteration (a new version comes out about every 3-5 years) is frankly incredible.
The thing is, if you talk to any decent scientist (not Fred Singer, not Jim Hansen, and certainly not Dr F) they'll be pretty honest about what we know and what we don't know. The big frustration is that the media only picks up the overblown views of a few fanatics on either side of the issue.
"How much non-science is modeled in? How much economics, politics, population projection, types of energy consumption, quantities of concrete production, etc., are in those models and what is their role in the "science"?"
The climate models are purely physical. However, they are run with different scenarios that account for human activity, e.g. no change in CO2, a doubling of CO2, reductions in CFC emission. If you do a google search for IPCC emission scenarios the standard 'prediction' scenarios.
It's also worth pointing out that long-term prediction is a relatively small part of how these models are used. Most of what we do is to experimentally force them in known and controlled ways to see how the climate responds to changes. Ideally we'd do this in a lab, but nobody has yet worked out a way of putting a planet-sized object in a lab with a time machine that lets 50 years seem like 5 minutes.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 08:57pm PT
|
"So only atmospheric scientists are credible in determining athropogenic climate change?"
Yes.
Anyone can have an informed opinion of the scientific basis of climate change and its probable causes, but that informed opinion comes from reading scientific research. And that research comes from climate researchers. Not journalists, not geologists, not talking heads. Not even Werner ;-)
Would you like to discuss the science yet, or are you still interested in this puerile issue of whether scientists have more credibility than bluering's internet sources?
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 09:03pm PT
|
Will, thanks.
Good answers...
Do you think it is right to be skeptical of a model, or models, that make a prediction of next year's Arctic Ice Melt, and really miss in a big way in just one year? There is one poster on here who makes a big deal of the size of the melt, notices that it is severely worse than predicted, and falls back on the "science" as evidence that we are in trouble.
To me, that is evidence of flaws in the model, so I do not use that model to draw conclusions or make predictions.
I look at it this way. The pro-GCC crowd falls back on science and consensus to bolster their opinions (and lack of knowledge of science) completely unaware that the modeling is only science, and completely unaware that the assumptions of CO2, CFC, etc. are just that - assumptions. Most of the anti-GCC crowd is likewise clueless about basic science and seek confirmation of their opinions wherever they may find them.
But you and I know that the assumptions are there. We may act on them or not in the short term. But we really can't predict when or how man's "carbon footprint" will change any more than we could have predicted the automobile and airplanes in the days of the horse, stagecoach and pony express.
Three years ago, almost nobody could have predicted the financial crisis. Nobody can predict next year's oil, coal or enriched uranium prices. Today, very few have a clue what happened in the financial markets despite a firestorm of reporting - ok, that perhaps is not fair, since few reporters have the least understanding either.
My problem with GCC science is not the research or science - it is the politization of the science by the UN and governments, and their use of it for purely political ends.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 18, 2009 - 09:14pm PT
|
Well said Will.
I agree that the issue is so complex that we'll need many years
to come to reliable conclusions. The media could drive us into
worthless projects if we don't fight the scare stories with ridicule until we know more.
If we don't I can imagine everyone walking around with the 'mandatory' CO2 scrubber gas mask on.
filled with soda lime granules of course - basically Drain-O
The main components of soda lime are
* Calcium hydroxide, Ca(OH)2 (about 75%),
* Water, H2O (about 20%),
* Sodium hydroxide, NaOH (about 3%), and
* Potassium hydroxide, KOH (about 1%).
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 09:32pm PT
|
"Do you think it is right to be skeptical of a model, or models, that make a prediction of next year's Arctic Ice Melt, and really miss in a big way in just one year?"
Well, yes and no. (Ha, how's that for weaselly answer!). To me, it may indicate that there are deficiencies somewhere in the model; it might be the sea ice component, or it might be the modelled atmosphere/ocean that's driving it. So, I would want to get in there and find out where the deficiency is.
However, that doesn't necessarily mean that the model is completely useless, especially if in the long term it simulates sea ice very well most of the time, and this is just a weird year.
We CANNOT predict an individual weather event with absolutely certainty, even theoretically that's impossible for a chaotic system. Imagine we had a model that was large enough to calculate the state of each atmospheric atom in the world at each time step. The only way of getting that model to run with 100% accuracy would be to set it going with the exact observed state of every atom at the same time (which obviously we can never observe). Any chaotic system is very sensitive to small changes, that's what chaotic means. This is just a rather long-winded way of saying that we will never predict the weather with 100% accuracy ALL the time, and we will never predict every season's climate completely accurately 100% of the time. But with time and effort, we can get pretty damn close.
"My problem with GCC science is not the research or science - it is the politization of the science by the UN and governments, and their use of it for purely political ends."
I could not agree more. In Europe (I'm English BTW) the 'politicization' thing is less of a problem; there are skeptics and believers, but they don't fall across party lines as is the case here in the US. That's why I try and steer clear of activists, even if I broadly agree with them. Jim Hansen has, I think, given ammo to GCC deniers by making overblown and exaggerated claims about what we know, and has probably done more damage than Fred Singer. I see my role as a scientist simply to inform people, and if I voice an opinion to make it clear that is a viewpoint, not a scientific fact.
For the record, I believe that we are in a period of significant change, and the fossil record indicates that the speed of this change is unprecedented, at least in the Holocene. I believe that model simulations, whilst imperfect, robustly indicate that the only viable explanation for this change is anthropogenic forcing. I accept that some bright spark might come up with some new idea tomorrow that will completely change our view on this. However, the consequences that this does NOT happen are too serious to just 'hope for the best', as far as we can tell. In 10 years time we will know much, much more. But the worst case scenario is that in 10 years time it will be too late.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:10pm PT
|
Good stuff.
At least we are 90% sure! Better odds than winning the lottery.
Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the atmospheric scientists' take on the public write-ups? Is everyone of the attitude that we are sure enough that it is ok, because of the magnitude of the risks? Is funding at risk, if they voice public disagreement with the "consensus"?
Is the real problem so complex, that leaving it to atmospheric (ocean) physicists actually is a major mistake? Are the atmospheric scientists doing the physical equivalent of solving all of the zero friction, idealized case problems?
Certainly there is a feedback in the system. All of these publications are going to change the response - in fact, probably already have.
The last great master of all physics - Enrico Fermi - got a Nobel Prize in physics - for a discovery that was false, in fact, his error had been pointed out to him by a chemist, a woman.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:32pm PT
|
but that informed opinion comes from reading scientific research. And that research comes from climate researchers. Not journalists, not geologists, not talking heads.
So climate researchers studying the last 100 years of weather/climate can now make accurate predictions regarding 'Global' climate change?
Is the average mean temperature the only thing that determines anthropogenic CG, and if so, why?
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
Guam
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:45pm PT
|
I'll tell you all when global warming happens! My house will be underwater here on this spit of an island and I have a doctorate, so I'm a specialist in the field! ha ha ha
In the past 8 months the av. temp of the water here has gone from 86 to 81 (in deg.F for you non-scientist Americans) I notice because I dive, and I want a wet suit now.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:48pm PT
|
keep me posted on the dive-computer readouts, tooth!
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 10:56pm PT
|
hey TiG, what is this about Fermi?
he was awarded the 1938 Physics Prize
"for his demonstrations of the existence of new radioactive elements produced by neutron irradiation, and for his related discovery of nuclear reactions brought about by slow neutrons"
which I believe is not false...
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 18, 2009 - 11:04pm PT
|
jpt: "Every week to 10 days, another coal-fired power plant opens somewhere in China that is big enough to serve all the households in Dallas or San Diego."
Woo hoo! Since everybody else is doing it, why shouldn't we?
cc: "Carbon Footprint reduction is hopeless"
Woo hoo! I'm buyin' a Hummer, then!
jpt & cc, denizens of the depths of personal responsibility...you guys should start a political party.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:09am PT
|
Apogee, I don't think everyone should own a Hummer, but I also belive people shouldn't be taxed for owning the 'wrong' cars like the enviro-wacko's suggest.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 19, 2009 - 12:30am PT
|
The colossal vanity of primitive tribes thinking their
misbehavior's caused the hunt to fail, the stormy weather or floods, crop failures, sickness & deaths. Pretty silly huh?
But they were absolutely certain they'd brought disaster on themselves.
Their solutions were elaborate ceremonies and sacrifices to please the gods and when these did not work it meant the gods were still angry and needed more worship. More sacrifice!
That well meaning vanity is still a part of humanity and now takes the form of Carbon Footprint Reduction.
Silly rabbits. Tricks are for..
|
|
tooth
Mountain climber
Guam
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:50am PT
|
Oh please, ceremonies and rain dances. We are an enlightened society of scientists. The answer is paying money to government beaurocrats.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:12am PT
|
Tooth is on a roll.....must be the weather in Guam!
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:27am PT
|
"Apogee, I don't think everyone should own a Hummer, but I also belive people shouldn't be taxed for owning the 'wrong' cars like the enviro-wacko's suggest."
I dunno, Bluering, setting aside the whole carbon footprint issue, it conceptually seems quite reasonable to tax those who use more of our shared resources (i.e. petroleum) than others. And Hummers use more resources, no doubt about it. Maybe taxation isn't the best solution, but there ought to be some way to bring better balance to such extravagantly wasteful use of something we all need.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 19, 2009 - 01:45am PT
|
bluering - suppose the Hummer owner was the owner/operator of an ethanol fuel production plant? And mod'd it to run on the alcohol he makes. Special exemption to escape the higher taxes?
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:49am PT
|
I dunno, Bluering, setting aside the whole carbon footprint issue, it conceptually seems quite reasonable to tax those who use more of our shared resources (i.e. petroleum) than others.
Why tax more? Shouldn't it be a flat tax, you pay XXX dollars a gallon, regardless of vehicle type?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 02:00am PT
|
"Why tax more? Shouldn't it be a flat tax, you pay XXX dollars a gallon, regardless of vehicle type?"
Isn't that essentially the system we have now? Problem is, the whole socio-economic strata-thing makes it not work so well. Those with more money can afford the big guzzler, and the gallons of petroleum that it takes. The net effect is that an individual who has money gets access to more of the limited resources than those who don't have money. Way oversimplified, I know, but it just doesn't seem fair.
|
|
Will Hobbs
Trad climber
Santa Monica, CA
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 12:47pm PT
|
"Just out of curiosity, what is your take on the atmospheric scientists' take on the public write-ups? Is everyone of the attitude that we are sure enough that it is ok, because of the magnitude of the risks? "
What do you mean by 'public write-ups'? Do you mean media reports, peer-reviewed literature or syntheses for policy makers like the IPCC report?
"Is funding at risk, if they voice public disagreement with the "consensus"? "
Not really, no. People have, in the last few years, very publicly voiced contrarian views and it doesn't seem to adversely effect their grants. The major funding bodies (in this country the NSF and NASA) are run by scientists, and most scientists are just interested in the science, despite what certain commentators might think. We're nerds; we're just interested in solving the problem, and if someone comes along with a whole new idea that is realistic (and this is the key point) then it'll get funded.
One of the big straw man arguments by vocal contrarians has been that research into solar variability has been quashed. That is not true; there's more solar research now than ever. But there's no credible evidence, data or model that shows it can have a significant impact on global circulation at decadal timescales.
"Is the real problem so complex, that leaving it to atmospheric (ocean) physicists actually is a major mistake?"
Well, to be honest that's a bit of a semantic issue. I when I use the term 'atmospheric scientist' I mean anyone who is actively involved in atmospheric research of a suitable quality for a peer-reviewed publication, in the same way that I consider anyone who actively goes climbing is a 'climber'. Writing a turgid novel about climate science didn't make Micheal Crichton an atmospheric scientist, and half a day top roping the Church Bowl with a guide doesn't make someone a climber.
So I guess I would argue that this isn't some closed club where membership is based on having the correct degree from the right University. We have meteorologists, mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and even plant scientists. And they are all doing atmospheric research.
" Are the atmospheric scientists doing the physical equivalent of solving all of the zero friction, idealized case problems? "
If all we did was look at simple models, then yes. But that isn't all we do. We use by models by necessity when we want to run experiments, when we try and make predictions, and when there simply isn't any observational data, but we'd always much rather be using observations. Results garnered from a modelling study, with no kind of obs. data to back it up, are only ever considered (even by the researchers themselves) as a first best guess, until we have the data to do something better.
|
|
TradIsGood
Chalkless climber
the Gunks end of the country
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:30pm PT
|
Ed, three scientists demonstrated that, in fact, no new elements were formed.
Meanwhile, in 1938, three German scientists had repeated some of Fermi's early experiments. After bombarding uranium with slow neutrons, Otto Hahn, Lise Meitner, and Fritz Strassmann made a careful chemical analysis of the products formed. On Jan. 6, 1939, they reported that the uranium atom had been split into several parts. Meitner, a mathematical physicist, slipped secretly out of Germany to Stockholm, where, together with her nephew, Otto Frisch, she explained this new phenomenon as a splitting of the nucleus of the uranium atom into barium, krypton, and smaller amounts of other disintegration products. They sent a letter to the science journal Nature, which printed their report on Jan. 16, 1939.
Off hand I can't remember the book, but it provided a fairly fascinating account of Meitner's attempt to communicate and work with Fermi to identify the products chemically. Apparently he was having none of it.
An outstanding physicist, to be sure. Weird asterisk that he would have been awarded the Nobel Prize for a time when he was actually wrong.
|
|
Anastasia
climber
Not here
|
|
|
Mar 19, 2009 - 01:35pm PT
|
I haven't read all the post but... I feel that we have to try no matter the results. We are leaders which means that other countries will follow the trends we set.
AF
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 19, 2009 - 02:06pm PT
|
February 21, 2009 11:36 a.m. EST
David Goodhue - AHN Reporter
Miami, FL (AHN) - A glitch in a satellite sensor of the U.S.agency
that tracks Arctic Sea ice mistakenly led researchers to underestimate
the amount of existing sea ice by about 193,000 square miles - a chunk
about the size of California.
The error, which the National Snow and Ice Data Center is calling a
"sensor drift," began around January and started a "slowly growing
underestimation of Arctic sea ice extent."
-------------
What if other data are flawed? Like ocean temperature?
If something as obvious as ice can be mistaken for open water.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2009 - 12:56am PT
|
How many agree that Corniss Chopper is hopeless, and will continue to be until he/she posts more about climbing-related subjects?
|
|
apogee
climber
|
|
|
Mar 20, 2009 - 01:38am PT
|
Aye.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 20, 2009 - 03:32am PT
|
Mighty - ok ok .. there's always the worrisome subject of
'do you take the new girlfriend climbing on the 1st or 2nd date?
|
|
| Messages 1 - 71 of total 71 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!