Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 06:58pm PT
|
Referring to the link provided by rick above and the sources cited in it - are we to understand that he thinks this is a source that he agrees with? - I find the following quotes in addition to the one above and the ones provided by Ed two years ago which evidently fell on blind eyes:
Model simulations of twentieth century climate that include all the major, known forcings (solar, volcanoes, GHGs, aerosols, and ozone), together with the detection‐attribution techniques based on observed patterns, have shown that most of the global warming in the first half of the twentieth century was natural in origin, and much of this can be attributed to an increase in solar forcing. These same studies and others [e.g., North and Stevens, 1998] also concluded that most of the warming in the latter twentieth and early 21st centuries was due to increasing GHGs that have overwhelmed any natural changes in solar forcing. Results for the past 20 years continue to indicate that solar forcing is playing at most a weak role in current global temperature trends [Lockwood and Fröhlich, 2007].
Recent reconstructions of Northern Hemisphere temperatures and climate forcing over the past 1000 years allow the warming of the 20th century to be placed within a historical context and various mechanisms of climate change to be tested. Comparisons of observations with simulations from an energy balance climate model indicate that as much as 41 to 64% of preanthropogenic (pre-1850) decadal-scale temperature variations was due to changes in solar irradiance and volcanism. Removal of the forced response from reconstructed temperature time series yields residuals that show similar variability to those of control runs of coupled models, thereby lending support to the models' value as estimates of low-frequency variability in the climate system. Removal of all forcing except greenhouse gases from the approximately 1000-year time series results in a residual with a very large late-20th-century warming that closely agrees with the response predicted from greenhouse gas forcing. The combination of a unique level of temperature increase in the late 20th century and improved constraints on the role of natural variability provides further evidence that the greenhouse effect has already established itself above the level of natural variability in the climate system. A 21st-century global warming projection far exceeds the natural variability of the past 1000 years and is greater than the best estimate of global temperature change for the last interglacial.
So, it looks like the actual scientific sources provided by rick conclude that greenhouse gas caused global warming is very real and very substantial. Any explanation of why, in scientific terms, these are not accurate?
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
|
No, I do not have a better way to do it. It appears to be a sound design. My only concern is that it is truly based soley on a proposal's merits, without interference from politics. That's where I can't help but be cynical.
That's true Norton. Both sides do it.
|
|
Mimi
climber
|
|
|
Dec 28, 2013 - 08:58pm PT
|
Politics! And the fact that pols are rarely scientists so many of them simply don't trust scientists. Many people believe that this is just another means of gaining control over society and funneling imposed tax dollars from industry to selfserving programs. EPA and the EU's regulatory agendas haven't exactly helped reduce these fears. You've heard/read it all before.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 29, 2013 - 12:12pm PT
|
Norton,
That's one heck of a chart!
Indeed, let's cut down the rainforests because they produce too much greenhouse gas... Whoa Nelly, we got a live one there!
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 01:06pm PT
|
Bruce- " and arguably the single most efficient system responsible for the advancement of human existence on this planet or any other".
Can you please rejigger your gibberish so us mortals can understand?
Never. I will continue to be that crest of thorns bloodying your forehead as you drag your cross uphill to meet your maker.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 03:52pm PT
|
I'm talking in the same lingo as you catastrophist wackos. Clearly your beliefs are anchored to nothing more than faith since every contrary peice of evidence prompts you to a "reanalysis of your scriptures" to divine new interpretations , infills, and other manufactures to explain this world which is evolving away from explanations of old.The way all you flies were attracted makes one think you are a very familiar with this pile of shet. And back to my rental snowplowing. What are you idiots doing, besides busting your guts and damaging your eyeballs in front of the screens you are glued to.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 04:11pm PT
|
Now that's a bit of a weird statement. A page or two ago, you provided a link to an actual scientific review, implying that it provides convincing basis to conclude that recent climate data is explained by solar variation. So, I read (not just skimmed) it. It does provide an exhaustive review of the relevant science, and hundreds of references (some 400 or 450), and I read a bunch of those too.
Bottom line is, your source and the references it cites conclude that the variation in total solar output, averaged over solar cycles, hasn't actually trended very much at all over the last four centuries, and all the non-anthropogenic variations combined are nowhere near enough to explain observed temperatures over recent decades; therefore, warming due to CO2 is real.
That's the scientific source that you provide. Do you just not believe it? and if so why did you cite it as supporting your position?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 06:36pm PT
|
Now that's a bit of a weird statement. A page or two ago, you provided a link to an actual scientific review, implying that it provides convincing basis to conclude that recent climate data is explained by solar variation. While Sketch and the Chief are mostly one-trick ponies on this thread, Rick employs oddly bi- or tri-polar posting voices. Variously the Curious Student, the Make-Believe Perfessor, or the Bizarro-World Ranter. He slips into the last voice pretty often, as just seen, which can be puzzling if like TLP you thought he was still the Perfessor. Maybe someone else can deconstruct one of Rick's dense Rant paragraphs, I started a few times but gave up.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 06:52pm PT
|
Regarding the politicized distrust of scientists, that can be found at many extremes of the political compass, but the distribution is not random or "balanced." These survey results I posted a while back resemble what many others have found, as well.
How did we get here? A number of researchers have studied the deliberate campaigns that turned environmental protection from a bipartisan goal (doesn't everybody want clean water?) into a political wedge issue. For example, Jacques et al. 2008,
The organisation of denial: Conservative think tanks andenvironmental scepticism
Jacques, Dunlap, Freeman
Abstract
Environmental scepticism denies the seriousness of environmental problems, and self-professed ‘sceptics’ claim to be unbiased analysts combating‘junk science’. This study quantitatively analyses 141 English-language environmentally sceptical books published between 1972 and 2005. We find that over 92 per cent of these books, most published in the US since 1992, are linked to conservative think tanks (CTTs). Further, we analyse CTTs involved with environmental issues and find that 90 per cent of them espouse environmental scepticism. We conclude that scepticism is a tactic of an elite-driven counter-movement designed to combat environmentalism, and that the successful use of this tactic has contributed to the weakening of US commitment to environmental protection.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:00pm PT
|
Or more recently, this paper by Hmielowski et al. (2013),
An attack on science? Media use, trust in scientists, and perceptions of global warming
Hmielowski, Feldman, Myers, Leiserowitz, Maibach
Abstract
There is a growing divide in how conservatives and liberals in the USA understand the issue of global warming. Prior research suggests that the American public’s reliance on partisan media contributes to this gap. However, researchers have yet to identify intervening variables to explain the relationship between media use and public opinion about global warming. Several studies have shown that trust in scientists is an important heuristic many people use when reporting their opinions on science-related topics. Using within-subject panel data from a nationally representative sample of Americans, this study finds that trust in scientists mediates the effect of news media use on perceptions of global warming. Results demonstrate that conservative media use decreases trust in scientists which, in turn, decreases certainty that global warming is happening. By contrast, use of non-conservative media increases trust in scientists, which, in turn, increases certainty that global warming is happening.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:07pm PT
|
For an objective measure of who is hysterical, one might reasonably look at an individual's last 10 or 20 posts and see how often there are lots of capitalized words, repeated letters, exclamation points, and other standard means of expressing hysteria in writing.
I personally find it useless and unrewarding to rant or respond to ranting. If somebody posts some actual science references, I'll read them and comment on what they say. I'm very interested in long-term ecological change, so anything that's factual or scientific related to it is of interest. And I'm objectively curious how someone processes the fact that the reference they're presenting in support of a particular position actually states the opposite.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:16pm PT
|
For an objective measure of who is hysterical, one might reasonably look at an individual's last 10 or 20 posts and see how often there are lots of capitalized words, repeated letters, exclamation points, and other standard means of expressing hysteria in writing.
+1. As an objective loon-alarm I think that should yield a very low rate of false positives, but false negatives would still be a problem.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 07:35pm PT
|
Another widely cited sociological study of the politicization of climate science, by McCright and Dunlap (2011), confirmed earlier findings suggesting "biased assimilation" in how people accept or reject science depending on their political views.
THE POLITICIZATION OF CLIMATE CHANGE AND POLARIZATION IN THE AMERICAN PUBLIC'S VIEWS OF GLOBAL WARMING, 2001–2010
McCright, Dunlap
Abstract
We examine political polarization over climate change within the American public by analyzing data from 10 nationally representative Gallup Polls between 2001 and 2010. We find that liberals and Democrats are more likely to report beliefs consistent with the scientific consensus and express personal concern about global warming than are conservatives and Republicans. Further, the effects of educational attainment and self-reported understanding on global warming beliefs and concern are positive for liberals and Democrats, but are weaker or negative for conservatives and Republicans. Last, significant ideological and partisan polarization has occurred on the issue of climate change over the past decade.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 09:01pm PT
|
Thanks Chief for the accurate compilation of the state of and revelations of CAGW science. Or should we just call it CO2 scientology?
TLP- As is typical of pro CAGW posters on this thread, you misinterpreted the reason I posted the link to the paper "Solar Effects on Climate". It was the most complete compilation of Solar/atmospheric influences I have seen to date and it repeatedly stated that the measured effects of the various mechanisms may not hold up in solar conditions of a maunder like minimum. In short-a huge uncertainty that might well be looming.
Ed-I acknowledge some of you folks as true believers. Not you of course, you know better. Bruce, on the other hand, has always seemed as if he had a cross to bear.
The rest of you guys must be awfully bored.
Chiloe- Why are you doing studies of peoples completely rational fear of the agenda of huge taxation and loss of mobility and freedoms thinly veiled behind CAGW theory/scientists? I mean, even a low level moron can see through it, so why study the obvious? Why don't you study peoples completely irrational fear of new generation nuclear and advanced hydrocarbon extraction? If you truly believe in CO2 scientology, certainly you would want the most effective mitigation possible afforded through expanded use of these on the shelf technologies.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 09:14pm PT
|
Why don't you study peoples completely irrational fear of new generation nuclear and advanced hydrocarbon extraction? If you truly believe in CO2 scientology, certainly you would want the most effective mitigation possible afforded through expanded use of these on the shelf technologies.
Oww!
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 10:12pm PT
|
Rick, Thanks for explaining the reason for posting the link, but you need to read it again more carefully. The uncertainty is more a matter of what all of the solar parameters were doing in the 1700s, not the effects. Specifically, though the last few decades, when we benefit from actual measurements, show a good correlation of TSI and sunspot numbers, those parameters do not track well when you go back in time: the best analyses (depicted and discussed in the paper) show TSI being only slightly lower then, not drastically lower as for sunspot numbers. In another direction, it's far from clear (read the last page or two of the review) that that period was globally cooler, or just in Europe. In any case, the paper presents the range of uncertainty and explains what the authors collectively decided is the best interpretation, namely, that despite the best determination of the range of uncertainty, the known range of variation in non-human-influenced parameters is insufficient to account for recent temperature data.
There are definitely huge uncertainties in something this long-term and complex, and lots of data limitations and unanswered questions, but so far I haven't seen any scientific explanation of the data that we do have other than some degree of warming due to human activity. I don't care, I don't live at sea level, even the most dire suggestions of worst case won't come to pass in my little piece of the globe before I check out. Just trying to understand the world.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 10:31pm PT
|
Hey. Go look at the late Mesozoic hothouse event. It is almost certain that that event was caused by a large increase in CO2. Pangea was breaking up and there was a lot of volcanism.
The wandering continents have now been studied through time using paleomag. You can look at it as a movie, or just go look at the work of Blakey: http://cpgeosystems.com/mollglobe.html
We know that flora assemblages during that time were temperate at very high latitudes. Well above the arctic and Antarctic circles. Sea levels were so high during the Cretaceous that N America was split down the middle with a N-S interior seaway. How do we know this? There is a big package of marine sediments that record it.
In stratigraphy, rises and falls of sea level are super important. Sea level through time has now been reconstructed (first by Exxon, I believe).
How do you get a 200 foot rise in sea level? If it is eustatic, meaning global and not due to local tectonics, it requires a lot of melting ice. Therefore paleoclimate is very important if you want to understand sedimentary rocks.
What has me worried is the Cretaceous example. We had high CO2, melted ice caps, plant and animal life showing a very warm climate, and it was at a level that could be achieved by man. Figuring out the CO2 concentrations during the late Mesozoic hot house is a tall order. We can reconstruct it based on things such as leaf stomata and isotope ratios, but different models give different answers. I'm no expert on the measurement of CO2 in paleoclimate, but the work has been done. It was 2 to 4 times today's levels.
We know for a fact that CO2 levels are higher than they have been at any point in the last 800,000 years. Samples of that atmosphere have been recovered from ice cores. Also, there is a correlation between CO2 and temperature.
So, if we burn all of the remaining oil and gas, and go through most of our coal, we will put ourselves at a level approaching what happened in the Cretaceous.
It isn't so simple as that. Lots of things affect climate. Aerosols or volcanic ash particles, ocean circulation, milankovitch cycles, probably many more.
As a scientist, and an Earth scientist at that, it does worry me. I'm no expert in paleoclimate causes, but I do correlate flooding surfaces all day long. So I am aware of the planet's fickle climate.
The cycles of high and low stand that we see in the deep past sedimentary record has been correlated to Milankovitch cycles. What we are seeing today is not related to the Milankovitch cycles. We should be in a cooling trend which will continue for tens of thousands of years.
Caveat: We do see a correlation between Milankovitch cycles and paleoclimate in the rock record. There are obviously other factors at play because not everything can be explained by the cycles alone. We know that there are feedback influences and the big driver: ocean circulation is not fully understood (but we are learning more every day).
There is a lot of info on this for anybody who is curious. If you are curious, that means you have an open mind. We know that some of the characters who dominate this thread do not have open minds. When new information comes in, they attack the messenger.
When you see somebody relying completely on ad hominem attacks, you can be pretty sure that they are in deep rhetorical trouble.
For example, The Chief will probably attack me as a hypocrite in the back pocket of big oil. I like to think that I am open minded.
For non-scientists, particularly Chief, Ron, and Rick, if they know how to read, they should all read this book:
This book will help anyone who is trying to sort through good science and bad science.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 11:06pm PT
|
I made most of my money on one play. I found a shallow gas zone that a bunch of 80's vintage wells drilled through and ignored. By the time I found it in the early 90's, most of the old wells were plugged, so the leases were open.
You can drill shallow gas wells with an air rig if you don't have fresh or saltwater uphole. It was so simple that I showed the idea to another geologist. He went and got bonded as an operator (the Operator is the person or company which handles the income and work). We managed to lease up a huge area for really cheap.
Anyway, we drilled our first four with just us two and two other geologists. I paid my own money. We could drill them very cheaply if we did everything ourselves, including ditching a gas gathering system with miles of low pressure 2" poly and a number of meters which we bought used and refurbished.
We would drill 3 wells at a time every couple of months, and all of my income went straight back into the ground.
So in that sense, it was me who was paying me. Most of my income comes from small working interest or royalty interests from the production that I've found.
Right now I have been doing a contract job for a very small company in Tulsa. You have never heard of them, and I am in a confidentiality agreement anyway.
Before that, I did a 1 year contract for Chesapeake Energy, helping them with western Kansas stratigraphy from a position in New Ventures. That was the only real job that I've ever had. It was a lot of fun, and paid more than I dare say.
I basically find a prospect and then sell it to another company. I take a cash payment along with a small royalty interest. I quit participating as a working interest partner after we lost a 1.5 million dollar directional tool as well as a full drillstring in a well. What would have cost me 45 grand ended up costing me over 70 grand. That one nearly took me out, so I'm not as ballsy as I used to be.
I still make a couple of hundred bucks per month from my very first well. We call that "mailbox money." As you age as a geologist, you collect a number of small interests in wells. You make that money even if you don't lift a finger. I'm hoping to take off and solo circumnavigate the world in the next two years.
I don't make any money if I don't find anything. I find wealth. That is pretty cool. The area where I drill is all crops. I have never had to bulldoze down a tree when drilling a well. There are some things that I will not do.
|
|
BASE104
Social climber
An Oil Field
|
|
|
Dec 29, 2013 - 11:14pm PT
|
See? Nobody is commenting on the content of my post. All Chief did was try to attack me. I go out and create wealth. Today's wells can cost 4 million bucks. Even if I drill a dry hole, there are a shitload of people who are working because I had an idea.
I'm not a leech on the federal government.
Doesn't anyone want to talk about the cretaceous hot house event as an example of what may happen today?
Trust me. There is plenty of room for debate.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!