Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 11:06am PT
|
Come on TLP-" the current batch may not precisely predict"- you can do better than that, even the IPCC adjusted the graphic by "expert opinion" below the range of the models. They are wildly off.
Comparison of the rush for funding propelling the molecular everything craze of a few decades ago to the current rush for funding in AGW climate science is like comparison of a gnat to an elephant.
You are right, in the end very little will be done by way of mitigation or even preparation for climate change. This is a central tenet of Chuffian Darwinism and probably the major reason we continue to evolve. Adversity is the mother fooker of invention. What we face out their in the future is a frontier. Exploration and adaptive settlement in new frontiers is a neccessity for the well being of the human spirit.
Don't you think it is high time for the CAGW bubble to burst, before science is irreparably damaged?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 11:21am PT
|
In spite of my better judgement, I'm sticking my slippery oar in the water again.
This is a pretty decent "for the masses" explanation of how climate change is related to last week's Polar Vortex.
You'll have to listen carefully and the explanation for this event comes near the end. If you've had
your morning whisky or toke, you might miss it. And yes, the details were new to me.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/10/white-house-climate-change-polar-vortex-google-hangout?CMP=ema_565
Pay attention to the graphics. Which unfortunately are not well presented.
Those durned fuzzy bearded scientists haven't learned yet how to explain climate science to 3d graders.
Malemute: thanks
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 11:31am PT
|
Well, that was illustrative of at least one thing - The White House propoganda
machine is ON THE JOB! But that time lapse of the ice sheet fracturing and
rotating was awesome n'est ce pas?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 12:18pm PT
|
I knew some twerp was going to yell "propaganda!"
Given all the non-scientific, special interest backed, spouted by morons with no scientific education 24/7 Faux News (and others) REAL propaganda, it's really not fair for the government's scientists to use public money to educate the public on the best science available about an environmental problem that directly affects them?? A problem that will have significant effects on our way of life and economy?
And how dare they explain how the Polar Vortex is related to global warming? The NERVE of those Commie Bureaucrats!
Next thing they'll be trying to immunize all children against measles, smallpox and diphtheria!!
You wouldn't know the difference between science based information and propaganda if it bit you in the arse!
Would you have been happier with numbers and charts that you wouldn't understand either?
WTF do O'Really, Cockup Brothers, and their partners in grime know about climate science? O'Really still thinks a raped woman's eggs won't be fertilized, God created the earth in 6 days 6000 years ago and probably that the sun goes around the earth. Evolution? Don't even get me started.
Do you have any idea how a nuclear reactor works? If not, do you doubt that it works? This Theory of Relativity stuff is so fantastic it must be nonsense! Do you know that without correcting for relativistic time, your GPS wouldn't work and we'd never have put a rover on Mars?
How DID the Chinese manage to put a rover on the moon last month? It must've been faked propaganda and lies "proven" with Photoshopped images.
You want to see faked propaganda? Go to N. Korea. Remember Bush and Iraq WMDs? THAT was propaganda based on unsubstantiated facts.
If you think that sort of nonsense is anything like the scientific "consensus" on climate change you're delusional.
The fact we have to use the word "consensus" is symbolic of the poisoned right wing rhetoric. The historic and modern facts are observable and provable. The projections, like getting a rocket to the moon, are based on the best conclusions that are supported by the facts and known science. And just like any science, the theories and projections will be continuously refined.
(pardon my venom but I'm in fact tired of hearing this sort of clap trap from the Flat Earth believers)
Perhaps Ed and FM and others can be more polite in the face of obstinate idiocy but I can't.
Now I'll go back to my science based, factually verifiable way of making a living.
Sayonara.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 01:56pm PT
|
For those like Chief who feel panicky about thermonuclear comparisons, here's a kinder, gentler way to put things.
That's from an article by Dana Nuccitelli in the Guardian, with a roundup of other images he brought home from last month's AGU meetings. One of these, from a talk by glaciologist Richard Alley on impacts of abrupt climate change, is something I had already mentioned upthread. It illustrates the logical failure of those very popular "Uncertainty! Therefore Do Nothing!" arguments.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
|
Nice to see you applying that PhD in Sociology to good work. It's even better than that, I'm providing an in-thread numeracy contest for entertainment. Who can understand this graph and describe in their own words what it shows? I'm pretty sure you can't, Chief, but go ahead and prove me wrong.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 02:14pm PT
|
With the one exception of raobcore ( whatever that is and however they adjusted the data) the ipcc graphs show the mid troposphere in a cooling trend and in some instances the stratosphere warming professor. So the ipcc wg1 weakens the case of the models and spm. Thanks for highlighting what the blogs are indicating.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 02:31pm PT
|
the ipcc graphs show the mid troposphere in a cooling trend
What is the definition of mid troposphere? The IPCC plots show a cooling trend for pressures lower than about 200hPa and that is about 12500 m. Sounds pretty high for mid troposphere(especially in all areas with a troposphere that ends at a lower altitude...)
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
|
and in some instances the stratosphere warming professor.
I guess your problem is that you don't understand the y-scale that is often used in meteorology and climate science. The stratosphere is not warming in any of the graphs.
I also see that Lower troposphere, middle troposphere and lower stratosphere are included explicitly in the plots.
Thanks for highlighting what the blogs are indicating.
More like showing that the blog readers cant read graphs...
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 03:10pm PT
|
The Troposphere (the air that we breathe and where airliners fly) extends to about 10km altitude (approx 36K feet). In other words the section of the atmosphere that directly affects our environment. The pressure at the top of the Troposphere is 250 hPa. About 1/2 of sea level pressure for reference. So now you can interpret the charts relative to the Troposphere.
So all the graphs that Ed posted on the previous page show warming all the way up the Troposphere. For each region of the earth. Certainly less in the southern Extra Tropics (southern oceans and Antarctica) than in northern latitudes.
Good info on the atmosphere here. Note the section on Physical Properties: pressure and thickness.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_atmosphere
But all this is quibbling about detail (yeah, the Devil's in the Details).
See Ed's Bonus Plot FAQ 2.1
Each of the graphs shows global warming in a different way. Land surface air, marine air, sea surface, troposphere temperatures. Ocean heat content, sea level rise (warm sea is less dense than cold sea), arctic sea ice extent, glacier mass.
This is the historical data.
Period.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 03:16pm PT
|
the ipcc graphs show the mid troposphere in a cooling trend and in some instances the stratosphere warming professor. Strange but not surprising to see Rick's condescension toward Ed combined in a single sentence with his inability to read the graphs that Ed posted.
Thanks for highlighting what the blogs are indicating. Accidental irony, I guess.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 03:42pm PT
|
Rick, you can see from the past couple pages (1000 pages?) why I think that the tone and content of this thread is not enhanced by personalizing things. It would be better if every single post were relabeled with a random code, so that no one could tell whether the same person posted message #21345 and #21768. I bet we'd lose most of the stupid insult stuff in a hurry and find out what valid skepticism is out there and be able to discuss it objectively.
...exactly as High has done with regard to the troposphere graphs posted by Ed H. earlier. So far, looking just at the actual substance of comments, it is looking like it is the skepticism that is wearing the emperor's new clothes, not global warming/climate change.
It is interesting that not one person who posts here expressing skepticism about the theory/interpretation/hypothesis has taken up the suggestion I made to say what he/she believes, not what you disbelieve. Do you not think there is any long-term warming at all? There is warming but it is not much and we shouldn't worry? There is a lot of warming but it is entirely naturally-driven? or what? I'm just curious.
|
|
TLP
climber
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 04:21pm PT
|
That's a good question, but I did very specifically say what I think is the case, based on the data and science I've seen. Opinion subject to change based on some kind of substantive new science. (There is a long-term warming trend, human activity is contributing significantly to it, and there will likely be adverse consequences. How adverse, not sure.) Speak up, folks.
But I also said I don't think the human population as a whole is going to do anything to alter the trend in a substantive way. For example, see the graph below (data is from U.S. Energy Information Administration, nice image came from elsewhere but I checked against the original spreadsheet and it's the same). The numbers this was based on are certainly accurate enough to provide a valid overview.
Totally setting aside (for just the present moment) the question of advisability, it is obviously technologically, economically, and/or politically infeasible for emissions in the U.S. and EU to be reduced by enough, short term (10-20 years) to compensate for increases in China and India. And those countries are not going to change their trends for quite a while. Probably not unless there are some incredibly massive adverse consequences that occur within their own borders, and maybe not even then. A cynic might suggest that China would love to have some disaster-driven population reduction, and certainly would prefer that to squeezing their job creation that is founded on coal consumption, with the resultant social upheaval.
Anyway, we're in for whatever is going to happen or not happen. In my personal opinion, it is advisable to try to come up with reasonable scenarios of the consequences so we can prepare for the most likely ones in advance.
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 05:39pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^racist^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
|
anita514
Gym climber
Great White North
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 06:03pm PT
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^awesome^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
<
< ditto
<
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 06:52pm PT
|
"There is a long-term warming trend, human activity is contributing significantly to it, and there will likely be adverse consequences. How adverse, not sure."
That pretty much sums it up for me.I would stay away from the ideology of it,but that is not possible.
I push for alternatives,to combat the problems at hand [which by the way the heartlanders deny].
This post is 20k old,You all know the players, who would you trust?
50f saturday and rain.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Jan 10, 2014 - 08:14pm PT
|
Same chart is in here.http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/
Sketch:
Taken at the edge of my property,we received 8 inches of snow ,it was gone in 3 days and then we had -2f temps for a day .[good mountain biking though]
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!