Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 04:26pm PT
|
The projection of right wingers is hilarious. Yes it's Scientists who are the ones who have a huge amount of bias in their view. LOL!!!
blah's article byline: Two new reports say the science of climate change is fine, but that some scientists and the institutions they work in need to change their attitudes
So blah I guess you are saying climate change is real, but that some scientists need to change? Fine with me, because that is probably the TRUTH.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 04:28pm PT
|
Right wingers try as you might to paint lefties and centrists as sheeple, YOU are the sheeple. Flock, sheep, religion, get it? Righties have been known as and are the sheep going back thousands of years. More projection- trying to convince yourselves that others are the sheep, but it is really YOU.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 05:49pm PT
|
The Fet--
Unless I've missed something, just about everyone who posts on this thread believes that climate change is real.
The arguments and discussion tends to be over possible causes, effects, policy choices to be made, and how much faith should be placed in the "scientists" (not much in my view, since they openly admit to being biased and clearly engage in scaremongering as explained in the Economist article).
Anyway, did you read the article in Dropline's post? Let's hear a "scientist" respond to that. They tend to be pretty good in proclaiming their righteousness and whipping up the masses, but then pipe down when confronted with inconvenient facts.
"Science" in the new opiate of the masses.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 05:57pm PT
|
You can hardly blame legitimate scientists for concluding that the deniers are for the most part idiots, and for saying so amongst themselves, i.e. in private e-mails. Facts are facts. At the intersection of science and public policy, they perhaps could have been more politic about it - every smart politician and bureaucrat knows not to put such things in writing.
|
|
stevep
Boulder climber
Salt Lake, UT
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 06:00pm PT
|
BlahBlah, you're going to say that the editorial page of the WSJ is not biased? It is pretty much universally recognized as right-wing and pro-business. As is the Cato Institute, where the editorialist is employed.
As for Chief's comments, he seems to be saying that if somebody is too poor and busy to follow the news on this, we shouldn't do anything to help them? If climate change is indeed happening, many of these people are probably the most vulnerable folks. They have no money to move. They may have to fight for food or water supplies. If we value them as fellow members of the human race (or perhaps future customers, to take an economic viewpoint), then I'd say we owe it to them to watch out for them a little, even if they aren't fortunate enough to have access to Supertopo for such enlightened discussions.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 06:09pm PT
|
Maybe we should just fire all the smart, educated, knowledgeable people because they are all elitists.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 07:15pm PT
|
You can hardly blame legitimate scientists for concluding that the deniers are for the most part idiots, and for saying so amongst themselves, i.e. in private e-mails. Facts are facts. At the intersection of science and public policy, they perhaps could have been more politic about it - every smart politician and bureaucrat knows not to put such things in writing.
Anders, I think it's more an issue of advocacy. We would never try to persuade triers of fact of the merit of our clients' positions by first calling them idiots. I wouldn't even attempt to persuade my peers that way, yet that seems to be what passes for advocacy on forums (fora?) everywhere.
Just look at so many of the responses on this thread. This is particularly true of links and quotes. I see too many people responding with "Oh, the author is just a biased mouthpiece of the (Choose one) []left, [] right, []anarchists [] Bonapartists, etc." That's a classic example of the ad hominum attck fallacy. Someone who is biased may, nonetheless, speak truth. In fact, I'd go even farther -- I have yet to find a person who is not biased in favor of their current world view. If I am therefore to reject the words of those with bias, I'm left with nothing whatsoever.
To me, Ed and Chiloe have been exceptions on this thread, although everyone gets frustrated now and then (Ed, as far as I can tell, shows it the least). They present factual and logical arguments. Chiloe actually changed my mind a couple of years ago on much of the research in this issue, by pointing me toward statistical sources of which I was unaware.
My personal request (which I fully expect to be honored in the breach) is that rather than merely dismissing arguments by saying their proponents are biased, please provide sufficient factual and logical argument so that a reader who does not know which side constitutes the "good guys" can decide based on argument rather than comparative insult.
Thanks in advance.
John
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 07:31pm PT
|
blahblah,
Thanks for the link to the article in The Economist. I'm ashamed to say that I let my subscription lapse, partly because I still have a stack of them in my long-term reading pile that I have no hope of reading completely.
That article, at least, provides an explanation for the criticism that seems consistent with Chiloe's explanation of the propriety of the CRU response under the FOIA requests. The criticism wasn't that the response was improper, rather that it may not have been the smartest way to proceed in 20/20 hindsight.
My own observation on this issue has been from the beginning that it reminds me too much of the economic research that I do, and know too well. There are strong prior opinions that influence how we build models and measure results, and we're stuck trying to make inferences with non-experimental data. This latter fact tends to make us overstate our statistics fo fit.
Partly for these reasons, and partly because our differing world views provide compelling policy prescriptions that disagree sharply with those of our intellectual opponents, we economists spend too much time talking past each other, rather than to each other. I suspect that's true of scholarship in general, though. I particularly liked the line about how almost everything we now regard as scientific orthodoxy started out this way.
If we can start doing research in a way that promotes collaberation and dialogue among those of differing views, I think we'll get closer to understanding what's happening. For that reason, I hope all sides take the views expressed in the article you cited to heart.
John
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 07:46pm PT
|
JE, it's supertopo/the Internet, insults are part of the fun.
The Fet--
Unless I've missed something, just about everyone who posts on this thread believes that climate change is real.
The majority of scientists would probably say most of the evidence shows a high likelihood of human caused climate change. But it's the weather which is incredibly complex, has a lot of positive and negative feedback mechanisms, and aspects we admit we know nothing about. We don't want climate change, we don't want things to get more expensive, but we are worried about it, and it looks likely that it will happen, so we should do what we can to prevent it without any significant negative impact on our economy.
While it seems the deniers really don't want to believe it's a problem and will latch onto any data that disputes human caused climate change. They will attack the messenger like Al Gore, or the "scientists", while not admitting there is a far better funded, more sinister element that wants to derail any action to combat climate change because it changes the status quo where they make billions of dollars.
We don't know what the weather will do tomorrow, never mind decades from now. But we can get a pretty good idea and we should base our actions on that.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 07:50pm PT
|
corniss, are you really so stupid as to not know the difference between weather and climate after all this?
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 07:52pm PT
|
If we can start doing research in a way that promotes collaboration and dialogue among those of differing views, You're quite right, John - and the scientists learned the hard way about manners. But there is an underlying problem with this.
The questions essentially seem to be:
1. Is the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increasing?
2. If the proportion is increasing, is it human-caused, and if so to what extent?
3. If the proportion is increasing, how will that effect the climate of the Earth, on a global and local level, what if any natural mechanisms might become involved, and what if anything can and should humans do to reduce further increases in greenhouse gases, or mitigate their effects?
Many of the deniers seem unable to get past 1 or perhaps 2, although it is scientifically unquestionable that the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased steadily over the last two centuries, particularly the last century, and that it is almost all due to human activities, direct or indirect. Neither question is the subject of serious scientific debate any more. There are questions as the details, but none as to the broad trends and causes. Hence the exasperation of many scientists, who aren't necessarily politically aware.
There is room for a valid debate as to the third question, in particular. That's what we should be having here.
|
|
Douglas Rhiner
Mountain climber
Tahoe City/Talmont , CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 07:53pm PT
|
No wonder CC won't post under his real name.
His idiocy would be open to the world.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 07:58pm PT
|
Come on Dougie. Have some sympathy for big tomato!
edit - and Mighty H - you should know by now that CO2 increase is not significant for the greenhouse effect. Incident Solar radiation and water vapor rule.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 10:02pm PT
|
Incident Solar radiation and water vapor
How does direct sunlight contribute to the greenhouse (reflected) effect? LOL.
You may have heard what happens when too much water vapor collects in the atmosphere. Hint: it starts with an R and ends with an N and has 4 letters.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jul 12, 2010 - 11:31pm PT
|
it is scientifically unquestionable that the proportion of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased steadily over the last two centuries, particularly the last century, and that it is almost all due to human activities, direct or indirect.
Is this more accurate than it is most likely almost all due to human activity? Even my way of formulating the issue might understate the uncertainty. We get into trouble when we make point forecasts when all we know is the range of likely outcomes.
My reading of the literature suggests that it is more likely than not that human activity hsa caused all of the change, and that the this change has the possibility of effecting enormous change in earth's climate patterns. I don't see the literature saying we know for sure, and I see very broad confidence intervals from most forecasts. We'd make better decisions if we know what we may gain or lose -- and a reasonable probability of each -- by taking or not taking any particular action.
As you correctly point out, most (but, I think, not all) of the opposition to the CRU/Mann view of anthropogenic climate change comes from those who don't like the policy implications. If we can shift the debate to policy, we have at least a chance of getting back to science rather than political science.
John
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2010 - 01:27am PT
|
The issue with the emails is, of course, alarming.
Ed, do I detect a note of sarcasm? :-)
According to this week's The Economist, universally acclaimed as a lefty sensationalist rag,
" One of the enduring mysteries of climategate is who chose the e-mails released onto the internet and why they did so. These e-mails represented just 0.3% of the material on the university’s backup server, from which they were taken. This larger content has still not really been explored.
And then there is the science. An earlier report on climategate from the House of Commons assumed that a subsequent probe by a panel under Lord Oxburgh, a former academic and chairman of Shell, would deal with the science. The Oxburgh report, though, sought to show only that the science was not fraudulent or systematically flawed, not that it was actually reliable. And nor did Sir Muir, with this third report, think judging the science was his job. So, for verdicts as to whether the way that tree-rings from the Yamal peninsula in Siberia were treated by the CRU produced good results, those following the affair will have to look for future developments in journals and elsewhere. The mode of production has been found acceptable, but the product is for others to judge. Science, in the normal run of things, should do that; and if it does so in a more open, blogosphere-inclusive way some good will have come of the affair."
The controversies in climate science
Science behind closed doors
Two new reports say the science of climate change is fine, but that some scientists and the institutions they work in need to change their attitudes
Jul 8th 2010
http://www.economist.com/node/16537628
When The Economist decides it is much ado about nothing then it is time to move on to more important things like creating better bond indices.
|
|
Reilly
Mountain climber
The Other Monrovia- CA
|
|
|
Jul 13, 2010 - 01:42pm PT
|
Amazon Storm Killed Half a Billion Trees
OurAmazingPlanet Staff
LiveScience.com Ouramazingplanet Staff
livescience.com – Tue Jul 13, 8:55 am ET
A violent storm ripped through the Amazon forest in 2005 and single-handedly killed half a billion trees, a new study reveals.
The study is the first to produce an actual tree body count after an Amazon storm.
An estimated 441 million to 663 million trees were destroyed across the whole Amazon basin during the 2005 storm, a much greater number than previously suspected.
In some areas of the forest, up to 80 percent of the trees were killed by the storm. A severe drought was previously blamed for the region's tree loss in 2005.
"We can't attribute [the increased] mortality to just drought in certain parts of the basin - we have solid evidence that there was a strong storm that killed a lot of trees over a large part of the Amazon," said forest ecologist and study researcher Jeffrey Chambers of Tulane University in New Orleans, La.
From Jan. 16 to Jan. 18, 2005, a squall line - a long line of severe thunderstorms - 620 miles (1,000 kilometers) long and 124 miles (200 km) wide crossed the whole Amazon basin. The storm's strong winds, with speeds of up to 90 mph (145 kph), uprooted or snapped trees in half.
When trees die, they release their stored carbon into the atmosphere, which contributes to climate change. In a vicious cycle, these storms could become more frequent in the future due to climate change.
To calculate the number of trees killed by the storm, the researchers used satellite images, field studies and computer models. They looked for patches of wind-toppled trees, which allowed them to distinguish from trees killed by the drought.
"If a tree dies from a drought, it generally dies standing. It looks very different from trees that die snapped by a storm," Chambers said.
The storm wiped out between 300,000 and 500,000 trees in the area of Manaus, Brazil, alone. The number of trees killed by the 2005 storm was equal to 30 percent of the total human-caused deforestation in that same year for the Manaus region. The researchers used the tree loss in Manaus to estimate the tree loss across the entire Amazon basin.
"It's very important that when we collect data in the field we do forensics on tree mortality," Chambers said. "Under a changing climate, some forecasts say that storms will increase in intensity. If we start seeing increases in tree mortality, we need to be able to say what's killing the trees."
The study, funded by NASA and Tulane University, will be detailed in a future edition of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/amazonstormkilledhalfabilliontrees
|
|
DrDeeg
Mountain climber
Mammoth Lakes, CA
|
|
|
Jul 17, 2010 - 06:19pm PT
|
I hesitate to jump into this discussion, because of the flack that Ed Hartouni gets for his measured, credible explanations about the way science works generally and how Earth’s climate behaves in response to increasing concentrations of radiatively active atmospheric gases (mainly carbon dioxide). I personally feel grateful to Ed for his persistence in participating.
So, I am jumping in to try to help clarify some issues. I am a scientist who works in this field, with my main focus on the relationship between climate and hydrology, especially snow hydrology. I also worked on infrastructure related to all of Earth science, as the chief scientist for NASA’s Earth Observing System in the early 1990s when the system configuration was established.
There are some things we know with a high degree of certainty, and there are areas of uncertainty. A problem in society in general, and on SuperTopo in particular, is that the debate has become poisoned to the point where it is difficult to soberly communicate sources and magnitudes of uncertainty.
What are we pretty sure about? I avoid the word “truth,” but the evidence for the following points is overwhelming.
- Earth is warming. Climate is not weather, but the multi-decade, global average of the constantly changing state of the atmosphere. Natural variations cause temperatures to rise and fall from year to year and place to place. The most recent decade was the warmest on record since good records started in the late 19th century, and the occasional cold spells in some areas do not mean that warming has stopped.
- To go further into the past, we have to use proxy-based reconstructions such as oxygen-18 in ice cores and ocean sediments, thickness of tree rings, and so forth. Although these are less certain than direct measurements of temperature, there are a lot of measurements covering time and space. The second half of the 20th century was probably warmer than any other half-century in more than a millennium.
- The Sun is not the culprit. Direct measurements of solar irradiance (including sunspot cycles) and reconstructions based on an isotope of helium can attribute only about 0.1 degree C of warming to solar output.
- Warming is consistent with what we know about atmospheric radiation. Solar radiation largely passes through the atmosphere and warms Earth’s surface, which in turn emits infrared radiation (mostly between 4-50 micrometers). In the atmosphere, carbon dioxide and water vapor (and some other gases) absorb this infrared radiation and warm the atmosphere. Because the atmosphere is warmed from below, buoyancy results.
- Finally, the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide since about 1800 mainly comes from fossil fuels. Concomitant with the rising temperatures, the “Suess ratio” (the ratio of the isotope carbon-14 to the normal carbon-12, named after a different Dr Suess) has declined slightly. Therefore the extra carbon has come from a source that is deficient in carbon-14, which has a half-life of about 5700 years. Coal and oil got their carbon from the atmosphere millions of years ago and have essentially zero carbon-14. Moreover, there is a 1.5- to 2-year lag between CO2 at Mauna Lea to the South Pole, indicating that the extra carbon comes mainly from the northern hemisphere, where the people are.
What is less certain? (Some of this material comes from a recent Nature paper, The Real Holes in Climate Science.)
- Feedback between warming and water vapor. Much of this blog has echoed skepticism about global warming. In reality, every climate scientist agrees that CO2 causes warming, including folks like Richard Lindzen, because the physical processes are very clear. However, if we warm the atmosphere by putting in extra CO2, we also raise evaporation rates from the ocean and therefore the atmosphere gets more water vapor. This extra water vapor is itself a greenhouse gas, so it causes extra warming. Also, we might expect a warmer Earth will be cloudier. If the clouds are low, their extra brightness would reduce the warming, but if the clouds are high, they cause extra warming because they absorb outgoing infrared radiation (for example, cloudy nights are usually warmer than clear nights). The area of uncertainty lies in how much these feedbacks further increase the warming caused initially by CO2.
- Regional climate. Although mitigation is global (CO2 stays in the atmosphere for years, so reducing emissions anywhere on Earth is effective), adaptation to climate change is local. “Downscaling” global climate models to smaller regions introduces its own artifacts. Some regions will see more change than others, and the models in their present state may not correctly identify those.
- Precipitation. When we think about the different years in our experience, particularly in the mountains, the major differences that we remember are in precipitation, rain or snow. The different climate models agree pretty well about future temperatures in a greater-CO2 environment, but not about precipitation. Because ocean evaporation would be greater in a warmer world, global precipitation would be greater (what goes up must come down). But regional precipitation, for example in the western U.S., could be either wetter or drier.
- Ice sheet behavior. The biggest surprise in Earth science over the last decade has been the accelerating flow of ice sheets that flow into the ocean and the rapid decay of ice shelves that these ice sheets feed. The processes by which these ice shelves can rapidly decay are not well understood. The underlying ocean is warming a little, and the heat flux between the ocean under 500 m of ice and the ice itself is hard to measure!
- Aerosols. Airborne liquid or solid particles — sulfates, black carbon, sea salt and dust — affect temperature and rainfall. Overall, we think that aerosols cool climate by blocking sunlight, but the estimates of this effect vary by an order of magnitude. Some aerosols, such as black carbon, absorb sunlight and produce a warming effect that might also inhibit rainfall. Other particles such as sulfates cool by reflecting sunlight.
Finally, population growth is going on at the same time. If we think of California’s water supply, we are starting to already see less snow at the lower elevations and earlier runoff, and we are expecting California’s population to grow from 30 million to 50 million by the middle of the century. Historically, we have managed water supply to meet demand – many people have “water rights” that they expect to last forever – but it is clear in the future that we need to manage demand.
In summary, climate is changing, land use is changing, and populations are growing. Pretending that none of these is happening doesn’t make the problem go away. We face a future of mitigation and adaptation, and we need to think soberly about what is feasible and effective.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!