Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 21, 2014 - 04:56pm PT
|
The article was from Elizabeth Kolbert's BLOG at The New Yorker.
Ah, I looked up the reference, and of course you are right. It was from a blog.
But you are dead wrong, I didn't know that it was from a web log--I copied the citation from a previous post on this thread and I assumed it was cut from a longer New Yorker article. And that is exactly where I said I got the citation from.
Who looks more stupid, me not knowing it was from a short web log, or you, for asking for the reference when you knew what it was. I suppose that's a toss up (I'd say you, you'd say me).
What do I get from this exchange? The fact that you are not here to further a conversation, but to "troll" and create arguments. You are not sincere and you twist the facts to fit your argument. While you can spit out insults, your true value here is pretty obvious--insignificant.
Lastly, to wrap up another thread, I don't need the definition of a political cartoon. You insinuated I didn't understand your political cartoon, even though I said it was to discredit the WAIS reports. I believe I proved my point, and the true aim of the cartoon. (I'm putting this in here because I believe you lost track of the context of the "1000 years).
And now I repeat myself: Kindly GFY.
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 05:01pm PT
|
Hey, The Chief, you forgot to add a source for this:
Scientists involved with the most recently reported studies admit that the West Antarctic ice sheet isn’t melting due to warming air temperatures, but rather because naturally occurring warm ocean water is being pulled to the surface by the intensification of winds that encircle the continent. They then hypothesize that those stronger winds are being influenced by human-caused global warming.
In 2012 some experts from the University of Aberdeen and British Antarctic Survey discovered a huge one-mile-deep rift valley about the size of the Grand Canyon located beneath the ice in West Antarctica. Since this previously hidden ice-filled basin connects directly with the warmer ocean, they think it might constitute a major cause for much of the melting in this region.
It's written by Larry Bell. He is a professor of architecture, designs spacecraft's living quarters, he is no expert on climate or Antarctica.
He says in the article you quoted that the winds of the Southern Ocean are undergoing "intensification."
Why are they intensifying? Because a WARMING PLANET and a slightly (or not at all) cooling Antarctica creates a zone with wider temperature gradient, which creates stronger winds. More intense winds help stir up the deep, warm water, thus amplifying whatever melting might be happening. So we humans are causing (or speeding up) collapse of the West Antarctic glaciers.
This intensification has been modeled/projected by scientist for years. Here, from 2006/7.
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2007JCLI1764.1
Now it's happening and is being observed. From a couple weeks ago:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/12/roaring-forties-shift-south-means-more-droughts-for-southern-australia
"Australian National University researchers looked at the past 1,000 years of Southern Ocean winds for the first time, along with ice core samples and South American tree rings and lakes.
They found increasing greenhouse gases were strengthening the Southern Ocean’s Roaring Forties – known as the Southern Annual Mode (SAM) – that delivered rains to southern Australia. They also found the winds were tightening in over Antarctica."
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 07:32pm PT
|
No where in the Guardian's (A British PRO AGW newspaper) article that you cited, do the researchers indicate that the "Greenhouse Gases" are of human origins.
No where.
Oh, jeez, will I ever stop laughing?
|
|
crunch
Social climber
CO
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 07:44pm PT
|
... a really good indicator that greenhouse gases are what’s causing the winds to intensify ...
“As we increase greenhouse gases ...
|
|
Flip Flop
Trad climber
Truckee, CA
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 10:35pm PT
|
Jesus just appeared to me. I am found. He has an important message about climate change. Stay tuned.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 10:59pm PT
|
Grotesquely ironic that Evil Communist China Bureaucracy has accepted Global Warming as fact and is trying to figure out what to do about it.
While we keep pissing in the wind.
|
|
rottingjohnny
Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
|
|
|
May 21, 2014 - 11:56pm PT
|
The Chief..Your Ducati is made in China...Take that...rj
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 22, 2014 - 03:04am PT
|
For Sketch, here ya go...
I'd said, "As for the article I quoted, it's a partial re-post of the New Yorker article posted a few pages back."
Later, Sketch sez, "K-man - I keep asking you for the source of your C&P because you claimed it wasn't from a blog. We both know it was."
You know the old saying that when you assume things, you make ass ass out of you and me. Yeah, I'm an ass for not knowing the source of what I cited (my bad, I quoted blindly from an ST post). And Sketch, you looked like an ass when you kept asking for my source when I'd already posted it.
But I made another mistake. I said, "I can cite numerous posts of yours where you purposely misrepresent what I've said."
It was a mistake because I didn't realize how hard it is to go back and document these "I-said, He-said" exchanges. But I did say this:
later, I will spend the time to research where you twisted my words to create a straw man to attack. Sorry I didn't take the time yesterday.
Instead of "numerous" examples, I'm going to post just one; I think it makes my point.
Here's a sequence of posts, in I-said, He-said fashion:
Topic Author's Reply - May 14, 2014 - 01:27pm PT
Sketch: It always amusing to watch alarmists misrepresent my views. You just make sh1t up, that has nothing to do with anything I've posted... and try to claim it's my position.
k-man: I got my views of your beliefs from your posts. Would you like me to quote some of your opinions? I don't have to go far back to see the cartoon you posted about the ice melting in Antarctica. If that 'toon doesn't represent your view, then why did you post it (it contained a lot of misinformation and wasn't really funny)?
(Note: To satisfy Sketch's badgering, I made several posts to show how the cartoon completely misrepresented the scientific studies. In reply, Sketch didn't cop to the fact that the cartoon grossly misrepresented the studies. Instead he posted a definition of political cartoons.)
Topic Author's Reply - May 14, 2014 - 07:19pm PT
S: What do you think my views are based on my posting that cartoon?
k: OK, more straightforward this time (a rephrase of what I already said): I think that your posts represent your views. So to me, your posting of the cartoon indicates that the cartoon is a representation of your view.
If your views do not align with the cartoon, or your views are different from the opinions you post, tell us so we know they are not your views. Otherwise, we must all assume they are your views.
Is that clear? OK, let me try it again: What you post, including cartoons, represents your viewpoint.
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2014 - 07:32am PT
k: You ask me what your views are, and I answered as direct as possible. I gather my belief of your views from what you post. Why should I guess otherwise?
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2014 - 01:48pm PT
S: What do you think my views are based on my posting that cartoon?
k: ... your views were represented by that cartoon and your other postings.
Topic Author's Reply - May 15, 2014 - 05:56pm PT
k: Above you cited three media reports that, from my POV, accurately summarized the studies that said the ice sheets were starting a slow, unstoppable thaw. You said you had a problem with the way the media reported on the two studies.
May 16, 2014 - 07:52am PT
S: Still nothing [from k-man] on: ... why you implied I didn't believe the studies?
The subject is completely petty, I know. Sketch keeps badgering me to define how I got my opinion on his views. I tried several times to show him where I get my opinion of his beliefs, only to hear him chortle, "Still nothing ...". It implies I never addressed his question, when the fact is I addressed it several times. Saying that I didn't address the question is a misrepresentation of what I said. Even if Sketch didn't like my reply, I still replied and answered his question. To say I didn't is twisting what I said.
I said this is petty, in fact it's extremely petty. Understand, however, that when Sketch accuses you ("Still no response ..."), you can either (1) enter a debate where you need to defend yourself on some minutia BS (like "Where do you get your views on what I think?"), or (2) not address the accusation and give the implication that Sketch is right because you didn't challenge his accusation. And that just gives him the feeling he can continue his path of aggression.
The last post, "Still nothing on why I didn't believe the studies," after several posts from me detailing my view of why, in my view, Sketch didn't believe the studies. It's like the friggin' BS at the top of this post where Sketch asks for the source of my citation when I'd already given it. We're dealing with a guy who likes nothing more than to snake around, stirring up sh#t, and slimming his way out of any accountability.
Above, I show how Sketch builds a straw-man ("You never addressed my question"), and then knocks it down ("run, you coward."). It's all a weasel play, and boy does it grow old.
Sketch, take the last word, I'm done with it. Go ahead and attack me, call me names, defend yourself. Whatever. I'm pointing out your MO, like it our not.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
May 22, 2014 - 12:03pm PT
|
Here's an interesting article about a "tycoon" (billionaire hedge fund guy, who apparently made much of his loot by investing in foreign coal mines!) who's going to spend millions to try to get Dems elected by portraying Repubs as "anti-science."
http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/index.html?hpt=hp_t2
Seems like a pretty good strategy--being "anti-science" is sorta like being an overt racist these days. It may get you a few percent of the whacko vote, but it's not a mainstream position, even among conservatives.
But the tycoon may press his strategy too far--for example, he's anti-fracking. Isn't that anti-science? Fracking should be overall good for society and the environment, as nat gas replaces much-dirtier coal as an energy source.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - May 22, 2014 - 02:28pm PT
|
"My objections to the global warming propaganda are not so much over the technical facts, about which I do not know much, but it’s rather against the way those people behave and the kind of intolerance to criticism that a lot of them have."
I think this quote refers to the denial crowd's propaganda, right? They are completely intolerant to criticism.
Or are we now portraying peer-reviewed science papers as propaganda. Yep, the anti-science crowd hard at work spending their hard-earned $$$.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
May 23, 2014 - 11:24am PT
|
DMT, think 'intensify', not 'cause'.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
May 23, 2014 - 11:40am PT
|
Yes, intensify, lol!
Warmer atomosphere means more moisture. Basic physics, Chief.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
|
May 23, 2014 - 11:47am PT
|
Good that you understand that storms like Sandy were intensified, Chief.
Basic physics extends beyond the US, believe it or not.
Tell the Ausies and the Brits that their floods were not intensified by a warmer atmosphere.
|
|
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
|
May 23, 2014 - 01:49pm PT
|
Thanks for the graphs, I appreciate your scientism. chef.
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
May 23, 2014 - 02:47pm PT
|
Here is the reason why the term denialist is valid and the term warmist is not.
Valid:
Greenhouse gases cause earth to be warmer than it would be.
Increasing greenhouse gases cause even more warming.
Even lay people can see visible evidence of ice melting all over the earth,
and small rises in sea level.
Therefore this view is science based, not a belief system. (working hypothesis > increasing proof)
Denialists on the other hand, continually come up with absolutely unproven and disproven theories for which there is no evidence:
 the sun is heating up.
volcanoes are melting the ice.
there is no warming.
cosmic rays are increasing.
humans aren't the cause; it's a natural cycle.
sea level hasn't risen much yet, therefore it will never happen.
These theories are thrown out just to match preconceived notions and philosophies. This is a belief system, not science.
The next step in denialism is to say: "[GW/CC is valid, but] we shouldn't do anything" because of politics:
Gore is not 100% correct in his statements and has a big house.
Kerry is not 100% correct in his statements and has a big house.
China is burning lots of coal.
All of the civilized world will go dark without cheap carbon burning.
These arguments are even less valid today than they were 15 years ago when Bush-43 ran away from Kyoto crying about China.
We need only stick our heads in the sand, because the free market will deliver free manna to all. Just like when the climate changed in past ice age cycles, the villagers in Miami, Norfolk, Dhaka, Venice, New York, Calcutta, London, Bangkok, etc., can all move to empty higher ground. Farmers in Africa can just migrate to Russia, same as they did 100,000 years ago.
Q: "Do you feel that your ideology pushed you to make decisions that you wish you had not made?”
Mr. Greenspan conceded: “Yes, I’ve found a flaw.”
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
|
May 23, 2014 - 03:39pm PT
|
Your assumptions about me are as baseless as the denientism that you have demonstrated in your last 2000 posts on this thread. The problem is any notion that CO2 emissions can be seriously reduced worldwide on a voluntary basis. As long as other people can dump the external costs of carbon burning off onto others, there will be no meaningful change.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!