Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Wade Icey
Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
|
|
The important thing is you cared enough to whine about my post.
at last, a concise summation of your views.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Is the graph incorrect?
No warming for 17 years and 9 months?
Incorrect.
Lord Monkton doesn't believe the warming oceans count towards GLOBAL warming.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Already explained Sketch.
Focus on the word GLOBAL.
Does one interpretation of satellite data for lower troposphere a good representation of global warming?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Simple way to look at the Climate change argument
Simple, but wrong. For my analysis, I have the following postulates, all of which I personally agree with
1. Global climate change is real, and human activity forms one of its drivers;
2. If the sorts of climate change that occurred over the last, say, 100 years continue, there will be catastrophic consequences for humanity, including but not limited to widespread economic and political instability, famine, disease and an accelerated inability of the earth to sustain its human population.
These still do not justify his conclusions, because he fails to attach probabilities to his likely outcomes. Instead, he assumes that we have infinite risk aversion. By that I mean that we prefer doing whatever it takes to mitigate the worst case at any cost -- regardless of the expected value of the range of actions we could take.
In a way, it reminds me of a time when one of my former law partners wanted to hire a blasting contractor to blast some holes through the hardpan for some trees he wanted to plant near his house. (This was a common practice here because we have a layer of hardpan soil that needs to be penetrated for the proper growth of large trees). When he was talking to the contractor, he asked what was the worst that could happen if something went wrong.
The contractor replied that he really couldn't speculate what was the worst that could happen, but he'd be happy to tell my former colleague what was the worst disaster his own work caused. My partner said to go ahead.
The contractor said he'd been hired to blast out a large tree stump. The contractor sawed through the stump, and then put a small charge under it, intended to shatter the soil around the stump (and, of course, the hardpan around it) so that they could remove the remaining pieces easily. Unfortunately, the stump was not completed cut apart, and the blast acted like a mortar charge, propelling the stump into the air and over the owner's house, where it crashed through the roof, the second story, the first story, and then landed in the basement. The contracted finished "Now do you still want to hire me?"
My partner asked the contractor "How many blasting jobs have you done near residences?" the answer was "About 5,000." "How many times was there an accident?" "That once."
"Go ahead."
Probabilities matter.
John
|
|
barry ohm
Trad climber
escondido, ca
|
|
I have been told by a friend in the scientific community the problem with agreeing on Human caused climate change is the math doesnt work out as there is to many other variables? Still, as a lay person in the argument , that we have the reposibility to lower emissions from power plants, transportatioin and manufacturing only makes common sense. Im a construction guy, but have worked Nuclear Power, Oil Refinerys and manufacturing and have seen that you can't leave the Corporatiions the responsibility to do whats right as if left to their own consious its about the profit, Cheers
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
LOL, Sktch, study up on heat content and the mass the oceans represent.
Do ya think that the water under the arctic ice has only warmed up .06C degree?
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
Barry,
Good point. We're dealing with a classic economic externality. The problem is picking the right point where the marginal cost of the mitigation equals the marginal benefit. Even more important is the question of who should decide.
This last questions poses a world of problems (pun intended) because activities of one country affect the whole world. I often see the argument made, for example, that if all United States coal-fired industry shut down, it would make a relatively small difference in the world's temperature change. That's true, but misleading. I could use the same argument to say that my car should have no pollution controls because the pollution caused by driving my car makes no measurable difference in the air quality of where I drive.
The political and economic decisions -- and the decision-making process -- present daunting problems, but individual economic actors will not voluntarily make decisions in the world's best interest, because those actors are not bearing the full cost of their actions. In carbon emissions, even decisions by regulators of one country may not make the proper decisions, because their countries are not bearing the full costs of their decisions.
I'm frankly surprised that there has been as much action to mitigate carbon emissions as there has been. I am not sanguine on humanity's getting its actions very close to the right place, but I'm all ears for realistic suggestions. Climate change, to me, is particularly intractable because it exposes the weakness not only of market economics, but of democracy as well.
And Monolith, I have a small quibble with your terminology. Skepticism drives science. Analysis without skepticism is faith, not science. I would prefer that those you call "skeptics" instead bear the title "deniers." Science demands skepticism.
John
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Which claim Sketch?
Please be specific.
Water temp under arctic ice?
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
And Monolith, I have a small quibble with your terminology. Skepticism drives science. Analysis without skepticism is faith, not science. I would prefer that those you call "skeptics" instead bear the title "deniers." Science demands skepticism.
Absolutely true, and shown repeatedly (alas) by the real and fake skeptics on this thread.
|
|
barry ohm
Trad climber
escondido, ca
|
|
Didn't go to college but think I remember that Air changes temperature at a Higher rate than water, So if the Ocean warms even by a small temperature than that can have a big effect on the weather as the Ocean is a big part of the formation of weather?
Its a crazy argument, for example there was a plan to lower the sulfur emissions at the cheveron refinery in rodeo ca. The deal made with cheveron to invest a couple billion dollars in the refinery to lower emissions was that Chveron would be able to expand and increase production, That was opposed by lawsuits by the enivromental community and shut down. Unless we can stop people from driving there has to be some sort of Petroleum production in the USA.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Focus on Lord Monkton's claim in the graph, Sketch.
No global warming for 17 years, 9 months
He didn't claim 'no lower troposphere warming in 17 years, 9 months'
Don't you think the claim made in a graph is important to consider?
Since the oceans absorb 90%+ of global warming, they are a much better indicator of global warming.
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
wow!
The IPCC has always mentioned rising ocean temps in it reports.
Are you disputing this?
Are you claiming that the mass of the oceans is absorbing much less then 90% of warming?
Are you disputing that the mass of the oceans is negligible compared to the mass of the atmosphere?
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013."
Yes, Sketch, the IPCC claims the ocean absorbs more than 90% of global warming.
Even your graph of 0-700m shows quite a bit of warming in the last 17 years, 9 months.
|
|
barry ohm
Trad climber
escondido, ca
|
|
So most of our oxygen comes from photosytnethis from Plankton in the ocean, If the balance of nature gets out of whack and plankton is killed by temperature or bacteria then we have less oxygen? Help me here , I know there is some really smart educated people on Supertopo!
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Wikipedia supports that claim with a reference from IPCC AR5.
Here is the reference again:
"Ocean warming dominates the increase in energy stored in the climate system, accounting for more than 90% of the energy accumulated between 1971 and 2010." p.6,IPCC, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis - Summary for Policymakers, Observed Changes in the Climate System, p. 6, in IPCC AR5 WG1 2013."
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
I posted these a month back, but since the topic seems to have come 'round again ... here are alternative renderings of the NOAA ocean heat content time series, updated through March of this year.
There's been a fair amount of discussion on this thread, connecting with the ongoing scientific research, it's a hot topic. I guess we could re-cite the science again too, for fake skeptics to once more not grasp or read.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Watch out you radical canuckastani's
Once the pendulum swings back you peons just might feel new respect for the american " big stick". I can see Bruce and Malnutts as roommates in club Gitmo. Fukn morons.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Have a bad day in the market Bruce? Aint you full of piss and vinegar tonight. What ,you onto the second liter of that god awful and cheap ass canadian whisky? Go to sleep before you hurt yourself pounding away on that keyboard.
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
I'll answer that last posting . Yes, I'm in complete agreement with that short summation that Brewsky, the Korn Swilling denialist, just offered up. The "smart money" is deployed in lobsided abundance by the not so smart progressives seeking the purchase of compliance by the disaffected masses they somehow bus, unbury , or newly document to vote against their own long term interest in favor of the sloth of short term gain. Yes, the reality of human existence is competition and survival of the fittest, without it we stagnate and perish.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!